Pope takes sides in a science debate

jmotivator said:
Pope Francis was a practicing chemist before entering seminary, and I agree with his interpretation of the Biblically established duty of Christians to be good stewards of the Earth.. but his encyclical is based on bad science, in my opinion.

We are all called to be good stewards of the Earth, but we are not all called to be stewards in the ways suggested by the Pope.
Click to expand...

Unless you're Catholic he's not talking to you.
 
aloysious said:
Not in a Catholic journal. Two published though. It takes a lot of work to get it right. One usually has to resubmit after it's rejected for improper submission guidelines. Virtually every climate publication I've seen published would be rejected by real scientific journals. They don't even come close to getting it right. They're laughable to anybody that's published real scientific articles. It's not. Who cares about his opinion? I want my pope to tell me to be a good boy in Latin. No better than Leonardo DiCaprio's opinion. I want him to sing and dance for me, not his opinion about the weather. I wonder how he reconciles that with religion. I guess religion won out. AGW is a religion, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Didn't you say you're an atheist? You don't have to listen to a Pope tell you to be a good boy or anything else.

An encyclical isn't the same as a peer-reviewed science article, it's a teaching tool. He's trying to convey the idea that taking care of the earth is for everyone's benefit. I don't see why that's controversial. Then again, the whole politicization of science is stupid, IMO. Fight it out with facts, not liberal/conservative bias.

The Church also supports Darwin and evolution, go figure.


http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
 
It's cute the way liberals think they can give mad ups to one Papal pronouncement and ignore others.

It's like they think they are in a "Cathoteria". :rofl2:
 
God bless America said:
It's cute the way liberals think they can give mad ups to one Papal pronouncement and ignore others.

It's like they think they are in a "Cathoteria". :rofl2:
Click to expand...

The Bible says Noah was 950 years old when he died. He built the Ark at the young age of 600.

Hilarious!
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Then again, the whole politicization of science is stupid, IMO.
Click to expand...
Agreed
christiefan915 said:
Fight it out with facts, not liberal/conservative bias.
Click to expand...
If climate science studies had the mettle of real science studies and these studies got past the hypothesis of AGW and into the realm of a scientific theory I swear I'd be on board with bells on. But the fact is they don't. And that's not bias.
 
Darth Omar said:
“All of us have a responsibility, all of us, small or large, a moral responsibility. We have to take it seriously. We can’t joke about it,” he said. “Each person has their own. Even politicians have their own.”

Ahead of the Paris summit in 2015, Francis wrote a major encyclical, or papal letter, on the care of the environment which backed the gradual elimination of fossil fuels to stem global warming.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...a82b&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
________________

Shouldn't the Pope be preaching about Christianity? Or if he wants to delve into politics, radical Islam has committed genocide on Christians in parts of the Middle East. Why not comment on that?

The AGW debate is fundamentally about climate science and not politics or morality. I presume Francis' background is in theology and not atmospheric physics.

His is just an opinion---and it's no better than mine.
Click to expand...

Let me keep this simple for you: There is no "AGW debate".

AGW is at this point settled science, although as with any settled science, there are always questions around the margins and questions about the ultimate impacts. Indeed, there is still much to learn, and many questions to be answered about evolution and natural selection, even though the broad outlines have been settled science for well over a century.

Global warming is also one of the major environmental, social, and economic issues of our generation, even arguably the defining issue of our generation. What we do - or do not do - now, will have lasting consequences, perhaps even dire consequences.

As one of the leading spiritual and philosophical leaders of humanity, is it well within reason for the Pope to make statements about global warming and other threats to the environment of our planet.
 
aloysious said:
Agreed
If climate science studies had the mettle of real science studies and these studies got past the hypothesis of AGW and into the realm of a scientific theory I swear I'd be on board with bells on. But the fact is they don't. And that's not bias.
Click to expand...
You have no clue.
 
Darth Omar said:
I don't buy the nonsense that CO2 is an environmental issue.

Environmental issues have to do with actual pollution.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. They have carefully and diligently studied case law, and legislative intent and concluded that EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

You are an anonymous message board poster with no legal or scientific background, and you have not spent a single nanosecond studying relevant case law or even reading the Clean Air Act.

Who's opinion do you think is therefore given great weight? Anonymous poster Darth Omar? Or the Supreme Court of the United States?
 
Cypress said:
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. They have carefully and diligently studied case law, and legislative intent and concluded that EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

You are an anonymous message board poster with no legal or scientific background, and you have not spent a single nanosecond studying relevant case law or even reading the Clean Air Act.

Who's opinion do you think is therefore given great weight? Anonymous poster Darth Omar? Or the Supreme Court of the United States?
Click to expand...

I dont care who ruled on it, it's nonsense.

SCOTUS ruled that the EPA was only able to regulate CO2 emissions from factories and power plants. Why not regulate bovine flatus? How is exhaling any different? Why not attach a carbon tax to every child produced?

It quickly gets absurd because CO2 is not a pollutant. It just isn't. Even SCOTUS can't make it one.
 
christiefan915 said:
^ I have no idea what that means. And to say "many (Catholics, I suppose) adore and admire him more than the Creator" is just silliness. I don't know, maybe you're not Catholic; non-Catholics get some strange ideas about the faith. All Catholic believers have only one God.
Click to expand...

How great that people are standing up for Catholicism now that Francis makes it convenient. For years it was quite the opposite, was it not? Yeah, Francis says things that liberals think fits their agenda. Good on him.
So to your question. Who elected him to pope? Other humans. Now look at the crowds every time a pope comes around. Who's ring are they eager to kiss? Whom do they admire, bow to?
Don't get me wrong, this happens outside the catholic church too. TV evangelists have almost as big a crowd as the pope. Idol worship.
So calm down, Francis is cool as a man. I just don't care for the fanfare or the fact that all the sudden a pope is cited because this one comes across as a liberal and happens to align with climate changers.
 
Darth Omar said:
I dont care who ruled on it, it's nonsense.

SCOTUS ruled that the EPA was only able to regulate CO2 emissions from factories and power plants. Why not regulate bovine flatus? How is exhaling any different? Why not attach a carbon tax to every child produced?

It quickly gets absurd because CO2 is not a pollutant. It just isn't. Even SCOTUS can't make it one.
Click to expand...

It's not? Try breathing a 10% concentration of it, idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top