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

[Cardinal]

Pope Francis has publicly made known his position that climate change is real and human activity is the cause of it. On Thursday he'll be delivering a roughly 60-page encyclical to the world's 1.2 billion Catholics promoting action on the environment as a moral imperative. If you are a Christian and an anthropogenic global warming denier, is your resistance to AGW swayed in any way by the Pope's encyclical on climate change?

Scientists weary after years of often vicious opposition by doubters of their climate-change findings see this year as crucial to the planet's future because of a religious document expected from Pope Francis on Thursday.


The rare encyclical, or teaching letter, expected to promote climate action as a moral imperative could do more to slow global warming than international negotiations this year to limit greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say.


"The encyclical is going to go out to over 1 billion Catholics — that's a way of getting a message across to a segment of society that the scientific community could never do," said an excited Jeff Kiehl with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "I mean it's just unbelievable."

Scientists say pope may be the key player on climate change

He has been called the “superman pope”, and it would be hard to deny that Pope Francis has had a good December. Cited by President Barack Obama as a key player in the thawing relations between the US and Cuba, the Argentinian pontiff followed that by lecturing his cardinals on the need to clean up Vatican politics. But can Francis achieve a feat that has so far eluded secular powers and inspire decisive action on climate change?


It looks as if he will give it a go. In 2015, the pope will issue a lengthy message on the subject to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, give an address to the UN general assembly and call a summit of the world’s main religions.

According to Vatican insiders, Francis will meet other faith leaders and lobby politicians at the general assembly in New York in September, when countries will sign up to new anti-poverty and environmental goals.


In recent months, the pope has argued for a radical new financial and economic system to avoid human inequality and ecological devastation. In October he told a meeting of Latin American and Asian landless peasants and other social movements: “An economic system centred on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain the frenetic rhythm of consumption that is inherent to it.


“The system continues unchanged, since what dominates are the dynamics of an economy and a finance that are lacking in ethics. It is no longer man who commands, but money. Cash commands.


“The monopolizing of lands, deforestation, the appropriation of water, inadequate agro-toxics are some of the evils that tear man from the land of his birth. Climate change, the loss of biodiversity and deforestation are already showing their devastating effects in the great cataclysms we witness,” he said.

Pope Francis

 

[Lutherf]

As a Catholic I'm not swayed by his take on global warming....or economics.

The pope is the head of the church and I look to the church for spiritual advice and insight as they are the experts in that field. I look to other experts in other fields for advice in those areas.

 

[Risky Thicket]

I am a non-Catholic, non-Christian and my answer is no, my position will not change. I already agree with what I understand Pope Francis's position to be regarding climate change. Further, I believe the Pope's encyclical will have influence in much of the world but limited influence in the US.

He's already unpopular with some conservatives in the US due to his social advocacy. He is now unpopular with many of the same people because his climate advocacy is viewed as not good for business.

 

[earthworm]

My concrete is curing .. the Popes statement is the time necessary for this physical reaction .. but I never had any doubt .. to begin with .. However .. panic .. we must not .

 

[cpwill]

It is more likely to effect my view of Catholicism.

 

[Cardinal]

I am a non-Catholic, non-Christian and my answer is no, my position will not change. I already agree with what I understand Pope Francis's position to be regarding climate change. Further, I believe the Pope's encyclical will have influence in much of the world but limited influence in the US.

He's already unpopular with some conservatives in the US due to his social advocacy. He is now unpopular with many of the same people because his climate advocacy isn't viewed as not good for business.

I'll lay my own position up front: I would honestly be surprised if more than one or two American (I probably should have added that to the poll -- oh well) AGW-denying Catholics (let alone non-Catholic Christians) actually had their minds changed by the Pope's encyclical. His words may have some effect in the rest of the world as you say, but if he thinks he'll have any effect on Americans then he's severely underestimated the breadth of the culture war in the U.S.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The moment the Catholic Church and Pope Francis divest themselves of the $billions in art, artifacts, gold, and other wealth, give the vast majority to those they have abused and wronged who are currently living, and swears all members of the clergy and officers of the Church to vows of poverty, is the very moment that I will start giving a rat's ass about anything the Pope has to say about social justice and the lifestyles of others.

 

[nota bene]

Here is a helpful article with a vid clip explaining "what we can expect by drawing on Catholic social teaching to provide a helpful framework for understanding the Church’s position on environmental stewardship": Papal Encyclicals: An Explainer for Those of Us Who Aren't Catholic | Acton PowerBlog

 

[clownboy]

Hilarious that the cultists are now climbing onboard the Pope train.

 

[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.

 

[Cephus]

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

 

[Cardinal]

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?

 

[Cardinal]

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.

 

[Cephus]

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

Which just proves the gullibility and irrationality of Catholics.

 

[Jack Hays]

Pope Francis has publicly made known his position that climate change is real and human activity is the cause of it. On Thursday he'll be delivering a roughly 60-page encyclical to the world's 1.2 billion Catholics promoting action on the environment as a moral imperative. If you are a Christian and an anthropogenic global warming denier, is your resistance to AGW swayed in any way by the Pope's encyclical on climate change?



Scientists say pope may be the key player on climate change



Pope Francis

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.:bright:

 

[Cardinal]

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.:bright:

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

 

[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.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

 

[Moot]

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.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

 

[Goshin]

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.

I am neither uneducated nor ignorant. I do not merely parrot things; I study them. I have reasons for what I believe.

Yet I am skeptical of AGW-as-a-man-made-existential-disaster, and doubly skeptical that there is really anything much we can do about it.

 

[Cardinal]

I am neither uneducated nor ignorant. I do not merely parrot things; I study them. I have reasons for what I believe.

Yet I am skeptical of AGW-as-a-man-made-existential-disaster, and doubly skeptical that there is really anything much we can do about it.

I assumed as you were an ex-LEO that it would be mutually exclusive for you to also be a scientist working in the field of climatology. Perhaps I've made an ass out of u and me. Which scientific field do you work in?

 

[Goshin]

I assumed as you were an ex-LEO that it would be mutually exclusive for you to also be a scientist working in the field of climatology. Perhaps I've made an ass out of u and me. Which scientific field do you work in?

Aha. I'm just a dumb cop right? WTF do I know.


Prejudice much? Do you often resort to "Neener neener, you're a stupidhead" when confronted with opposing viewpoints? How very enlightened of you.


So, only scientists working in the field of climatology are allowed to have viewpoints on AGW?


Ok then....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

NASA Scientists Against AGW | The SPPI Blog

In an unprecedented slap at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists–including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center–claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency

.



Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

Well if I am the ignorant and uneducated wretch you wish to portray me as, at least I appear to be in good company. :mrgreen:

 

[ChezC3]

My guess is that people in general know about the Pope and Catholicism, the nature of encyclicals and their purpose about as much as they know about the Environment and Global Warming. Which is to say they know little to nothing.

That being said, I don't believe the Pope's encyclical will sway me much at all. Not that there isn't much in it I agree with along with much that will make me ponder but that I already have a firm opinion on the subject.

To say man doesn't cause harm to the environment is simply asinine. Just as equally asinine is to say that their aren't people who have politicized and monetized the issue for personal gain.

Put plainly -- Science can be bought.

It is neither infallible nor untouchable. Monsanto, if anyone had taught us this.

Does that mean that we're all gonna burn up from a depleted ozone, be poisoned from acidic rains, or drown in a tsunami of melted arctic ice caps?

No. Stop being silly.

Does that mean that pumping toxins into our land, air and sea is a "good thing"?

No.

Has our bountiful harvest made us apathetic to the means in which said harvest was planted or sown? I do believe so.

How many people here recycle?

If you do, then you surely know what I'm going to say as the Truth.

I throw away 3 large bags of recyclables for every half bag of refuse.

The paper, plastic, wrappings, ribbons, tape, adhesives, et al. and all that go into making them is appalling by any measure and we should all be ashamed.

The chickens, cows, and pigs we eat? How they're raised, how they're slaughtered, how they're brought to us? Disgusting.

The pesticides we use, contaminating our soil and water.

This whole "fracking" nonsense, the oil spills that the paltry fines imposed don't begin to make up for...

All of it. But people just don't give a damn. So long as they get more and more for less and less.

This encyclical -- while I haven't read it -- isn't about the science behind one side of this issue or the other. This encyclical is about us, what we do, what we find acceptable and shouldn't, how we relate to the world and all of creation around us. It's about the Church's position on how we should view things. How we should harmonize ourselves with nature rather than constantly thinking we should subdue it for our own, selfish, thoughtless wants and desires.

So while it undoubtedly will not sway people's opinions on politicized science, it should be read so that perhaps in can hold sway over your conscience.

 

[Peter King]

I cannot vote, I am an atheist and I think for a lot of people the lines have been drawn along ideological lines and they are unwilling to even contemplate anything outside of their own doctrine.