Pope Francis' upcoming climate change encyclical 'Laudato Sii' (Praised Be)

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael_Mayo said:
AGW, real or not, is but a symptom of our attitude toward nature.
Click to expand...
Real or not? It doesn’t matter to you whether AGW is real, only that we behave as if it were? People are to be judged not on their position with regard to the truth but solely on whether they can accept AGW, true or not? You must surely realize how unreasonable a position that is.
That is the the Pope’s main concern in Laudato Si. He calls for changes in lifestyle as a matter of respect for God’s creation. Air and water pollution are just as much a concern as AGW requiring changes affecting the economy. But the economy seems to be the more important concern to those criticizing the Pope and promoting a cavalier attitude toward natural resources that is ultimately irresponsible.
Click to expand...
You’re jumping from one argument to the other depending on which one you’re getting pinned down on. The entire debate on this thread has to do with AGW. No one has suggested that we should be indifferent to pollution. There is no argument to be made about indifference to the environment or concerns about the economy because no one (on the anti-AGW side) has even commented on those topics except, as in this case, to reject out of hand the contentions that this debate has anything to do with those utterly disconnected topics.

Ender
 
Theo520 said:
Those other issues could actually be solved in our lifetime, if we put our mind and hearts into the effort. Focusing on the boogieman of AGW is sort of a deflection that ends up blaming capitalism as killing the world.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s AGW AND all those other environmental problems that are killing the world. Our type of global uber-capitalism is also a problem – but it is not only a problem for AGW, but also for all the other environmental problems and for other non-environmental problems relating to distribution of the goods of the world, turning people into slave commodities, and taking over of other people’s means of subsistence, or polluting and degrading them to smithereens.

Let’s be creative and think of some better ways of doing things, and get out of the #$%@# box of our only choices being uber-capitalism (as is today) or gulag archipelago. Laudato Si was meant to do just that – break that intellectual iron-box trap we’re caught in.

I guess we need some intelligence and creativity here…if people’s minds haven’t already been dummied down by all the toxins we’re swimming in and by extreme efforts of politicians to dummy down education. 🙂
 
lynnvinc said:
Actually it’s AGW AND all those other environmental problems that are killing the world. Our type of global uber-capitalism is also a problem – but it is not only a problem for AGW, but also for all the other environmental problems and for other non-environmental problems relating to distribution of the goods of the world, turning people into slave commodities, and taking over of other people’s means of subsistence, or polluting and degrading them to smithereens.

Let’s be creative and think of some better ways of doing things, and get out of the #$%@# box of our only choices being uber-capitalism (as is today) or gulag archipelago. Laudato Si was meant to do just that – break that intellectual iron-box trap we’re caught in.

I guess we need some intelligence and creativity here…if people’s minds haven’t already been dummied down by all the toxins we’re swimming in and by extreme efforts of politicians to dummy down education. 🙂
Click to expand...
Actually NOTNING is “killing” the world.
 
sps49 said:
AGW is not an article of faith, and dissent is allowed. Since there is a question about the attribution of effects in the climate system, including AGW, then it is fair game for criticism, you know, to establish if it is real or not. I wouldn’t complain too much though, the encyclical is getting much more attention than it would have had AGW not been added.
Click to expand...
This is not a good way to phrase it. Disagreeing with the Pope’s opinion on AGW is not dissent. Disagreement and dissent are two very different things. Don’t allow the left to corrupt the definition of another word.
 
Drew518 said:
With all due respect, it would be nice if other Catholics would talk about something other than AGW. The theory is debatable. **But how about some talk on deforestation, poaching, illegal animal trade, over fishing and seafood fraud, or just our general wastefulness with food and other resources? The lack of any real talk on those issues disturbs me. ** And when people say how important those things are, and then immediately move back to AGW, it gives me the idea that people judged Laudato Si before it was released. There other issues to be discussed, but no one seems to want to talk about them.
Click to expand...
The AGW crowd doesn’t waste time talking about that because they learned there’s more power and money to be had when you can tax and control carbon dioxide.
 
zz912 said:
This is not a good way to phrase it. Disagreeing with the Pope’s opinion on AGW is not dissent. Disagreement and dissent are two very different things. Don’t allow the left to corrupt the definition of another word.
Click to expand...
The word dissent may not sound as palatable as disagreement, but I believe it is the more accurate word to use since it is specific to an single opinion. I realize that the word has a common usage that appears scandalous, but I am confident that it will be understood. I am not too worried that it will be understood to mean dissent from the moral and spiritual teachings of the Church, but I have been mistaken before. 🙂
 
With the run up to Paris, I thought a blast from the past appropriate

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Theo520 said:
Belief in AGW simply requires belief in radiative forcing, something shared by all climate science skeptics.

The issue in question is the degree of warming to expect, and on this point there is a significant difference of opinion in the published research.
Click to expand...
Not just warming but feedback loops.
 
Theo520 said:
You’ve really studied the talking points, but you have some errors in your ‘facts’

The ocean’s are BASIC so ‘becoming more acidic’ is impossible. While there is a slight shift towards a neutral PH, the oceans are a buffered system. Oddly, rainwater is slightly acidic yet we don’t say it’s ‘acidifying’ the ocean.

The other climate changes we are measuring do not signify catastrophe, except in the fabricated models.

Our data is pretty sketchy prior to launching satellites. Sat measurement shows the rise is not accelerating
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/lack-of-acceleration-sea-level1.jpg?w=520

Here again the actual data shows the temp is not accelerating. Prior data is also very sketchy.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/pmel-0-700m-heat-content-anomaly.jpg?w=520

Nobody is disputing we have been in a warming trend, and it’s just basic math that when you have an upward trend and start your measurements in a recent low, you are gonna keep breaking records given your very limited dataset.
Click to expand...
There are details on ocean acidification here:

pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

which refer to links about pH measurements and various studies.

For ocean heat content,

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

For sea-level rise,

 
Theo520 said:
Now for a little irony

Global Warming Research in Arctic put on hold - TOO MUCH ice
Worst ice conditions in 20 years force change of plans to icebreaker research program

Ohh the irony, I’m reminded of another example from down south, where the ship was stuck.

http://patriotupdate.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Global-Warming-Irony.jpg
Click to expand...
“Arctic sea ice volume can bounce back during cooler summers; But declining sea ice still the long-term trend”

cbc.ca/news/technology/arctic-sea-ice-volume-can-bounce-back-during-cooler-summers-1.3163741
 
estesbob said:
There is absolutely no dispute that as Catholics we have a moral responsibility to care for the environment . That does not translate into an infallible declaration theat Catholics required to believe in AGW or that Catholic are required to support the crippling tax and regulation schemes proposed by those who promote AGW
Click to expand...
One leads to the other, which is why Pope Francis refers to climate change.
 
estesbob said:
So not accepting AGW even if it is a false theory is still a symptom of us not caring for the environment??? I am not aware of anybody who promotes a cavalier attitude towards natural resources and when one blithely dismisses the concern about the effects on the economy of the drastic measures proposed by those who promote AGW one has to wonder why they have such a cavalier attitude towards the plight of the poor.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that Pope Francis cares for natural resources, affirms AGW, and questions the effects of predatory capitalism on these two and on the poor.
 
Drew518 said:
With all due respect, it would be nice if other Catholics would talk about something other than AGW. The theory is debatable. But how about some talk on deforestation, poaching, illegal animal trade, over fishing and seafood fraud, or just our general wastefulness with food and other resources? The lack of any real talk on those issues disturbs me. And when people say how important those things are, and then immediately move back to AGW, it gives me the idea that people judged Laudato Si before it was released. There other issues to be discussed, but no one seems to want to talk about them.
Click to expand...
These are all connected to climate change.
 
zz912 said:
This is not a good way to phrase it. Disagreeing with the Pope’s opinion on AGW is not dissent. Disagreement and dissent are two very different things. Don’t allow the left to corrupt the definition of another word.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing with a prudential judgment is not dissent.*Their *[the pope and the bishops] *prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.
*(Cardinal Dulles)Ender
 
Theo520 said:
Those other issues could actually be solved in our lifetime, if we put our mind and hearts into the effort. Focusing on the boogieman of AGW is sort of a deflection that ends up blaming capitalism as killing the world.
Click to expand...
It’s not a deflection because the policies needed to deal with AGW are the same as those needed to address pollution and environmental damage.

In fact, the encyclical connects all of these points, and to capitalism.
 
sps49 said:
The word dissent may not sound as palatable as disagreement, but I believe it is the more accurate word to use since it is specific to an single opinion.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing with a prudential judgment is not dissent.*Their *[the pope and the bishops] *prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.
*(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender
 
ralfyman said:
There are details on ocean acidification here:

pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

which refer to links about pH measurements and various studies.

For ocean heat content,

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

For sea-level rise,

news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/05/sea-level-rise-accelerating-faster-thought
Click to expand...
And yet the earth and life on a to move along as it has for the last 4 billion years. Nothing is killing the earth . In fact I think One of
the biggest threat to mankind today is an environmentalist movement who wants to move us all back into the Stone Age to protect the great goddess Gaia .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top