Pope Francis Demands Immediate Action to Halt Global Warming, Save Environment

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Pope Francis Demands Immediate Action to Halt Global Warming, Save Environment

In an encyclical delivered Thursday, the pope demanded action to save the planet from an environmental cataclysm. He firmly gave his backing to scientists who say that the current climate disaster is man-made.

Pope Francis on Thursday issued an encyclical - usually, an open letter to his bishops - publicly supporting the theory of man-made climate change, and urging immediate action to halt the on-going disaster.

The pope, as spiritual leader to the world's 1.2 billion Catholics, often consults with heads of state and other figures of power. To many, he is considered to possess a great deal of wisdom - Pope Francis, especially, has been very well-respected in the two years of his position and his popularity continues to grow.

This does not mean that people, Catholics included, will not disagree with him, and the encyclical has had its share of supporters and decriers.

In the U.S., President Barack Obama praised the pope, saying he made the case "clearly, powerfully, and with the full moral authority of his position." Political conservatives spoke out against it - Republican Senator Jim Inhofe said the message "will be used by global warming alarmists to advocate for policies that will equate to the largest... tax increase in our nation's history."

The 183-page document begins with a reference to Saint Francis of Assisi, the pope's namesake. Saint Francis, among others, was the patron saint of animals and the environment; in stories he is depicted as an ascetic monk, and a friend of birds. Looking at the saint's work, and Pope Francis' choice of name, it seems clear that this issue is something the pope has wanted to speak of for some time.

More from the Escapist on the environment.

The pope's declaration comes on the heels of his condemnations of capitalism, especially from earlier this year. For Pope Francis, a sustainable environment and our current economic model cannot co-exist, though some disagree. Certainly, the encyclical itself is condemning of those with power, both political and material. Says Francis, "...those who possess... economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms."

Pope Francis' hope is that the world heed his words - and that may be an achievable dream. For decades, scientists, journalist and politicians have all urged immediate action on the environment, with some successes and many failures to show for it. A spiritual leader, however - not to mention one with nearly 1.2 billion Catholic followers on the planet, and many more listeners - may reach people in a way previous activists couldn't.

Is this the push the world has been needing? Is it all too little, too late?

The pope says rescuing the environment is now a religious and human duty. What do you think?

In an earlier version of this post, I wrote incorrectly about 'infallibility,' and have since removed the paragraph in question.

Source: Encyclical Letter (via WSJ), Reuters

Permalink

I mean, I'm a Catholic, and Pope Francis Rocks, but... I just don't think any Current Global Climate Change is caused by Man. Yes, Man is doing a lot to ruin the planet, and has done so in the past. I just don't think any current Global Climate Change has been caused by Man. I haven't seen any convincing proof that Current Climate Change is the result of Man's actions.

Still, I support the Pope for wanting the World to be more Environmentally Friendly. I know this will please many Liberal Catholics (And Liberals in General) worldwide. Me? I'll try to be more Environmentally Friendly, but I'm still skeptical on Man-made Climate Change.

Good on him for wanting to make a difference. Personally, I'm all for protecting the environment, just in case y'know?

Mr.Mattress:
Me? I'll try to be more Environmentally Friendly, but I'm still skeptical on Man-made Climate Change.

That is an excellent way to be skeptical and respectful. Thank you

Normally, me and the church don't exactly see eye to eye. I have very un-Canadian views on what we should do to all of those little ancient blemishes we see peppering urban centers.

But Pope Francis? This fucker actually gets it. I'd never convert back, but I'm actually liking this pope.

I've been paying attention, looking about. I thought Global Warming / Climate Change wouldn't really affect me in my life-time, but this past winter, where it was violent and crammed over the span of 2 months at different periods is kind of one of those things that make you scratch your head and say "Well, shit." Think about it. Green Christmas, violent storms throughout February, and now summer hits so sudden, it feels like Spring never happened. Is this not weird? Does nobody else think that's a bit funky considering that it was only 15 years ago we had light snow-falls peppering us in November, a few occasional storms, but not anything like what we saw this recent Feburary... We had gradual temperature shifts where I lived... Not, "It's Summer now, lol 30 degrees after a -10 degree day."

I think we should be focusing less on the effects of Climate Change though. There's a much more important question we need to ask. "Is it too late?" I don't want my prediction to be right on that one.

Mr.Mattress:
I mean, I'm a Catholic, and Pope Francis Rocks, but... I just don't think any Current Global Climate Change is caused by Man. Yes, Man is doing a lot to ruin the planet, and has done so in the past. I just don't think any current Global Climate Change has been caused by Man. I haven't seen any convincing proof that Current Climate Change is the result of Man's actions.

Still, I support the Pope for wanting the World to be more Environmentally Friendly. I know this will please many Liberal Catholics (And Liberals in General) worldwide. Me? I'll try to be more Environmentally Friendly, but I'm still skeptical on Man-made Climate Change.

The classic "Let's reject the science because I don't accept it." assertion. This is not unlike the "Let's keep smoking because there's no proof it's bad for us" assertion.

A better way of presenting climate change theory -
If wrong - no problem.
If right - BIG problem.

Unless you can state categorically and beyond any possibility of doubt that human greenhouse gas emissions have no effect, doing nothing might eventually reach a point where nothing can be done. Billions of lives depend on the science being wrong.

Papal infallibility is NOT "what the pope says, goes."

Saying that "his stance on faith and morality are to be held by the entire church" is a gross oversimplification. Papal infallibility applies very rarely, and "faith and morals" isn't really going to apply to an environmental stance. Nor will an environmental encyclical meet the other qualifications needed for papal infallibility.

Look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Conditions_for_teachings_being_declared_infallible

And if you want a reference that's better than wikipedia, I checked with someone I know who has an actual degree in Catholic theology on this.

Please revise this article immediately. Things said in encyclicals are not all infallible, nor does the pope "possess" infallibility. Period.

Mr.Mattress:
I mean, I'm a Catholic, and Pope Francis Rocks, but... I just don't think any Current Global Climate Change is caused by Man. Yes, Man is doing a lot to ruin the planet, and has done so in the past. I just don't think any current Global Climate Change has been caused by Man. I haven't seen any convincing proof that Current Climate Change is the result of Man's actions.

Still, I support the Pope for wanting the World to be more Environmentally Friendly. I know this will please many Liberal Catholics (And Liberals in General) worldwide. Me? I'll try to be more Environmentally Friendly, but I'm still skeptical on Man-made Climate Change.

Where did you look for the proof? Because you just have to go down to your local university and have a sit down with someone in the science department and they will explain the temperature changes, carbon emissions, how they relate to historic patterns, etc.

The evidence is there and there is a WIDE consensus among scientists that global warming is a real and man made event. They also believe it is already too late to stop the damage it will cause and at best, if we act now, which we won't, the best we can do is minimize its impact. We are already seeing a major extinction event happening before our very eyes, it feels like a lot of the doom and gloom about humanity's impact on the globe is going to play over the next fifty years as we all watch.

I've seen comments from some "conservatives" actually accusing the Pope of being "on the take" from some shadowy cabal of environmental scientists who are apparently all lying about climate change just to get grant money.

I think they just want another guy in a funny hat saying "hey, do what you want, guys, God's totally cool with it. Lol."

PatrickJS:

In Catholic dogma, the pope possesses infallibility; this means that his stance on faith and morality are to be held by the entire church. In short: what the pope says, goes.

The infallibility thing isn't entirely true. In encyclicals like this, the Pope is held in high moral regard and is probably right, but is not infallible. Papal Infallibility is only possible if the pope is speaking 1) with the Holy Spirit, 2) while wearing the papal crown, and 3) while on the throne of Peter.

That shouldn't diminish the value of his words, but I just want to put it out there that he is not technically infallible in this regard.

As George Carlin says, global warming and greenhouse gases are not damaging the environment. They are damaging the people. The Earth couldn't care less about what's happening - it's survived much worse. All of the damage is caused by humans and affects only humans. That's the only reason we care. The environment doesn't need saving. The people do.

...The fuck? The Papacy has thrown it's weight behind climate change? Is it fucking opposite day? That's pretty damn awesome. Hopefully this might start to convince some of America's conservatives... Or maybe not...

ShermTank7272:

PatrickJS:

In Catholic dogma, the pope possesses infallibility; this means that his stance on faith and morality are to be held by the entire church. In short: what the pope says, goes.

The infallibility thing isn't entirely true. In encyclicals like this, the Pope is held in high moral regard and is probably right, but is not infallible. Papal Infallibility is only possible if the pope is speaking 1) with the Holy Spirit, 2) while wearing the papal crown, and 3) while on the throne of Peter.

That shouldn't diminish the value of his words, but I just want to put it out there that he is not technically infallible in this regard.

That strikes me as a little curious. He's only infallible if he's wearing a specific hat and while sitting on a specific chair? If, as I presume catholics believe, he knows what God wants, isn't he infallible all the time, regardless of his wardrobe or exact physical location? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it just seems a little strange to draw the line there. And what does 'speaking with the holy spirit' mean exactly? Is that talking with God or when God is using the pope's mouth?

As much as I dislike the idea of organized religion, this pope actually seems pretty good. Very progressive and humble. Kind of a shame now he doesn't hold any actual authority.

The Rogue Wolf:
I've seen comments from some "conservatives" actually accusing the Pope of being "on the take" from some shadowy cabal of environmental scientists who are apparently all lying about climate change just to get grant money.

I think they just want another guy in a funny hat saying "hey, do what you want, guys, God's totally cool with it. Lol."

Gods telling you what to do on plenty of things for these people. He use to tell you that gays are bad, and still tells everybody that abortion is bad. He's now telling us that global warming is bad. Right or wrong the pope is always going to be using god to tell people to do whatever the pope thinks is moral at the time.

I gotta say, Pope Francis is gutsy (in his own way). I like his style. Really, Popes of late have been getting more interesting lately. I dunno how people in general are gonna take this, but I'm alright with it.

My position is, and always has been, that the exertion of religious influence is a negative thing as it encourages adherence to dogma rather than rational thought and the exercise of individual judgement. To that end, regardless of how worthy or unworthy the individual cause he chooses to speak about, to my mind, the pope telling anyone to do anything is of itself an overwhelmingly negative thing for society.

EndlessSporadic:
As George Carlin says, global warming and greenhouse gases are not damaging the environment. They are damaging the people. The Earth couldn't care less about what's happening - it's survived much worse. All of the damage is caused by humans and affects only humans. That's the only reason we care. The environment doesn't need saving. The people do.

He did not say we are not damaging the environment. He said we aren't destroying the planet which as you correctly point out is kinda beside the point. I'm a person. A planet that people can't survive on is a destroyed planet by any definition I care about. Too hot, too cold or blown up by the Death Star if I can't grow my food there and build my house there the planet is destroyed.

It's a sad time if you live in Australia at the moment, where the Catholic Church is more progressive than the current government.

EndlessSporadic:
As George Carlin says, global warming and greenhouse gases are not damaging the environment. They are damaging the people. The Earth couldn't care less about what's happening - it's survived much worse. All of the damage is caused by humans and affects only humans. That's the only reason we care. The environment doesn't need saving. The people do.

George Carlin must have overlooked the fact that we are not the only species living on this rock. And the environment is mostly made up of those species. Even if our own fate wasn't something we should be concerned about - and since we aren't consciously suicidal as a species, it is - climate change is still having a destructive effect on the environment.

Kingjackl:
It's a sad time if you live in Australia at the moment, where the Catholic Church is more progressive than the current government.

I'm hoping that if the word of scientists around the world hasn't convinced Mr. Abbott and his largely Catholic government, maybe the opinion of someone he actually respects ('cos he sure as hell doesn't respect science) might make him change his tune.

Or he might just shove his head further in the sand and compliment coal some more. Who knows?

PatrickJS:
In Catholic dogma, the pope possesses infallibility; this means that his stance on faith and morality are to be held by the entire church. In short: what the pope says, goes.

Catholic doctrine says that the Pope is infallible when making a very specific type of declaration under very specific circumstances. If the Pope says "it's raining" when it obviously isn't, that doesn't change the weather. If he says "the sky is green", that doesn't change the color of sky.

The Pope is considered infallible when making what's called an "ex Cathedra" ("from the Chair") declaration. There's a long history of dispute over what exactly both this term and all its requirements mean; the only widely accepted ex Cathedra proclamation was one made about Marian doctrine back in the 1950's. Two thousand years of Catholicism, and it's happened once; hardly "what the Pope says, goes". Catholicism has its doctrinal drawbacks, but it's not composed entirely of idiots. Show them a little respect.

EndlessSporadic:
As George Carlin says, global warming and greenhouse gases are not damaging the environment. They are damaging the people. The Earth couldn't care less about what's happening - it's survived much worse. All of the damage is caused by humans and affects only humans. That's the only reason we care. The environment doesn't need saving. The people do.

But they are damaging the planet- it's not going to end with us wiping ourselves out. True; we're probably not capable of melting the planet, or shattering it, or building a superlaser big enough to punch a hole and blow it to bits, but there's a lot more to "the planet" than simple structural integrity. If the greenhouse gas levels keep building up, we could turn Earth into another Venus, utterly incapable of supporting life at all.

TallanKhan:
My position is, and always has been, that the exertion of religious influence is a negative thing as it encourages adherence to dogma rather than rational thought and the exercise of individual judgement. To that end, regardless of how worthy or unworthy the individual cause he chooses to speak about, to my mind, the pope telling anyone to do anything is of itself an overwhelmingly negative thing for society.

The exertion of religious influence was what broke tribalism's hold on much of the world and allowed rational thought to gain a widespread foothold. The increased centralization often lead to better intergroup communication and the exchange of ideas, and the Catholic church in particular has been a frontrunner in the field of advancing science. Have they fallen from this perch in the last century or so? Sure. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to climb back on; they're a single denomination that's larger than any other religion on the face of the Earth (except Islam, now)- it'd be downright irresponsible of them not to. Further, the Pope is not a propaganda robot controlled by a secret cabal of supervillians; even if you assume he doesn't communicate directly with God, he's a human being capable of logic and reason. His essential nature is not changed by being the head of a religion.

On the other hand, claiming that a person shouldn't instruct anyone to do anything is assuming that the contents of a person's speech are completely irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that person's job/religious affiliation. There's only person I see being dogmatic here, and it's not the Pope.

Here's Pope Francis, once again being totally awesome. And here's me, lamenting the Great Schism. I'd take this guy over Patriarch any day.

TallanKhan:
To that end, regardless of how worthy or unworthy the individual cause he chooses to speak about, to my mind, the pope telling anyone to do anything is of itself an overwhelmingly negative thing for society.

Emm. You do notice that this method is a dogma in itself?

Floppertje:

That strikes me as a little curious. He's only infallible if he's wearing a specific hat and while sitting on a specific chair? If, as I presume catholics believe, he knows what God wants, isn't he infallible all the time, regardless of his wardrobe or exact physical location? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it just seems a little strange to draw the line there. And what does 'speaking with the holy spirit' mean exactly? Is that talking with God or when God is using the pope's mouth?

The parts about hat and throne exist because Anti-Popes were a thing in European history. That is - there was quite a number of occasions when Catholic kings displeased with position of Rome on some question (Church tax, holy wars, divorce for said king) simply took one of their puppet bishops and named HIM the Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor to Saint Peter. So, there were times when Catholic Church had two or even three Popes with really different opinions on a lot of political matters trying to influence the world from different thrones. So at one point, church authorities said "Oh fuck it, the one who sits in Vatican City and is crowned by the Papal Conclave is the infallible one, and the rest can shove them fancy hats up their asses".

Amir Kondori:

The evidence is there and there is a WIDE consensus among scientists that global warming is a real and man made event.

The WIDE consensus is on the point of climate change being real, and us currently having no tools to stop it. On the question of "man-made" WIDE consensus is "it's complicated". Climate change is a very serious matter and we're not doing nearly enough to take control of it, but twisting the facts doesn't help it. Even Pope says that he supports the theory, as opposed to calling out everyone not agreeing with him on "denying the clear scientific evidence"

Recusant:
If the greenhouse gas levels keep building up, we could turn Earth into another Venus, utterly incapable of supporting life at all.

And here I call bullshit. Processing the entire atmosphere's supply of oxygen into CO2 wouldn't be nearly enough to make Earth into Venus. We need to get rid of nitrogen and add a plenty of sulfuric vapors and dust for that. A lot more sulfuric vapors and dust than human industry can produce. We definitely can drive a ton of species out of existence and turn a lot of landscape into wastelands. Can we completely destroy an ecosystem spread over the territory of a good country? At the moment, we can't (Chinese are trying their best, and yet Mother Nature still gives them the finger and finds a way), we don't know if we will be able in the near future and assumptions can only harm our research capabilities. Venus is a straight-out crazy hyperbole.

And in other news, the pope finally got out of bed to realise that people have been living lives without him.

We're still having to wait for his holiness to declare CFCs causes degradation to the ozone layer. More news later when actual scientists are making the discoveries.

Floppertje:

As much as I dislike the idea of organized religion, this pope actually seems pretty good. Very progressive and humble. Kind of a shame now he doesn't hold any actual authority.

Oh, and on the question of power - Pope is easily one of the most powerful people on Earth. While he's not backed by a superpower's worth of military, Catholic church is still a big and more importantly - relatively undivided organization. And Francis is it's sole unchallenged head. He has no parliament to oppose him, only individual bishops who are all strictly below him. And he doesn't need to worry about getting reelected, so - all the time in his life to take. And people are a lot more sure investment than any stock market - while financial crisis can easily turn a billionaire into a nobody, power of the Roman Throne can face literal apocalypse and it will only grow stronger with new followers. Oh, and despite the Schism, Orthodox churches still pay a lot of respect to opinion of Rome.

Don't be fooled by the passiveness - Church has it very easy these days, having very loyal and stable flock and guaranteed profits, the sole disturbance being an occasional pedophilia scandal or two. But if anything actually threatened the existence of Christian faith - this guy could easily make the figureheads of Radical Islam look like powerless puppies using his mass of dedicated followers, vast financial resources, international capabilities and the true and tried system of hierarchy.

Western people these days are too prone to seeing religions as something completely irrelevant in today's world, which is nothing less than a delusion.

Me and the Pope might not see eye-to-eye much, but this in a way is nice. I don't like the anthropocentric language used, I never liked the idea of us 'shepherding' this planet or anything. That always struck me as arrogant. But I like his stance against the neoliberal paradigm and what it's bringing us; a whole lot of crap for most of us.

But while I hope this helps, it also makes me sad. The idea that one man saying "Guys we should do this" has more of an effect than tons of evidence and knowledge is, in a way, frightening and sad.

Meanwhile, we're also entering a new mass extinction event. It's like the dystopian cyberpunk universe is actually coming to fruition.

Mr.Mattress:
I just don't think any Current Global Climate Change is caused by Man. Yes, Man is doing a lot to ruin the planet, and has done so in the past. I just don't think any current Global Climate Change has been caused by Man. I haven't seen any convincing proof that Current Climate Change is the result of Man's actions.

In which case, I'm sorry, you're scientifically wrong, there's empirical evidence fo' days:

Surface weather station measurements
Satellite measurements show that the troposphere is warming
The stratosphere is cooling as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory (this cannot be explained by solar variability)
Temperatures at the ocean surface and at various ocean depths show warming as far down as 1500 meters
Sea level rise
Gravitometric measurements of Greenland and Antarctica show net ice loss
Sea-ice loss in the Arctic is dramatically accelerating
Acceleration of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, particularly within the last few years.
The rise of the tropopause
Poleward migration of species
Increased intensity of hurricanes as expected from rising sea surface temperatures
Accelerating decline of glaciers throughout the world
Rise in temperatures at greater depths in the permafrost
Rapid expansion of thermokarst lakes throughout parts of Siberia, Canada and Alaska
Changes in ocean circulation as predicted by climate models, for example, with temperatures rising more quickly overland
Disintegration of permafrost coastlines in the arctic
Changes in the altitude of the stratosphere
An energy imbalance - the earth is receiving more energy than it emits (Hansen 2005)
Poleward movement of the jet streams (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
Widening of the tropical belt (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)

And all that information is out there. There's links to tons of papers (or extracts, because yay paywalls) on various climate related subjects on that site alone. Now, it's alright to be skeptical, that's a good frame of mind, but if you want proof; there you have it, among other sources. We've been doing what nature has done a couple times before without us, and that's very rapidly and suddenly increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And that's having ever-growing effects on our planet.

Cowabungaa:

Meanwhile, we're also entering a new mass extinction event. You're scientifically wrong

Ugh. I think I just threw up a bit from those links. What's worse than ignorance that denies science? Ignorance that believes that science is on their side. Like, say, sensationalist clickbait pop-science.

Cowabungaa:
Dat list

That's all evidences of climate change. Nobody denies that one. Yet not a single point from this list links the climate change to human involvement. One could actually notice that before posting.

Cowabungaa:
among other sources

If only we could have any actual respectable publications, as opposed to distorted clickbait reinterpretations and straight out bullshit.

Recusant:
The exertion of religious influence was what broke tribalism's hold on much of the world and allowed rational thought to gain a widespread foothold.

To start with, no it isn't. The emergence of nation states, a system which endures to today was the evolution of tribalism and this came about largely though conquest and the establishment of ethnic identities in addition to geographically local identities. Nothing ever "broke tribalism's hold", the system just developed further.

Religious practice of varying forms existed for centuries before tribal social structures were seriously challenged, and a number of significant civilisations pre-date the emergence of current major religions.

Recusant:
The increased centralization often lead to better intergroup communication and the exchange of ideas,

Again, you correctly identify an advance and then erroneously attribute it to religion. Increased centralisation did indeed bring all the benefits you describe, but centralisation didn't have anything to do with religion. Centralisation occurred as as larger geographic areas fell under the control of single states. The need for communication and the ability to move troops quickly necessitated the development of better roads which allowed for trade and the movement of people, the need to defend and area gave rise to fortifications, around which towns and cities grow. It was this concentration of people that created the conditions for a freer exchange of ideas.

Recusant:
and the Catholic church in particular has been a frontrunner in the field of advancing science. Have they fallen from this perch in the last century or so? Sure. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to climb back on;

No, it really hasn't. The Catholic Church in particular has been a frontrunner in the field of repressing science. Yes they may have founded schools and universities, and I will grant that these did provide access to a basic level of education. However, the fact that these institutions taught religious doctrine as fact, directly impacting the way research was conducted, leading people to build theories on false assumptions more than offsets the benefits here. Beyond this, when you look at events such as the Condemnations, the suppression of Copernicus or the Inquisition, to claim that the Catholic Church has been any kind of net positive for scientific endeavour is laughable.

Recusant:
Further, the Pope is not a propaganda robot controlled by a secret cabal of supervillians; even if you assume he doesn't communicate directly with God, he's a human being capable of logic and reason. His essential nature is not changed by being the head of a religion.

His central nature is being the head of a religion. Whether or not I assume he does or doesn't communicate directly with God is irrelevant, he believes that he communicates directly with God, so while he may on one level as a human be capable of logic and reason, he isn't exercising it, he is parroting what he believes God wants him to say. He isn't a propaganda robot, no, he's much worse, because unless God really is talking to us through him, he's delusional.

In addition, the pope speaks as a religious authority, and as such, those who obey him, are doing so because of his status. He didn't present evidence, or make an argument, he got up and made a speech that amounted to "climate change is ruining the planet, if you're a good christian do something about it". This isn't encouraging people to make an informed choice, this is demanding obedience, "do it because I say so".

Recusant:
On the other hand, claiming that a person shouldn't instruct anyone to do anything is assuming that the contents of a person's speech are completely irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that person's job/religious affiliation. There's only person I see being dogmatic here, and it's not the Pope.

I never claimed "a person" shouldn't instruct anyone, I said very specifically "the pope", although I will meet you half way and offer an expansion to Anyone who thinks they speak for on behalf of a deity. And the reason this is a negative thing is that a person's reason for doing something has a fundamental bearing on it's nature. Lasting solutions to the problems we face as a society can only be achieved through understanding and awareness. The pope saying "x is bad so don't do it anymore" doesn't provide that, there has been no development or growth, and society isn't positioned to move on.

Marxie:

TallanKhan:
To that end, regardless of how worthy or unworthy the individual cause he chooses to speak about, to my mind, the pope telling anyone to do anything is of itself an overwhelmingly negative thing for society.

Emm. You do notice that this method is a dogma in itself?

I'm afraid not. Dogma refers to an official or accepted principal laid down by an institution or authority, which in turn underpins a system of behaviour or belief.

Marxie:
snip

What? Clickbait? Have you even checked the contents? No respectable publications? Because that's the kind of publications that are used in that website's content, shit they're even referring to it properly. What the hell is clickbait-y about that? Something someone would know if they'd actually have paid attention to what is said, if you'd pay attention to the references that are used.

The fact that the website shows some atrocious webdesign, because fuck me it's butt-ugly, has nothing to do with the validity of the content.

And sadly, you'd be surprised how many people (not saying the dude I quoted before is one of them) do deny all that evidence. That's perhaps the worst of it.

That's all evidences of climate change. Nobody denies that one. Yet not a single point from this list links the climate change to human involvement. One could actually notice that before posting.

Which is not true, if one would actually pay attention to what the contents of that article and its references say. Us having a large hand in causing that is what fits the models, unlike other supposed causes. So yes, yes it does. My god one of the points in that list literally said so. Who's not noticing what now?

All I'm saying is that the image of Pope Francis on the front page of him carrying a goat like that should be the official go-to image of him.

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/05/polar-ice-caps-more-stable-than-predicted-new-observations-show/

Daily Express, 25 December 2014
Levi Winchester

The North and South Poles are "not melting", according to a leading global warming expert. In fact, the poles are "much more stable" than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought. For years, scientists have suggested that both poles are melting at an alarming rate because of warming temperatures - dangerously raising the Earth's sea levels while threatening the homes of Arctic and Antarctic animals.

But the uncertainty surrounding climate change and the polar ice caps reached a new level this month when research suggested the ice in the Antarctic is actually growing.
-
Credibility of source should be questioned, just as the word of a clergyman wearing a lamb scarf.

Marxie:

Cowabungaa:

Meanwhile, we're also entering a new mass extinction event. You're scientifically wrong

Ugh. I think I just threw up a bit from those links. What's worse than ignorance that denies science? Ignorance that believes that science is on their side. Like, say, sensationalist clickbait pop-science.

Cowabungaa:
Dat list

That's all evidences of climate change. Nobody denies that one. Yet not a single point from this list links the climate change to human involvement. One could actually notice that before posting.

Cowabungaa:
among other sources

If only we could have any actual respectable publications, as opposed to distorted clickbait reinterpretations and straight out bullshit.

Im sorry but...

You don't want to click the links.[1]

You probably didn't read the list.[2]

Or do any further research on your own.[3]

Should we be surprised your stance remain static? There's being skeptical, and there's being foolish on purpose.

[1] Both articles has links to respected scientist's publications.
[2] Because... "The stratosphere is cooling as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory (this cannot be explained by solar variability)" that sounds an awful lot like humanity.
[3] Because that would be work! D:

Floppertje:

ShermTank7272:

PatrickJS:

In Catholic dogma, the pope possesses infallibility; this means that his stance on faith and morality are to be held by the entire church. In short: what the pope says, goes.

The infallibility thing isn't entirely true. In encyclicals like this, the Pope is held in high moral regard and is probably right, but is not infallible. Papal Infallibility is only possible if the pope is speaking 1) with the Holy Spirit, 2) while wearing the papal crown, and 3) while on the throne of Peter.

That shouldn't diminish the value of his words, but I just want to put it out there that he is not technically infallible in this regard.

That strikes me as a little curious. He's only infallible if he's wearing a specific hat and while sitting on a specific chair? If, as I presume catholics believe, he knows what God wants, isn't he infallible all the time, regardless of his wardrobe or exact physical location? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it just seems a little strange to draw the line there. And what does 'speaking with the holy spirit' mean exactly? Is that talking with God or when God is using the pope's mouth?

As much as I dislike the idea of organized religion, this pope actually seems pretty good. Very progressive and humble. Kind of a shame now he doesn't hold any actual authority.

They need to come up with fiddly little conditions so it's possible to later deny the infallibility of a statement that was originally considered infallible. Otherwise they might there's the possibility of having two popes directly contradict each other while both being infallible. I think that's one logical contradiction too far.

Mr.Mattress:
I mean, I'm a Catholic, and Pope Francis Rocks, but... I just don't think any Current Global Climate Change is caused by Man. Yes, Man is doing a lot to ruin the planet, and has done so in the past. I just don't think any current Global Climate Change has been caused by Man. I haven't seen any convincing proof that Current Climate Change is the result of Man's actions.

Still, I support the Pope for wanting the World to be more Environmentally Friendly. I know this will please many Liberal Catholics (And Liberals in General) worldwide. Me? I'll try to be more Environmentally Friendly, but I'm still skeptical on Man-made Climate Change.

Look at it from another perspective. Is the currenbt trend of warming harmful to man and our civilization? Yes. Can we by our actions, slow, stop or reverse it? Yes. So it doesn't matter what causes the global warming...just because we might not be causing it doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it.

After all.. no matter what. life will exist on this planet no matter what we do or do not do... the big question will be.. whether humans will be among the life forms... see how that works. IT's basically like looking at a fire in the kitchen. Now you can debate whether it was your fault, your flatmates fault, the fault of the electrician who wired the place, an act of the great Mig, but that's something that can be debated while you put out the damned fire.

I really wonder how this makes deniers look when even the most Whitiest Angloiest Saxoniest Personiest Christian basically says yeah we need to do something about it.

TallanKhan:
To start with, no it isn't.

Adoption of Christianity is the direct basis for switching from gravelkind to primogeniture succession in the lands of Rus, which finally allowed long-term building of a nation as opposed to constant squabbling of a thousand Rurikids who all were morally justified in the eyes of their subjects to have a claim. Boom you're already wrong.

TallanKhan:
Religious practice of varying forms existed for centuries before tribal social structures were seriously challenged, and a number of significant civilizations pre-date the emergence of current major religions.

Yes, because just a religion on itself is not capable of anything. It took specific religions and religion practices in their specific regions and cultures for system to "just develop further". You do understand that there were times when people lived with no newspapers, constitution and schools, and the religion was the closest thing they had to a universal system of morals and laws that lived longer that a generation? So there simply was not other way to preserve even what little the society had? And he powers that be had zero reasons to change the system?

TallanKhan:
Again, you correctly identify an advance and then erroneously attribute it to religion. Increased centralisation did indeed bring all the benefits you describe, but centralisation didn't have anything to do with religion.

Suuuure. Once again - a hundred different Russian tribes having a hundred different pagan cults and a hundred different cultures and moral systems growing from those cults were having no problems uniting under a centralized rule before said cults were replaced by Christianity. Oh wait, they totally were.

TallanKhan:
The need for communication

Oh, and you know another thing that Christianity brought into the Russian lands? The first common written language.

TallanKhan:
No, it really hasn't. The Catholic Church in particular has been a frontrunner in the field of repressing science. Yes they may have founded schools and universities, and I will grant that these did provide access to a basic level of education. However, the fact that these institutions taught religious doctrine as fact, directly impacting the way research was conducted, leading people to build theories on false assumptions more than offsets the benefits here.

Pffffrrrrtt. That's like saying that Lavoisier was full of shit just because he suggested the existence of caloric, which proved to be false. Gradual development.

TallanKhan:
Beyond this, when you look at events such as the Condemnations, the suppression of Copernicus or the Inquisition, to claim that the Catholic Church has been any kind of net positive for scientific endeavour is laughable.

Copernicus was prosecuted for being a huge pain in the bishopric's ass, not for his discoveries. Inquisition was used to hunt down political enemies of the Spanish Crown (you know, like any secret police in a secular country), not scientists.

TallanKhan:
any kind of net positive for scientific endeavour is laughable

Literally ALL the development of medicine and herbal sciences on the Russian lands until Peter the Great - monasteries.
All the local book publishing, rewriting, translation and production until Empress Catherine - monasteries again.
Royal Botanical Gardens in Prague, Vilno and Petersberg - Christians once again.
It took the October Revolution to institute the first non-parochial schools (of which there were more than 18 thousand) for people of common birth. That's XXth century. Every common-born man in Russia before that who knew how to read or count learned it in either a parochial or jewish school. Telling that ten centuries of people learning alphabet, writing and algebra constitutes nothing solely because they also read Bible there is just plain crazy. And the Church was not imposing a monopoly on education. It was simply the only institution interested in teaching people anything at all.

Hell, and I'm an atheist for crying out loud.

TallanKhan:
His central nature is being the head of a religion.

No. He's human first and any sort of authority figure second. You know, human with a brain. Who's got PhD in chemistry. Capable of exercising independent thought no less than you are. One can actually believe that God wants him to be a logical and reasonable leader and example for his people. Ever thought of that one possibility?

TallanKhan:
In addition, the pope speaks as a religious authority, and as such, those who obey him, are doing so because of his status. He didn't present evidence, or make an argument, he got up and made a speech that amounted to "climate change is ruining the planet, if you're a good christian do something about it".

The evidence is presented by scientists. He's part as a political and moral authority is giving more power and recognition to said evidence. Scientists can't reach everyone using their resources, so people like Pope and politicians provide them with some louder voices. Al Gore also isn't a scientist and mostly was just gathering awareness through popular methods. Was he harmful as well?

TallanKhan:
This isn't encouraging people to make an informed choice, this is demanding obedience, "do it because I say so".

Yep. Pretty much the way works. Or you think every man in every massive social movement made an informed choice, as opposed to being persuaded by popular political methods. A reasonable orator can gather attention a handful of people. A demagogue can gather a billion. As far as gaining awareness on the matter goes - he's doing the only good and reasonable thing possible.

TallanKhan:
Lasting solutions to the problems we face as a society can only be achieved through understanding and awareness

Understanding by people who need to understand it. The crowd is there for political drive. They don't need a degree to do their part. All they need for that are their votes. A society ruled by representative democracy is founded on the principle of people putting their trust on a reasonable authority. Because a human cannot be informed and educated on every relevant social issue ever and still perform his functions in a society. A farm-worker who works 10 hours a day can't be bothered to do all the Climate Change research on the internet - he believes that he already paid his due to the scientists by giving them something to eat. The only things that can grab his attention are Al Gore on the evening news and pastor at his church. And you can't make all the farm-workers read Nature and Science - there will be no one left to tend the crops.

TallanKhan:
I'm afraid not. Dogma refers to an official or accepted principal laid down by an institution or authority, which in turn underpins a system of behaviour or belief.

A rational approach would be analyzing every specific case and checking if the sum of damage that society suffers from it outweights the profits gained. You choose to simply believe that EVERY case is harmful by default. That in itself is dogmatic and close-minded.

MonsterCrit:
the most Whitiest Angloiest Saxoniest Personiest Christian

He's from Buenos Aires. And is of Italian roots. And most American Christians are not Catholic anyway. Just saying.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here