Pope Francis drives a wedge between Catholic Church, GOP

[Theo520]

I wish they would just focus on the science.​

“I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind, such as Breivek, should face the death penalty. Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism.

GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths.”

Richard Parncutt, a Professor at the University of Graz, Austria. “Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?” 25 Oct 2012

 

[lynnvinc]

I wish they would just focus on the science.
Quote:
“I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind, such as Breivek, should face the death penalty. Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism.

GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths.”

Richard Parncutt, a Professor at the University of Graz, Austria. “Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?” 25 Oct 2012

Wiki says his expertise is psychology of music. But it is good to see that someone besides the climate scientists who have children/grandchildren are concerned about life on earth.

His death penalty idea would likely backfire (not to mention it is immoral), bec it would only create more squawking skeptics or make the skeptics squawk louder and longer – which would surely disrupt his fine sense of music.

We could try to teach skeptics to value life, but since that seems so out of vogue, what with so many people in the world today going for abortion or terrorist killings, etc, I doubt we’d make much progress there either.

It IS a hard nut to crack – getting people to do the right thing for their own progeny or for the sake of life in general. It’s probably not going to happen.

On a more positive note: “Burlington, Vermont Becomes First U.S. City to Run On 100% Renewable Electricity” at ecowatch.com/2015/02/10/brlington-runs-on-100-percent-renewable-energy/

So maybe there’s some hope after all …

 

[Ender]

Wiki says his expertise is psychology of music. But it is good to see that someone besides the climate scientists who have children/grandchildren are concerned about life on earth.

This remark is simply disgraceful. Are you utterly incapable of understanding that people who disagree with you do so because they don’t believe the claims of catastrophe are true? How can you possibly believe something as inane as they “are unconcerned about life on Earth”?

Ender

 

[zz912]

This remark is simply disgraceful. Are you utterly incapable of understanding that people who disagree with you do so because they don’t believe the claims of catastrophe are true? How can you possibly believe something as inane as they “are unconcerned about life on Earth”?

Ender

It’s pretty astounding, isn’t it?

Charity seems lacking to an astonishing level.