Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Pope And Climate Change: The Left Is Going To Hate This!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Well since the Pope is not a scientist I can take what he says on this issue with a grain of salt.
    Oh, if we're just looking at what the actual, professional scientists say then you're in a bad spot.


    Source: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8



    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

    © Copyright Original Source




    Originally posted by seer View Post
    You guys are writing the new Communist Manifesto as we speak. Perhaps the next step is to send "denialists" to re-education camps. Or worse.
    So it's straight out of the "new Communist Manifesto" that "you guys are writing" ... how'd you get access to the super-secret folder on my hard drive?!
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sam View Post
      Oh, if we're just looking at what the actual, professional scientists say then you're in a bad spot.
      Sure, and did the Pope consult scientists that take a different view? Men like Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT?


      So it's straight out of the "new Communist Manifesto" that "you guys are writing" ... how'd you get access to the super-secret folder on my hard drive?!
      Well you guys are following the play book. Label men "denialists", undermine their humanity, claim that they are a threat, then it is easier dispatch them in one way or another.


      And I will quote rogue06:

      Nothing. I am pointing out that with climate change advocates calling for criminally charging those who disagree with them with punishments up to execution then the latter aren't out-of-bounds for feeling a sense of persecution.

      And those I mentioned aren't the only ones who have implied that it should be a capital offense. Dr. Donald A. Brown, Professor of Climate Ethics at Widener University School of Law, like Hanson before him, has proclaimed that skeptics may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity." As I've noted that persons convicted of crimes against humanity can be executed.

      And at least has straight out called for the death penalty. Professor Richard Parncutt at the Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz in Austria, garnered international attention when he advocated the execution of "prominent global warming deniers" (he later apologized after his statements became public).

      Why do you think that those who don't think that global warming is taking place and are vocal about it should be subject to capital punishment?

      http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post208428
      Last edited by seer; 06-20-2015, 05:41 AM.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sam View Post
        "The liberals" don't need to cite the pope as an authority on climate change, as they use the scientists for that.

        What makes this newsworthy, aside from the encyclical ostensibly being authoritative to Santorum and Jeb! (and a good many of us remember this being a deal for Democrats such as Kerry in the past), is that there's one less haven for the denialists to seek shelter.

        Where you gonna run to?
        The Catholic Church's position on abortion doesn't seem to have been much of a stumbling block for half the Democratic party who would snap the fetus's neck with their teeth if they could.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #19
          The encyclical is not infallible, and only treats the reality of global warming shortly before moving on to the mans relation to creation. I haven't read it, however its true that Global Warming is happening, and its mainly caused by human CO2 emmisions.

          Comment


          • #20
            The Pope’s Encyclical (1)

            Steven F. Hayward presents comments on the newest papal encyclical that warrant sharing. I snip the latter part of his comments at a point where he ends a sentence with a link to an article by him in Forbes magazine.
            THE POPE’S ENCYCLICAL (1)
            About Laudato Si, the Pope’s encyclical on the environment, some preliminary observations:

            First, although “encyclical” bears some etymological relation to “encyclopedia,” Laudate Si is either too short to be considered an adequate treatment of the wide range of concrete issues and philosophical themes it treats, or too long because it tries to do too much but does it poorly. It raises specific scientific controversies it would have been better to leave out, and embraces some preposterous conclusions. This mitigates or undermines some of the more defensible theological discussions which are poorly developed.

            Laudato Si has the look of something that was written by committee. Popes are busy people, and unlike the previous two popes who brought a record of serious theological and philosophical writing with them to the Vatican, I don’t think Pope Francis is in their league. Hence this should be seen as a “consensus” encyclical, which has all the same defects as the “consensus” climate science reports from the U.N. It would be possible to edit down the text of Laudato Si in such as way as to produce a very conservative document, or a very radical leftist document. Instead we have something of a mess.

            Second, it is notable that Pope Francis goes to great trouble in the opening of Laudato Si to represent the encyclical as a close continuity with the core teachings of his two conservative predecessors, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Nice try, but no sale. It is true that John Paul II and Benedict were both critics of modern materialism, and offered critiques (much more subtle than Francis however) of market economies, but above all both John Paul II and Benedict understood that the secular left was the main threat of modernity. John Paul II, for example, shared some sympathy with the essence of “liberation theology,” but he understood that in practice liberation theology was a fillip to Marxist totalitarianism, which is why he publicly opposed it. As I’ve pointed out before, Francis is bringing it back.
            Last edited by John Reece; 06-21-2015, 01:25 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              It raises specific scientific controversies it would have been better to leave out, and embraces some preposterous conclusions.
              It violates the secret religious belief of many people in the US that the Earth is actually cooling, and the cause is the Sun and that climate science is a soviet marxist conspiracy.

              Comment


              • #22
                And the fact is they wouldn't even allow scientists who took a different view at the table:

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...d4c_story.html
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  And the fact is they wouldn't even allow scientists who took a different view at the table:

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...d4c_story.html
                  I don't think there is anything wrong, with simple ceding assent to the expert opinion of all the scientists in this matter, which is what the his Holiness has done. As such, he replies that there exists such a unified opinion, and that's it.

                  This should be uncontroversial to all. Most scientists, consider humans to be the cause of global warming.

                  In science, there's rarely, if ever, total unity among all people who hold a PhD degree on a subject. If you want I can find dissenters on Einsteins theory of relativity, no matter how well evidenced it is. The science of anthropogenic global warming is very well established, and has been ever since the seventies, and the basic science of it regarding infrared radiation and the CO2 of the atmosphere, has been established since the fifties.

                  An expert consensus has emerged.

                  But, for some reason which I don't understand, its become part of the political platform of the right wings in the US, that... climate science is a "liberal" thing. Its tainted, its something to distrust. I don't understand why. I only know that the sole effect this will have, is that its going be hard for scientifically educated youngsters to be sympathetic with the conservatives in the US. I know it is for me. Its also part of a culture of anti-intellectualism, that I dislike.

                  As it is: The Earth's atmosphere has undergone rapid heating since around fifties, correlating with the industrial revolution. This is caused primarily by CO2 driven greenhouse effect with a positive feedback mechanism from water vapour. Humans produce far more CO2 than any natural source, including volcanos, and we're the primary drivers of dramatic increase in CO2.

                  There are no alternative explanations. They have investigated whether or not weather monitors were compromised because their locations, subtracting the ones that were near urban environments, largely had no significance. The idea that cosmic radiation can seed clouds, is now fairly dubious. The sun hasn't increased the intensity of its sunlight in a measure that would explain the heating, in fact currently its intensity is slightly decreasing.

                  There are no similar natural variations. The Earth global temperature, has been largely stable for thousands of years; the medieval warming period was local to Europe (and Europe is only 6.5% of the Earth's area).

                  And now its even turned, as was expected by most (including me, as I've argued for it in the past) the so-called "pause" for the past decade was a statistical fluke masked by the record breaking El Nino of 1998. This was already anticipated by scientists in 2001, though some did publish some speculations regarding altered currents in the oceans, these proposals remained just that, the null hypothesis was vindicated.

                  So there aren't many left, arguing another position. When we see this in science, it means that likely the proposed theory, or something very much like it, is true. We rarely see the opposite, and then only with very good evidence to suggest it.

                  Currently climate change dissenters, don't have anything like that. If they start to engage in pseudoscience, which I have seen... and start to do odd things like randomly fitting various functions to the global average temperature measurements, until they get lines that match along them but "predict" decreases in temperature. Or they are very selective about their data, picking only ranges that would make it seem like the temperature is decreasing. Stuff like that? That's not dissent, that's denial.

                  There are dissenters, I respect their opinions and wish them luck in defending it, but I trust the consensus. Doing otherwise, seems absurd to me at this point.
                  Last edited by Leonhard; 06-21-2015, 01:45 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    But, for some reason which I don't understand, its become part of the political platform of the right wings in the US, that... climate science is a "liberal" thing. Its tainted, its something to distrust. I don't understand why. I only know that the sole effect this will have, is that its going be hard for scientifically educated youngsters to be sympathetic with the conservatives in the US. I know it is for me. Its also part of a culture of anti-intellectualism, that I dislike.
                    Cap & Trade used to be the Republican solution to AGW (and it will be again soon, I would bet). But that was before 2008 when McCain, the establishment candidate, lost and -- more importantly -- Obama won. Since then, the reactionary right-wing (typified, strangely, in McCain's running mate, "Drill, baby, drill" Palin) has grown in power and that set was never favorable to regulation. There had to be a reason for opposing regulations on emissions and fossil fuel energy and denial was the most absolute, most invincible method. If you acknowledge AGW then you have to propose some way of dealing with it ... but that leads right back to Cap & Trade. So you just spread the idea that AGW is a liberal plot invented by Internet Creator Al Gore, an idea that can only flourish in the anti-intellectualism of your base.

                    'Murica.
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      But, for some reason which I don't understand, its become part of the political platform of the right wings in the US, that... climate science is a "liberal" thing. Its tainted, its something to distrust. I don't understand why. I only know that the sole effect this will have, is that its going be hard for scientifically educated youngsters to be sympathetic with the conservatives in the US. I know it is for me. Its also part of a culture of anti-intellectualism, that I dislike.
                      Because more government intervention is generally a progressive idea. Conservatives (real conservatives, not the fake corporate whore establishment Republicans in office who love different aspects of big government) shy away from government intervention. So, since climate change requires government interaction, it's only natural conservatives will repel against this. The fake political Republicans, who see opportunities to profit off of climate change (a la the carbon credit market scam) feign a fight against it just to appease the conservative base.
                      Last edited by seanD; 06-21-2015, 02:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        There's plenty of liberals who oppose abortion. Unless you're just going to define a liberal or leftist as someone who supports abortion.
                        There are also plenty of conservatives who are pro-choice, the hard liners just seem to ignore that fact in their labeling.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Why would the left hate this? What do you think, this is something new? Its not as if they don't already know the churches stance on abortion. Environmentalist, aka liberals according to you, are just elated with his position on the environment, and his willingness to put it out there in the face of the many christian conservative denialists. Oops!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                            Steven F. Hayward presents comments on the newest papal encyclical that warrant sharing. I snip the latter part of his comments at a point where he ends a sentence with a link to an article by him in Forbes magazine.
                            Doubtless the selfish right-wing billionaires which constitute Forbes' target audience need to be reassured not to listen to anything the Pope says about climate change.

                            It raises specific scientific controversies it would have been better to leave out
                            "How dare the Pope not adopt our preferred stance of silence about climate change!"


                            Laudato Si has the look of something that was written by committee.
                            Of course it was.

                            John Paul II, for example, shared some sympathy with the essence of “liberation theology,” but he understood that in practice liberation theology was a fillip to Marxist totalitarianism, which is why he publicly opposed it. As I’ve pointed out before, Francis is bringing it back.
                            Well liberation theology is biblical theology, period. I can understand why the billionaires would prefer to pretend it wasn't.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Well liberation theology is biblical theology, period.
                              Why did both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) reject and oppose liberation theology?

                              See here.

                              Consider also, from The Catholic Resource Network, Trinity Communications, this.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                                Why did both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) reject and oppose liberation theology?

                                See here.

                                Consider also, from The Catholic Resource Network, Trinity Communications, this.
                                Liberation theology isn't nearly as unorthodox as your sources suggest it is, and, if Francis is "bringing it back," it's only because Benedict in particular paved the way for it. It is worthy of note that Gustavo Gutierrez, widely acknowledged as the founder of modern liberation theology, was never censored by the Vatican, unlike numerous other liberation theologians. We may also note that Cardinal Muller, whom Benedict appointed to succeed himself as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, was a pupil of Gutierrez and a fan of liberation theology generally. Furthermore, in the first Instruction on Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation', Ratzinger identified Marxism (especially class warfare and materialism) as the main potentially corrupting factors in the otherwise Christian endeavor. Without a global superpower pushing Marxism, it's less likely than ever that liberation theology will be contaminated by Marxist influences.

                                So, yeah, Ratzinger in particular was never an opponent of liberation theology as such, or he never would have written what he wrote about the subject, nor appointed a pupil of Gustavo Gutierrez to succeed him in his job at the CDF.
                                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                142 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                391 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                365 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X