Vatican envoy: 'no further room for denial' on climate change [CC]

[Vincent_N]

KSU:

It must now be asked: Did the Holy Father forget to check with his envoy?

The attribution by Archbishop Tomasi was left out by Catholic Culture.

Here’s the original from Zenit: Archbishop Tomasi to UN: Vatican-Convened Workshop Concluded ‘No Further Room for Denial’ on Climate Change

These religious leaders and technical experts left no further room for denial under the mistaken guise of so-called religious belief when they declared that human-induced climate change is a scientific reality.

So, it’s not really the Vatican’s opinion.

 

[KSU]

The attribution by Archbishop Tomasi was left out by Catholic Culture.

Here’s the original from Zenit: Archbishop Tomasi to UN: Vatican-Convened Workshop Concluded ‘No Further Room for Denial’ on Climate Change
Quote:
These religious leaders and technical experts left no further room for denial under the mistaken guise of so-called religious belief when they declared that human-induced climate change is a scientific reality. [End Quote]

So, it’s not really the Vatican’s opinion.

You are correct on both counts; see my posts #39 and #195.

So, when I now said, “It must now be asked: Did the Holy Father forget to check with his envoy?” it was a tongue-in-cheek comeback against anyone who believed all Catholics must believe in whatever PAS/PASS wrote because the “Vatican” had spoken.

Saying that the “Vatican” said this or that is not always used innocently. It was used to convince Catholics that the Iraq war had been condemned as unjust by the Pope. In fact, it was merely some Vatican prelate speaking for himself at some meeting somewhere.

IMHO, the term “Vatican”, like the terms “Conservative” and “Liberal,” are OK as shorthand, but only in settings where everyone is singing from the same music.

 

[k5thbeatle]

Don’t expect Americans to start caring about the environment anytime soon. Most pollution in the world comes from the United States, but they won’t lift a finger to fix it because they seemingly thing they have a right to pollute. Perhaps it’s time for some UN sanctions against the US like they did against Iran?

This is simply not true and a totally uninformed comment.

 

[k5thbeatle]

Since we’ve determined scientifically that man controls the climate, I’d like to put in an order for 75 and sunny for the next 100 years.

LOL, hey wait me too and while we’re at it can it please not rain next Tuesday at our annual golf outing?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This really does capture one of the serious problems this encyclical will encourage: the assumption that those who don’t believe AGW is scientifically supportable are indifferent to the health of the environment. This belief would be laughable if it wasn’t so widespread.

Ender

Given that this is a misunderstanding of the encyclical, how far does the Pope need to go in allowing for misinterpretations of what he says? If one takes this to the extreme, the Pope could never say anything because anything can be taken incorrectly.

 

[KSU]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ender View Post
This really does capture one of the serious problems this encyclical will encourage: the assumption that those who don’t believe AGW is scientifically supportable are indifferent to the health of the environment. This belief would be laughable if it wasn’t so widespread.
Ender

Given that this is a misunderstanding of the encyclical, how far does the Pope need to go in allowing for misinterpretations of what he says? If one takes this to the extreme, the Pope could never say anything because anything can be taken incorrectly.

misrepresented by a drumbeat of selective quotes to isolate us irresponsible AGW skeptics, most importantly Republican legislators, in order to tax individuals, “rich” countries and corporations to save the world.

The rhetoric has already begun, and would have to get more intense as reality set in for voters about, first, what the Pope actually said and meant, and, second, how the new tax money would be used. Voters would see that it would be used, not as actual aid to the poor (there isn’t enough money in the world to eliminate poverty), but, rather, to hire experts in the social fields and scientists and accountants and staffs for them all, and travel, and places to work, in order to enable organizations to study how the money should be spent efficiently for research of climate change, alternative energy, etc., etc. ad nauseam.

Voters would catch on eventually, of course, that the only change to the climate would be the economic climate for those who are taxed and those who benefit. In the meantime, we skeptics will be catching heck.

But, LeafByNiggle, we skeptics will weather the storm because Pope Francis has given us this:

(188) There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.

 

[KSU]

Given that this is a misunderstanding of the encyclical, how far does the Pope need to go in allowing for misinterpretations of what he says? If one takes this to the extreme, the Pope could never say anything because anything can be taken incorrectly.

Now you’ve done it, LeafByNiggle. Ender speaks for many of us who have seen it all before. And who said anything about a “misunderstanding”? It is as sure as the sunrise that the encyclical will be misrepresented by a drumbeat of selective quotes to isolate us irresponsible AGW skeptics, most importantly Republican legislators, in order to tax individuals, “rich” countries and corporations to save the world.

The rhetoric has already begun, and would have to get more intense as reality set in for voters about, first, what the Pope actually said and meant, and, second, how the new tax money would be used. Voters would see that it would be used, not as actual aid to the poor (there isn’t enough money in the world to eliminate poverty), but, rather, to hire experts in the social fields and scientists and accountants and staffs for them all, and travel, and places to work, in order to enable organizations to study how the money should be spent efficiently for research of climate change, alternative energy, etc., etc. ad nauseam.

Voters would catch on eventually, of course, that the only change to the climate would be the economic climate for those who are taxed and those who benefit. In the meantime, we skeptics will be catching heck.

But, LeafByNiggle, we skeptics will weather the storm because Pope Francis has given us this:

(188) There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.

 

[Ender]

Given that this is a misunderstanding of the encyclical, how far does the Pope need to go in allowing for misinterpretations of what he says? If one takes this to the extreme, the Pope could never say anything because anything can be taken incorrectly.

That the conclusion here is so extreme is a pretty good indicator that it is also unreasonable. That nothing can be written in such a way as to preclude all misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation does not relieve one of the responsibility of making that task as difficult as possible. General MacArthur is supposed to have said during WWII: “I don’t write battle plans that can be understood. I write plans that cannot be misunderstood.” That should be the minimum objective of an encyclical as politically charged as this one.

Ender

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Let’s cut to the chase: Much of what is in Pope Francis’ encyclical on environmental stewardship, Laudato Si’, poses a major challenge for free-market advocates, those of us who believe that capitalism is a powerful force for caring for the earth and lifting people out of poverty. But one of the most welcome lines is a call for honest, respectful discussion.

wsj.com/articles/the-popes-green-theology-1434668086

 

[KSU]

wsj.com/articles/the-popes-green-theology-1434668086

One must subscribe to open the link.

 

[CaptFun]

LOL, that’s an easy one.

A ‘credible scientist’ follows the scientific method to validate their theories and science. When their work fails the scientific method, they honestly acknowledge the failure and make appropriate adjustments to their science and theory.

And what do you call a scientist that says “the science is settled”?

On THAT matter, at least - an EX-Scientist.

 

[KSU]

And what do you call a scientist that says “the science is settled”?

A scientist at the Vatican who didn’t get all he wanted in the encyclical? Or a scientist who a few years said that an ice age is coming? weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/43321/scientists-predict-coming-ice-age/

 

[CaptFun]

That settles it, then.

Yes. No *FURTHER * room needed.

THIS one’s fine for me.

Wow. Nice weather. :tanning: - Praise the Lord! Sunday too! I can rest.

:ehh: - Hope some presumptuous “messiah” types don’t go playin’ God trying to “Hope and Change” it with their overpopulation sophistry as if the real God doesn’t know what He’s doing!

- Can I be a “Vatican Envoy”? I know how to get to the United Nations in New York.
I can spot reporters. I’m a baptized Catholic. I had a Bishop lay his hands on me and gave me the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit. Am I not a “Vatican Representative” when I give my witness for Christ then? Would not my “discussion be welcomed and encouraged”?
I could then “proclaim” too!

Verse 40 from today’s Gospel will do for me for now:

Mark 4:40 Then he asked them, “Why are you terrified? Do you not yet have faith?”

He = Jesus. Them = The apostles, all upset about a “Climate Change”

THAT climate change really seemed to be threatening their lives. And they did appeal to God Himself rather than each other’s wisdom or some wise men (scientists or otherwise) on the shore. Yet Jesus said to have faith.

OK. THAT settles it (for me). - back to my lovely day, evening now, with a peace I wish for everyone else.

Sorry, “World”. Not that I don’t WANT the planet to be saved. I do. But that’s been done by better than me. Well … not the planet so much as the immortal souls – created in His image – PEOPLE.

I do promise to take out my trash. Recycle here and there. :christmastree1: Not drop any atom bombs. And while I’m at it … not give myself pious airs for washing my hands as if that’s the pinnacle of all virtues. Pilate and the Pharisees made that mistake.

Vatican Envoy: “human-induced climate change is a scientific reality.”

Thanks Envoy for not adding “global”. I’ve knew the truth of the above since I lit my first campfire.

One happy update: The Pope did apparently speak of abortion as part of that climate change problem. I can’t really go about reciting a 185 page encyclical when curious people ask me what the Pope is talking about … so … I’ll try to memorize THIS:

nationaljournal.com/energy/pope-francis-climate-change-and-abortion-are-interrelated-20150618

Population Control Is Not the Answer

For Pope Francis, caring about the environment goes hand in hand with taking a strong stand against abortion.

***“Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion,” ***

the encyclical says. “How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”

 

[Ender]

And what do you call a scientist that says “the science is settled”?

Anyone who says that is misinformed. The comment below was in one of the Climategate emails, and expresses the opinions of the actual scientists involved. How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter?

We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin Trenberth, 2009
Trenberth "is part of the Climate Analysis Section at the USA National Center for Atmospheric Research He was a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change (see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report)." (Wikipedia) The assertion that the science is settled is for public consumption; the scientists know better.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

And what do you call a scientist that says “the science is settled”?..

Sorry, but the science on the greenhouse effect (and hence our current AGW) was settled nearly 200 years ago. It is based on the laws of physics, and explains the temps on Venus, Earth, Mars, and other planets.

The first studies to detect the warming (which was predicted more than 100 years ago since greatly increasing industrialization) came out in 1995 at .05 on the null (95% confidence), and the science has become evermore stronger and more robust, with many lines of inquiry from different perspectives saying the same thing.

The science on AGW is most certainly settled. It would take the dismantling of the field of physics and creating a whole new physics (maybe from bizarro sci-fi world) to question AGW at this point.

The lack of education and knowledge on this important issue is quite lamentable. Do we really way to harm our progeny. Why?!

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Sorry, but the science on the greenhouse effect (and hence our current AGW) was settled nearly 200 years ago. It is based on the laws of physics, and explains the temps on Venus, Earth, Mars, and other planets.

The first studies to detect the warming (which was predicted more than 100 years ago since greatly increasing industrialization) came out in 1995 at .05 on the null (95% confidence), and the science has become evermore stronger and more robust, with many lines of inquiry from different perspectives saying the same thing.

The science on AGW is most certainly settled. It would take the dismantling of the field of physics and creating a whole new physics (maybe from bizarro sci-fi world) to question AGW at this point.

The lack of education and knowledge on this important issue is quite lamentable. Do we really way to harm our progeny. Why?!

**Global warming believers are like a hysterical ‘cult’: MIT scientist compares ‘climate alarmists’ to religious fanatics
**

Comments were made by professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen

‘Instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more fanatical,’ he said
He says 70% of the Earth is ocean, and measuring its temperature tricky
He has previously blasted the IPCC for blaming humans for a global warming trend - and then glossing over the warming slowdown

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html#ixzz3dnt5T7Dp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[SonOfMan]

The lack of education and knowledge on this important issue is quite lamentable. Do we really way to harm our progeny. Why?!

Personally, I dont have any progeny. All the people who contracept for the sake of saving the planet dont either. So I guess this is a total non-issue after all.

 

[Tbrightson]

Ill do my part also. Instead of driving my SUV to church tonight I’ll drive my Dodge ram 3500 diesel

Cool! I drive a 96 Dodge Ram 2500 Turbo Diesel everyday to work. Cummins 12Valve baby!

 

[Ender]

Sorry, but the science on the greenhouse effect (and hence our current AGW) was settled nearly 200 years ago.

This is partially true, but nonetheless quite misleading. It is certainly true that the greenhouse effect is well understood. Saying that, however, says nothing about the effect additional atmospheric CO2 will have. It is absolutely not true that an understanding of the greenhouse effect explains AGW. Your claim is directly contradicted by one of the bigger names in the AGW community, not to mention the fact that for the last 18 years there has been no atmospheric warming. After all, if everything is so settled and understood why did not a single model predict the current hiatus? It’s not as if we’ve stopped pumping out CO2. Why has there been no warming? Where is the scientific explanation?

The science on AGW is most certainly settled.

Not according to the scientists. Even the strongest AGW advocates acknowledge they have no explanation for such a long period without warming.

The lack of education and knowledge on this important issue is quite lamentable.

No amount of information will convince the true believer. You have rejected the assertions of those who work in the field and support your position on AGW. Even their statements become irrelevant if they show the slightest doubt.

Do we really way to harm our progeny. Why?!

Indeed, this question is equally applicable to you.

Ender

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Subversion of Christianity by the spirit of the age has been a hazard down the centuries. The significance of “Laudato Si” lies beyond its stated concern for the climate. Discount obfuscating religious language. The encyclical lays ground to legitimize global government and makes the church an instrument of propaganda—a herald for the upcoming United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference in Paris.

thefederalist.com/2015/06/24/where-did-pope-franciss-extravagant-rant-come-from/