Thread: Will the Pope's encyclical affect your position on global warming?

Originally Posted by pphhrogg

Why aren't there any choices for those of us who aren't Christian (besides the silly one at the bottom)? The Pope is more than just the leader of the Catholic church. He's also a world leader.

Because he's the leader of a specific Christian branch. It's unlikely that an atheist would listen to Pope Francis on the authority of his being the head of the Catholic Church. Unless you mean to suggest that you deny AGW, but were swayed when Pope Francis, a non-scientist, said you should accept and act on it?

Originally Posted by Cephus

Why would anyone listen to this idiot in a funny hat about anything?

Well, theoretically Catholics would listen to him on the basis of his being the head of their faith.

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

There is no more reason now to look to the pope for scientific insight than there was in the time of Galileo. That the AGW believers are touting a papal pronouncement does not enhance their credibility. I'm with Galileo.

I may be insulated being this far from the Vatican, but I don't think the Pope imprisons people for heresy anymore.

Originally Posted by Cephus

Which just proves the gullibility and irrationality of Catholics.

I think it's fair to say then you didn't vote for any of the first four options.

Originally Posted by Goshin

Nah. The pope needs to catch up... the new trend is AGW skepticism. Widespread and getting wider by the day.





That the climate is changing somewhat I don't dispute. That it is primarily man-caused I consider highly improbable. That it constitutes some kind of existential disaster I consider laughable nonsense. That there is anything substantive we can do about it is also laughable. I have scientific reasons for every point of contention as well, which include but are not limited to: known failures of the AGW proponents in data collection and climate modeling; evidence of outright fraud among same; the fallaciousness of the "hockey stick diagram"; ice cores showing prehistoric states of higher carbon in atmo and less ice were times when life flourished, and warming was driven by natural processes and not human industry (there was none); evidence that most of our warming/change is solar driven (as we're seeing it on other planets too) and thus beyond our control; etc etc.

I've got some beach front property in Kansas that you might be interested in buying.

Originally Posted by Goshin

Nah. The pope needs to catch up... the new trend is AGW skepticism. Widespread and getting wider by the day.

Other trends are:

• anti-vaccination
• evolution denial
• heavy drug use
• Islamic extremism
• Truther-ism
• Birther-ism

Which goes to show: uneducated people believe in (and do) a lot of stupid crap. It's good when the head of any faith does his/her part to address ignorance. Now, sure, atheists will probably jump up my ass at the irony of the head of religion addressing ignorance, but you can't win every battle.

That the climate is changing somewhat I don't dispute. That it is primarily man-caused I consider highly improbable. That it constitutes some kind of existential disaster I consider laughable nonsense. That there is anything substantive we can do about it is also laughable. I have scientific reasons for every point of contention as well, which include but are not limited to: known failures of the AGW proponents in data collection and climate modeling; evidence of outright fraud among same; the fallaciousness of the "hockey stick diagram"; ice cores showing prehistoric states of higher carbon in atmo and less ice were times when life flourished, and warming was driven by natural processes and not human industry (there was none); evidence that most of our warming/change is solar driven (as we're seeing it on other planets too) and thus beyond our control; etc etc.