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: 2) by Reziac on Friday June 19 2015, @04:58AM
An interesting comment elsewhere (sorry it's secondhand, I can't get at the original; effing Disqus)
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/18/deforestation-in-the-uk/#comment-711297 [judithcurry.com]
From the comments thread: ithakavi wrote “Sorry, but I’ll take a pass on this one. The encyclical is 189 pages long, and Francis didn’t write it. Perhaps JPII or BXVI could write on a subject with intellectual depth for 189 pages, but not Francis. This encyclical was written by a committee headed by Peter Cardinal Turkson, whose expertise in both physics and economics is approximately zero. Doing as he suggests (erecting an enormous unelected irresponsible corrupt international agency to forcibly restructure global industrial policy) will result in the starvation of tens if not hundreds of millions of people in the Third World. Francis has once again made a fool of himself and embarrassed the faithful.”
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-06-17-pope-francis-enters-climate-change-maelstrom/ [dailymaverick.co.za]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @06:28AM
Judith Miller? Yes, this sounds totally credible. (Yeah, Curry, that's better. Who is this? And it is a comment by someone else on this site? Chain of personal responsibility, AC. ) On the one hand, they cannot count. That is always a bad sign. On the second, Francis could not have written it because he is "dumb", as in less intelligent that Pope Ratz who could not even go on to die in office? Just because you were head of the Office of the Inquisition does not mean you are smart. In fact, well, we'll just let that sink in for a bit. Written by committee? OMG? What do you think most world leaders do? Spend all their time writing letters and speeches? Next you will be telling us that Pope Francis was using a Teleprompter! And establishing a corrupt global authority? I thought that was what TPP was for! No, this has no cred, it is BS, Right wing driveling santorum of the lowest quality, from someone who obviously has not, as suggested, actually read the damn encyclical. Try again, conservative American "Catholic"!
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday June 19 2015, @07:36AM
The encyclical is 189 pages long,
That's odd..
the one that I've been reading is 82 pages PDF English translation:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.pdf [vatican.va]
I'm now about to start on chapter 4 but it's heavy going, and today Midsommar [youtube.com] is priority.
Thanks aristarchus and janrinok, I see it was actually useful to update the article with the proper link :-) people are more likely to read 82 pages than 189 pages.
Maybe that "189 pages" thing was the draft version or something. Italian is not twice as wordy as English.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday June 19 2015, @12:52PM
Probably depends on the font size each has it set to. If I made it a comfortable size for old eyes to read in hardcopy, it might be 400 pages!
As a more accurate measure, I checked it in a word processer, and it's about 43,000 words long. That's about half of an average paperback novel.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @03:39PM
I agree, 189 is odd. Obviously the encyclical contains at least one sheet of paper that is printed on only on one side.
SCNR