The Pope's environmental encyclical has been released, discuss here.

[LoAmmi]

at the same time, Al Gore said that by 2013 we would not have any ice left in the Polar Icecaps..... so when people DO question the reliability of these Global Warming Claims, that seems reasonable.... because it is 2 years past the "no ice" prediction and we still have ice.... so it seems like they are not trustworthy, I do not mean purpusfully deceitful, just that they are trying to say they have it all figured out when their models are not really working as they should

We cannot reasonably expect scientists to be fortune tellers. Yes, the ice caps haven't melted, but there's evidence I've seen that the lower ocean water has started to heat as the water absorbs heat. It's kind of the problem with this kind of global change. Any model we make to predict things is built upon what we currently know and if we learn new things or find out that it doesn't react like we expect, the conclusions from those models are wrong. What is good science, however, is how the greenhouse effect works. Knowing that, how is it possible for us to dump so much into the atmosphere and not have it effect the greenhouse effect?

 

[Root of Jesse]

here is something to think about for people who deny climate change (and I do not use the term deny in a pejorative sense)

even if CO2 does not make the earth hotter, there are TONS of reasons to want to preserve the air quality.... like, oh... I dunno... the fact that we breath air

at the same time, Al Gore said that by 2013 we would not have any ice left in the Polar Icecaps..... so when people DO question the reliability of these Global Warming Claims, that seems reasonable.... because it is 2 years past the "no ice" prediction and we still have ice.... so it seems like they are not trustworthy, I do not mean purpusfully deceitful, just that they are trying to say they have it all figured out when their models are not really working as they should

But since CO2 is required for plants to respirate, wouldn't having more mean that there'd be more plants growing? But plants recycle the carbon and give us oxygen.

 

[Fish and Bread]

And it is up to each of us to individually make our own impact, without having government impose regulations on us to do so.

That's not what the Pope said. He specifically said that government needs to play a role as well.

From his encyclical:

26. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change. However, many of these symptoms indicate that such effects will continue to worsen if we continue with current models of production and consumption. There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy. Worldwide there is minimal access to clean and renewable energy. There is still a need to develop adequate storage technologies. Some countries have made considerable progress, although it is far from constituting a significant proportion. Investments have also been made in means of production and transportation which consume less energy and require fewer raw materials, as well as in methods of construction and renovating buildings which improve their energy efficiency. But these good practices are still far from widespread.

 

[LoAmmi]

But since CO2 is required for plants to respirate, wouldn't having more mean that there'd be more plants growing? But plants recycle the carbon and give us oxygen.

http://www.sciencefocus.com//qa/why-does-breathing-pure-oxygen-kill-you

Just because something is good for you at some levels doesn't mean it's good for you at others.

 

[ebia]

Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from de-nial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solu-tions.

 

[frenchdefense]

Quick read it (it's longer than I though it would be). Initial reaction:

I, personally, as an American, feel jack slapped.

And thankful it.

We are the the rich, consumer driven, unsustainable living, capitalist concerned only, people he's talking about.

I great sadness at the moment is that I despair for our ability as a society to change any of that.

 

[ebia]

I am against having matters of science be something that even enter into notions of assenting or dissenting to the Church as a matter of principle. We did that before with models of the solar system, and it was a mistake then.

But the thing is, the "settled science" at that time was all in favor of the geocentric models (particularly the Tychonic). In fact, I would say that the science was far more in favor of the Tychonic model than the current science is in favor of Anthropogenic Global Warming, since the only evidence for heliocentric models (such as stellar aberration or the stellar parallax) was not discovered until years after the controversy, whereas our current models are complex statistical behemoths which can be criticized at any of their parts.

So the problem in the Galileo affair was not that the Church put faith above science, since the science of the day in fact was on the side of the Church's verdict. The problem was that it chose a correct "Catholic" position for a matter of science. But the Church has no special guarantee of being correct in matters of science, and here it later turned out that the theories of the day were flawed, since they were missing important data.

So I am against tying the actions of a faithful Catholic to accepting one scientific theory or another, no matter how good the evidence for it. And it's not like this encyclical stands or falls on the role of man in climate change.

Gallileo was a about a power struggle between individuals.

This is about a power struggle between vested interests and global humanity. It doesn't make a big practical difference whether most people think the sun goes around the earth or the other way around. It's a huge moral problem to be wrecking the planet, and on moral problems the Pope must speak. Your argument is like saying Paul VI was wrong to speak on contraception because he's not scientifically qualified to speak on how it works.

 

[frenchdefense]

AMEN the good Pope calling out the hypocrites who pretend to be concerned with nature while supporting the murder of unborn children

deluded minds who see more value in a tree frog then in an unborn child

God bless the Holy Father, showing us that the culture of Death will not lead to Life

Does this mean that the recognition of climate change and the necessity to take decisive action on it immediately is going on the non-negotiable list ?

 

[ebia]

Does this mean that the recognition of climate change and the necessity to take decisive action on it immediately is going on the non-negotiable list ?

The encyclical itself puts itself in the status of the other social justice encyclicals. So I'm guessing that it will be taken seriously by a similar set of people.

 

[frenchdefense]

The encyclical itself puts itself in the status of the other social justice encyclicals. So I'm guessing that it will be taken seriously by a similar set of people.

Have to disagree on that: JEB-by and Sanatorium already stepped away from it.

Wwwwwaaayy away.

No, I'm thinking the "similar set of people" is going to be saying a lot of variations of :

"The pope should work his side of the street and stay out of politics"

 

[MikeK]

Quick read it (it's longer than I though it would be). Initial reaction:

I, personally, as an American, feel jack slapped.

And thankful it.

We are the the rich, consumer driven, unsustainable living, capitalist concerned only, people he's talking about.

I great sadness at the moment is that I despair for our ability as a society to change any of that.

That sums up my take too. This was a call to action for all people, but especially for us - the rich, lucky, and spoiled. It is time to stop distracting ourselves with imaginary persecution and stop focussing on what the other guy is doing and start making changes in the way we live our lives, in what we do and do not consume, in the luxuries we imagine to be necessities, and the political candidates we support.

On my to-do list in the immediate future was to replace our detective air conditioner. That's off the list, because we do not need an air conditioner and it is a sizable expense that does no measurable good. We'll sleep in the basement or tent it in the backyard if the house gets hot.

 

[Rhamiel]

That's not what the Pope said. He specifically said that government needs to play a role as well.

From his encyclical:

he also said that the unborn had to be protected

the government needs to take actions to protect both

 

[MoonlessNight]

Gallileo was a about a power struggle between individuals.

As well as a scientific disagreement, and one in which Galileo disagreed with the consensus.

This is about a power struggle between vested interests and global humanity. It doesn't make a big practical difference whether most people think the sun goes around the earth or the other way around. It's a huge moral problem to be wrecking the planet, and on moral problems the Pope must speak. Your argument is like saying Paul VI was wrong to speak on contraception because he's not scientifically qualified to speak on how it works.

Have I said one word in this thread or any other against the moral arguments of the Pope? My statements have been addressing my concern at those who would identify dissent with current scientific theories with dissent against the Church.

Your reference to Pope Paul VI and (presumably) Humanae Vitae is not relevant, since that encyclical makes no scientific claims whatsoever. Science only comes up at all in an exhortation for scientists to devote their efforts into better understanding the conditions which are favorable (or unfavorable) to fertility. The discussion of contraception only relies on the fact that the methods being used are intended to make it impossible that an act of sexual intercourse would result in pregnancy. That's a discussion which is completely independent of scientific results.

Likewise, what the current Pope says about the environment would remain relevant even if tomorrow it was discovered that there had been no global warming in the last two decades, or that the models used had completely overlooked some natural factor and so the contribution to warming by humans was minimal, or any other scientific discovery.

Does anyone disagree with this? Is there anyone here who currently supports the Pope's words who say that they were no longer worth hearing if part of the Climate Change consensus was definitely disproven? I don't think that there is anyone here who would. But if not, why make the science a matter of (at least public) assent required to be a good Catholic, as some (here and elsewhere) have suggested?

 

[Armoured]

AMEN the good Pope calling out the hypocrites who pretend to be concerned with nature while supporting the murder of unborn children

deluded minds who see more value in a tree frog then in an unborn child

God bless the Holy Father, showing us that the culture of Death will not lead to Life

Ah. So this is how it will be spun. OK. No issue that shouldn't be hitched to the abortion bandwagon. I keep forgetting.

 

[Rhamiel]

very good point moonless night

I said before, even if there is no global warming, we need to pollute less, because we breath the air, we drink the water
stewardship is a Christian virtue, always has been
prudence is a Christian virtue as well

 

[Rhamiel]

Ah. So this is how it will be spun. OK. No issue that shouldn't be hitched to the abortion bandwagon. I keep forgetting.

did you read what the Pope said about it?
he is the one who "hitched it" to the issue of abortion, I am just grateful that he did
keeps the topic balanced

to think about the environment, while neglecting human life, is counterproductive

I have not read much of the encyclical yet, but I am sure he also talks about economic issues, dignity and safety of workers, all kinds of things

 

[Armoured]

did you read what the Pope said about it?
he is the one who "hitched it" to the issue of abortion, I am just grateful that he did
keeps the topic balanced

to think about the environment, while neglecting human life, is counterproductive

I have not read much of the encyclical yet, but I am sure he also talks about economic issues, dignity and safety of workers, all kinds of things

I'm sure he does. But we've been over abortion. I think it's a mistake to focus on abortion as the take home message here.

 

[Rhamiel]

I'm sure he does. But we've been over abortion. I think it's a mistake to focus on abortion as the take home message here.

lol I am not trying to pretend that this was an encyclical about abortion

I have just read bits and pieces so far, I have not had time to really dig into it

but I really like what I have read so far, not just the stuff about abortion, but in general.

and you said we have been over abortion? oh I must have missed that, what did we decide upon when we went over it?

 

[ebia]

As well as a scientific disagreement, and one in which Galileo disagreed with the consensus.



Have I said one word in this thread or any other against the moral arguments of the Pope? My statements have been addressing my concern at those who would identify dissent with current scientific theories with dissent against the Church.

Your reference to Pope Paul VI and (presumably) Humanae Vitae is not relevant, since that encyclical makes no scientific claims whatsoever. Science only comes up at all in an exhortation for scientists to devote their efforts into better understanding the conditions which are favorable (or unfavorable) to fertility. The discussion of contraception only relies on the fact that the methods being used are intended to make it impossible that an act of sexual intercourse would result in pregnancy. That's a discussion which is completely independent of scientific results.

Likewise, what the current Pope says about the environment would remain relevant even if tomorrow it was discovered that there had been no global warming in the last two decades, or that the models used had completely overlooked some natural factor and so the contribution to warming by humans was minimal, or any other scientific discovery.

Does anyone disagree with this? Is there anyone here who currently supports the Pope's words who say that they were no longer worth hearing if part of the Climate Change consensus was definitely disproven? I don't think that there is anyone here who would. But if not, why make the science a matter of (at least public) assent required to be a good Catholic, as some (here and elsewhere) have suggested?

I haven't finished reading it (have you) so I don't know. But a lot of the force is based on impeding disaster if we don't change our behavior.

 

[Armoured]

and you said we have been over abortion? oh I must have missed that, what did we decide upon when we went over it?

Um, we're against it. Pretty famously, actually.