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: 0, Troll) by kaszz on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:30PM
Great now we can finally assemble those stakes with wood below for that "local warming prognosis". Just need some supply of heretic climate deniers but I heard there's a lot of them in certain groups. Those few upper case letter organizations have already prepared the inquisition. Otherwise there's always that Spanish tradition of "knock on the door at late night" and later confession. Because we know the truth!
One problem that remains is how to make these burning at the stakes carbon neutral? shall we whip the heretics to plant trees before feeling the heat? or would that just be cold? ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @01:59AM
For the record, burning wood is carbon-neutral. You should really flex your brain on that. If you burn something that is part of the carbon cycle, then that is carbon neutral. If you burn something that is sequestered carbon, that is additing carbon to the cycle (like burning fossil fuels). If you bury carbon from the carbon cycle, that is called sequestration and it removed carbon.
So, planting trees, burning trees, is all carbon neutral activity. Burning people is also a carbon neutral activity, unless you start adding natural gas to the mixture. Using garbage heap methane, on the other hand, would be carbon neutral.
Burning coal, bogs, oil, gas or draining swamps and burning those, those are not carbon neutral activities.
This is not that difficult to understand. It's all about the carbon cycle. Learn it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2015, @09:12PM
Any carbon that is trapped in wood is sequestered. It is not all released into the atmosphere immediately after the tree dies, burning is the only way to achieve that, and decomposition doesn't release all the carbon, nor does it release it quickly. Burning wood is no more carbon neutral than burning charcoal or even coal. The burning of plants which decompose quickly would be carbon neutral, but the carbon in wood can stay sequestered for centuries, millennia even. Forest fires occur naturally, yes, but the don't burn everything.