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

[Recusant]

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.

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.

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.

 

[mad825]

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.

 

[Cowabungaa]

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. [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150619152142.htm] It's like the dystopian cyberpunk universe is actually coming to fruition.

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 [https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm], 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.

 

[TallanKhan]

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

What? Clickbait? Have you even checked the contents? No [http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1] respectable [https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm] publications? [http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706] 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?

 

[Shiftygiant]

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.

 

[sorsa]

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.

 

[BeerTent]

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.

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.

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.[footnote]Both articles has links to respected scientist's publications.[/footnote]

You probably didn't read the list.[footnote]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.[/footnote]

Or do any further research on your own.[footnote]Because that would be work! D:[/footnote]

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

 

[K12]

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.

 

[MonsterCrit]

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.

 

[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.

So much like with the abolition of slavery and the metric system America will lag behind the rest of the world for about 40 years

 

[dangoball]

Reading the comments I find it interesting that some people criticize the Pope for speaking on a topic of science, saying he should leave science to scientists or that a man of religion is not able to be a man of reason at the same time (remember, Descartes, father of modern mathematics and philosophy, was a Christian), even though Pope Francis actually has scientific education in chemistry.
I wonder how many of you have any education on the topic of religion, as the consensus seems to be "thou shall not speak of a topic you do not know jack shit about". And no, having a religious grandma and flipping off Jehova's witnesses does not count.

Anyway, OT: Good on the old guy. I've known for some time that he's a science fan, but such a public gesture of support is a step in good direction. Hopefully some of the stubborn conservatives will follow suit.

 

[mad825]

I wonder how many of you have any education on the topic of religion, as the consensus seems to be "thou shall not speak of a topic you do not know jack shit about". And no, having a religious grandma and flipping off Jehova's witnesses does not count.

There is little to "qualify" in religion other than listening to the story once or actually following the rules of your religion if you've got nothing else in life to do. So this pretty much validates everyone.

Went to a Christian school, went to church for 8 years every week and tried my best to read the bible and it was even worse waste of my time than learning a subject for a possible career.

Hopefully some of the stubborn conservatives will follow suit.

Conservatives aren't ignorant just apathetic.

 

[dangoball]

I wonder how many of you have any education on the topic of religion, as the consensus seems to be "thou shall not speak of a topic you do not know jack shit about". And no, having a religious grandma and flipping off Jehova's witnesses does not count.

There is little to "qualify" in religion other than listening to the story once or actually following the rules of your religion if you've got nothing else in life to do. So this pretty much validates everyone.

Went to a Christian school, went to church for 8 years every week and tried my best to read the bible and it was even worse waste of my time than learning a subject for a possible career.

Hopefully some of the stubborn conservatives will follow suit.

Conservatives aren't ignorant just apathetic.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather listen to a theologian or someone with a PhD. in Religious Studies over a guy who went to Sunday school. Believe it or not, religion is a complex phenomenon with so many permutations you might not even realize, just like any subject dealing with humans. You are just as wrong in this assertion as if you said that economics is ONLY supply/demand. Sure, for the basic user that's enough, but there's way more to it than that.

And I didn't call conservatives ignorant, only stubborn. "All it takes for evil to prevail is for the good men to do nothing." - who said that? Their insistence on passivity is what I see as harmful.