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, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @02:50PM
Is he going to invoke Ex Cathedra on this topic? That would pretty much seal the deal for the church if the temps cycle down for a decade or two.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:47PM
Same AC. This could end up a two-fer. This AGW thing may end up discrediting both one of the largest religious institutions in the world along with many scientific ones in the eyes of the public.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @05:10PM
Discredit only in the minds of idiots who look at any day-to-day decline and scream "SEE! I TOLD YOU!!!" Look at the stock market. What is your expert analysis over the last 80 years or so? It's been going up. There are regions where it goes down for a year or so, but over the long haul, it has been going up. But that doesn't stop fuckwads from proclaiming cause/effect for every little up and down. I remember Rush Limbaugh blaming the typical daily decline in the stock market the day after Obama on the '08 election on some grandiose economic statement being sent by "Wall Street" on what they think of Obama. Same thing here. An unusual cold spell hits and the fucking idiots start spouting off like morons "Huh! Where's this SUPPOSED global warming? Just look outside!" Any fucking moron can take a bucket with a spout in it, and they can tell that if they are putting more water into the bucket than can flow out, that the bucket will overflow. Why don't you look at that and say, "we really can't say if the bucket will overflow despite the fact that "they" want to claim that the "science" of bucket filling is settled."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @05:38PM
Sure, is the numerator increasing or the denominator decreasing. In fact we know it is policy to constantly decrease the denominator. Bad example.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 17 2015, @07:57PM
Look at the stock market. What is your expert analysis over the last 80 years or so? It's been going up.
I predict that the past won't change and that a whole century from now, the stock market will still have gone up over this 80 year period. The problem comes in when you start making predictions about things that are unknown rather than things that are known.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @09:26PM
Woah.
I assume that made sense in your head. But to everybody else living in their own heads, that is just some whacked out meaningless drivel. Are you tripping on some DMT today?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @09:49PM
There was some sloppy use of the word prediction, but it made sense to me...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 17 2015, @10:05PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @10:10PM
> There's two obvious factors you ignore.
That's cute you think I'm disputing whatever meaning you've imbued to your ramblings.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 17 2015, @11:52PM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 17 2015, @08:12PM
This could end up a two-fer. This AGW thing may end up discrediting both . . .
So then there would be nothing we could rely on, but Fox News. Now the connection to Australia becomes clear! This is all about Murdoch!