SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Despite the santorum splattered about, the Pontiff of the Church Universal and Triumphant [EDIT: This is actually referring to the Roman Catholic Church, not the Church Universal and Triumphant] is going to agree with the climate change consensus in an encyclical to be released on Thursday. Early leaks give some idea of the content.
Pope Francis is preparing to declare humans as primarily responsible for climate change, call for fossil fuels to be replaced by renewable energy and decry the culture of consumerism, a leaked draft of his much anticipated statement on the environment suggests.
The source for this somehow concerns Australians, but we will take any indication of infallibility where we can get it.
So the humble submitter has to wonder, does this mean that climate-change deniers are now to be considered heretics, rather than just Petro shills or anti-environmental conservative conspiracy theorists? It does add a entirely new dimension to the debate, and I hope that God will forgive your Conservative asses for screwing up Her creation in the quest for profit.
UPDATE - janrinok 18 Jun 12:36UTC
is it possible to update/append aristarchus' post "Pope Affirms Anthropogenic Global Warming" (https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/06/17/0317256), as follows:
Update: The encyclical can be read and downloaded here.
I am not affiliated with the submitter, aristarchus, or the pope. I have a slightly paranoid reason for asking for this update; it is my experience that, whenever politically important documents are published, the actual document often gets overshadowed by an enormous load of blog commentary, providing a bit of "damage control" and "spin". It is my fervent opinion that the readership of Soylentnews deserves to read the actual source documents. (It's only 82 pages long, in this case, anyway).
Original Submission
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @08:34AM
>That was pretty much the worst summary yet posted, at least as long as I have been reading.
Says UID 4844
>hyper progressive zaniness
Please, try to be more ernest, on no account show a sense of humour.
>nobody deserves that sort of abuse.
They do if they're a fucking idiot, and he is.
>I really couldn't imagine similar treatment for a Democratic candidate in an article summary
Really? Couldnt you?! GOSH!!! Well thats convinced me.
>So unless you guys on the Blue Team
Whats this Blue Team shit? The left has been red 4EVAH you fuckhead. You know "better red than dead"?
"We'll keep the red flag flyig here!"
>really are declaring unrestricted warfare now, and are ready for the return fire, knock that crap off.
Warfare? Really? Can you fight with that stick up your ass?
>Please remember that by this time next year you guys are going to be dutifully ranked behind the most unpleasant
Look you fucking idiot, just because someone critisises a conservative it doesnt folow they're a democrat.
You do get that right? You knob.
>staff can and should be held to slightly higher standards of manners.
Bullshit, the "staff" do a fucking amazing job, maye if you'd ever submitted a story you'd know
that? Huh? Huh? Yuh-think?