Pope's climate-change stand deepens conservatives' distrust

[webfact]

Pope's climate-change stand deepens conservatives' distrust
By RACHEL ZOLL

NEW YORK (AP) — Conservative distrust of Pope Francis, which has been building in the U.S. throughout his pontificate, is reaching a boiling point over his plan to urge action on climate change — and to do so through a document traditionally used for the most important papal teachings.

For months, Francis has been drafting an encyclical on the environment and global warming which he hopes to release by June or July. Encyclicals are written with the help of a small group of advisers working under strict secrecy. But in a news conference as he traveled last week to the Philippines, Francis gave his strongest signal yet of the direction he'll take.

He said global warming was "mostly" man-made. And he said he wanted his encyclical out in plenty of time to be absorbed before the next round of U.N. climate change talks in Paris in November after the last round in Lima, Peru, failed to reach an agreement.

"I don't know if it (human activity) is the only cause, but mostly, in great part, it is man who has slapped nature in the face," Francis said. "We have in a sense taken over nature."

Even before these remarks, several conservative U.S. commentators had been pre-emptively attacking the encyclical. At Investor's Business Daily, Forbes and TownHall.com, writers had accused the pope of adopting a radical environmental agenda.

"Pope Francis — and I say this as a Catholic — is a complete disaster when it comes to his public policy pronouncements," wrote Steve Moore, chief economist of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "On the economy, and even more so on the environment, the pope has allied himself with the far left and has embraced an ideology that would make people poorer and less free."

At the website of the Catholic journal First Things, a blogger accused the pope of promoting "theologized propaganda" on conservation — a post the journal's editor later disavowed — and published guidance by prominent Catholic thinker Robert George about what should be considered authoritative in an encyclical and what could be ignored.

"For the most part, they are conservatives who have criticized other Catholics in the past for disagreeing with definitive statements in papal encyclicals." said David Cloutier, a theologian at Mount St. Mary's University in Maryland who specializes in the environment. "They're scared that the document is going to say something definitive that they can't agree with. That will put them in a very difficult situation."

While Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI took strong stands in favor of environmental protection, Francis will be the first to address climate change in such a significant way. He will be doing so following a series of sermons, interviews and writings that have unsettled American conservatives accustomed to hearing many of their priorities — on abortion and marriage especially — echoed loudly from Rome.

Francis' strong and frequent denunciations of the global financial system and trickle-down economic theories prompted radio host Rush Limbaugh to call the pope's economic views "pure Marxism." The pontiff has said he is simply quoting church teaching on helping the poor.

After Francis helped normalize U.S. relations with Cuba, Sen. Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American and Florida Republican who opposed detente, said he would "ask His Holiness to take up the cause of freedom and democracy."

By tackling climate change, Francis is marching through yet another U.S. partisan minefield and taking a position abhorrent to many Republicans. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to consider climate-change real and largely man-made. While about a quarter of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents agree, the rest blame natural patterns, say not enough is known or insist warming is not occurring at all, according to the Pew Research Center. In the new GOP-controlled Senate, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who has called global warming a "hoax," has been chosen by fellow Republicans as head of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

"What they're worried about is the solution," said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. "Climate change is the ultimate collective-action problem. It's going to require local, state and national policy change, and it's going to require international cooperation, which means the United Nations."

Those on all sides of the debate will be watching for how far the pope will delve into the science around climate change in the body of the encyclical. In a news conference last August, Francis said that since the document is "doctrinal and needs to be certain," less-certain scientific theories could be mentioned in footnotes. But the pope did not offer any examples.

The Rev. James Bretzke, a moral theologian at Boston College, predicts the document will address larger spiritual and moral themes, such as care for God's creation and the poor who are most affected by climate change, along with calls for global cooperation to address the problem.

"The fact of climate change will be accepted and underscored," Bretzke said. "I think it would be a safe bet to suggest that the encyclical will be fairly concrete and specific and that there will likely be some specific ethical calls for action that will cause a certain amount of discomfort to a broad range of various populations — from First World manufacturers to emerging Third World economies such as China."

Francis is due to speak at the United Nations in New York in September where he may press the assembly on global warming before climate change talks begin. He has already urged negotiators to be "courageous."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-20

[daveAustin]

Well at least he is of some use on occasion and the yanks are only upset because they are one of the biggest contributors of dumping CO2 and other nasties into the atmosphere. Just a shame he's totally off-kilter and out of touch on birth control, as with his predecessors, not to mention the waste of money, time and effort (apart from the observatory and sciences) that is the Holy See and that whole faith.

[NeverSure]

He needs to stick to his religion and stay out of politics. They've never mixed. We don't need another big religion telling us what to do.

[Nakajima]

If you are not Catholic you don't even need to listen to him. The point is the American conservatives were perfectly fine with the previous nazi homophobic child abuser Pope and always bring him up. They cannot just accept this one because he speaks against their real true God: money and capitalism. I guess that, even if Jesus came back, American conservatives would crucify him again if he spoke against the Koch brothers.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Nakajima

[canuckamuck]

There is no indication that the warming of the last century was anything other than a part of a natural cycle.

[klauskunkel]

Global warming - just pray it down.

[Nakajima]

There is no indication that the warming of the last century was anything other than a part of a natural cycle.

and you have a master degree in.... ? trolling nonsense? Oh yeah you got that one all right!

[DoctorG]

On the other hand, his denial of contraception is increasing the world's population, and therefore greater global warming (if you believe in it of course).

[NeverSure]

Well, if there is global warming and it is human caused, you then couldn't blame it on liberals.

[reptile91602]

This has nothing to do with politics. It is about a simple man with information that leads him to believe that there is global warming and it is dangerous for the future of mankind. He just happens to be a pope which if you aren;t Catholic you would never need to listen to anyway of course unless your constuents are Catholic and youér a stinken Republican.

[canuckamuck]

This has nothing to do with politics. It is about a simple man .... He just happens to be a pope.

Sorry I took out some bits, but this premise shows your ability to overlook reality in order to make an agenda fit the details.

[canuckamuck]

There is no indication that the warming of the last century was anything other than a part of a natural cycle.

and you have a master degree in.... ? trolling nonsense? Oh yeah you got that one all right!

Prove me wrong.

[willyumiii]

"On the economy, and even more so on the environment, the pope has allied himself with the far left and has embraced an ideology that would make people poorer and less free."

Very true

The rich and greedy will become a little poorer if they no longer have the freedom to rape the environment for huge profits.

I don't understand how this could be a bad thing.

Best Pope of my life time and I am not young or Christian!

[Nakajima]

There is no indication that the warming of the last century was anything other than a part of a natural cycle.

and you have a master degree in.... ? trolling nonsense? Oh yeah you got that one all right!

Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof stays with the person that make the claim, that is you.

If I say : you cannot prove God doesn't exists, I didn't prove he exists. That is child talk and usually the only way conservatives can argue.

This is simple scientific method that I understand is hard to grasp to conservatives that claim wind mills raise global warming because they stop the wind.

However, I will say 2 things:

1. people that support the theory of global warming are all well recognized scientists and nobel prices winners including Stephen Hawking. On the other side we have business corporations and conservative politicians that are the only one who have to loose from this fact plus a bunch of ignorants that deny also the theory of evolution and think dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago together with humans.

2. here are few web sites that published irrefutable (to anyone with a basic knowledge of science) evidence:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (yeah NASA, those people that managed to send rocket in space)

and this one to answer any further question you may have:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked

You can clearly see the difference between us: you just shout nonsense without any evidence for your claim and then ask others to provide evidence, which I did.

If you dare to reply with your own evidence, please don't post links to Jeb Bush web site or Alex Jones. Respectable source of information only.

I also would like to remind you that the engineers that built computer you are using, the doctors that cure you, they all use the same scientific method that leads to the global warming theory. Science works because you are using it every day, conservative bullshit only do work in making corporations richer and people dumber. Evidence of the last would be you.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Nakajima

[Doc46]

So now the pope is putting his 2 bob in about the So called Global warming,,I would say Stay out of things you know nothing about and go and pray for peace in the world and no violence.

[RickBradford]

The burden of proof stays with the person that make the claim, that is you.

Not just wrong, but as wrong as wrong can be.

It is the climate alarm muppets who are running around wailing 'catastrophe' and demanding that we dismantle the Western industrial system.

That is the claim that must be proved, and as Carl Sagan pointed out: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

That evidence has not been forthcoming.

[Nakajima]

The burden of proof stays with the person that make the claim, that is you.

Not just wrong, but as wrong as wrong can be.

It is the climate alarm muppets who are running around wailing 'catastrophe' and demanding that we dismantle the Western industrial system.

That is the claim that must be proved, and as Carl Sagan pointed out: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

That evidence has not been forthcoming.

Nice how you just ignored all the links and just repeated the mindless conservative slogan, providing no counter evidence.

"That evidence has not been forthcoming", you have no authority to say that. You have to provide evidence obtained with scientific method.

First of all there is nothing extraordinary about global warming, it happened every time a large amount of CO2 has been released in the atmosphere during the past 4.54 billions years, this is documented earth geologic history which conservative like to ignore just like they ignore evolution. This time the only change is what's releasing CO2, not volcanic eruptions but men.

97% of scientists agree with climate change the only puppets that don't get it are the old tired conservatives like Palin: a shiny example of modern times intelligence! You are in that group.

Why would scientist that have been trying to do their best to advance our civilization would want to dismantle it? So to be all jobless? As a matter of facts, our civilization has indeed advanced just because of science while conservatives have been trying to keep it still since the ancient times when they claimed the Sun spin around the Earth because their religion said so.

It just makes no sense to anyone but conservatives. You refuse the science that you are using every day. You refuse to see that science almost unanimously agrees with global warming except a 3% of oil corporations sponsored pseudo scientists.

I provided a link to NASA which has shaped every part of our technology while researching space travels.

If you don't trust science please by all mean do us all a favor and don't go to see doctors anymore. Stop using the Internet too.

And we should believe a goon like you coming here and saying that there are no evidence, or talking about absurd conspiracy, when we all know the only interest that motivates humans to lie is money. I really'd like you to tell me that scientists are going to make more money than oil companies. If you believe so please run as GOP candidate 2016, Palin did it and she wasn't much smarter than you.

Besides, you people miss the whole point. Scientists do not want to stop technology or send us back to stone age, they simple want to have the chance to advance research so we can finally master cold fusion (you can google it if you can read) and some other energy source, maybe matter-anti matter reaction.

Hawkins already stated that we need to master space travel because our planet cannot sustain us for another thousands years. But we cannot if we have to depends on oil to make the Bush and Koch family rich. We just need to slow down a little while we can actually discover what we need to move once our natural resources are finished.

You are filled with propaganda that has zero science behind. Not that you don't show it, clearly, since you are unable to read the links I posted making a fool of yourself.

But that's conservative main prerogative. We would not want to steal it from you.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Nakajima

[RickBradford]

Nice how you just ignored all the links

I didn't ignore the links -- I've read all that stuff before.

In fact, I've read all of your post before multiple times in various formats, all the usual silly points -- name-calling (check), unsupported Big Oil slur (check), tired old 97% consensus claim (check), idiotic comparison with doctors (check), creating a 'conspiracy' straw man (check), baseless assumptions as to what I believe (check), grandiose moral self-righteousness (check), inchoate rage (check) etc etc

I've got to hand it to you -- you are a textbook case, almost a mosaic, of the person who passionately believes in catastrophic man-made global warming.

I'm so glad I'm on the other side.

[Ulysses G.]

There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. That is false propaganda.

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

[canuckamuck]

Nakajima, you seem to be an angry person and full of insults. Did you know that is a sign of someone arguing from a position in which he has no confidence.

All I said was that there is no evidence that last century's warming (of less than a degree) cannot be discounted as part of the natural cycle. I say this not only because we are still recovering from an ice age, but also because the climate record shows many warming and cooling periods and we are currently at a low temperature - if you take the last 10,000 years as an average. In fact I would say it is unusually cool and any warming we are now experiencing is actually overdue. All of this is well documented and does not require any proving.

By the way you were correct about the correlation between CO2 and warming in the temperature record. But it is the other way around. The increase in CO2 lags behind the temperature increase by about 700 years. Indicating, that temperature increase drives the ocean to release more CO2. Oops, if temperature drives carbon, then how can carbon drive temperature. Head scratcher eh?

[RickBradford]

Nakajima, you seem to be an angry person and full of insults.

Don't you just love that rage?

The best-selling author Naomi Klein is full of it (in both senses) -- she's always trying to figure out how the massive manufactured 'consensus' of climate alarmists is getting beaten hollow in the court of public opinion by what she chooses to believe is a tiny minority of people, who, according to her, are made up of Old Conservative White Men (OCWM) who totter around retirement homes, wearing bathrobes and doing jigsaw puzzles.

The answer is that skeptics are supermen (and women).

They must be, because the AGW crowd claim to have the science, they claim to have the consensus; they have the money, academia and the media; they have the UN, the EU, the IMF, the World Bank, and still they're getting trashed. Another UN climate conference, another big zero.

Yes, just watch those OCWM 'denialists' race to the nearest phone booth to cram on their toupees and put in their teeth, as they transform into That Vicious Well-Organised Oil-Funded Denialist Machine to thwart the noble AGW fighters.

Edited January 20, 2015 by RickBradford

[Nakajima]

Nice how you just ignored all the links

I didn't ignore the links -- I've read all that stuff before.

In fact, I've read all of your post before multiple times in various formats, all the usual silly points -- name-calling (check), unsupported Big Oil slur (check), tired old 97% consensus claim (check), idiotic comparison with doctors (check), creating a 'conspiracy' straw man (check), baseless assumptions as to what I believe (check), grandiose moral self-righteousness (check), inchoate rage (check) etc etc

I've got to hand it to you -- you are a textbook case, almost a mosaic, of the person who passionately believes in catastrophic man-made global warming.

I'm so glad I'm on the other side.

When someone's paranoid delusions claim that world scientists destroying Western civilization out of non specified motives is more likely than corporations trying to get away with profits then you deserve all the name callings.

You have no evidence about any of your claim, nor do people have to follow what a video game critic thinks about how a conversation should take place (yup the straw men example).

This is not a conversation based on opinions that has to follow any set of rule, the only rule that applies here is the scientific method.

"idiotic comparison with doctors" I know for you science must feel so idiotic, fortunately for the rest of us, it's not. All science follow a scientific method and if you question the method you question all the results from all science that derived from that method. So it's very logical to compare different theories that derive from the same observation method.

Also please tell me: WHO ARE YOU to say what's silly and idiotic? What degrees do you have? What is your life achievement in the matter of science?

I need no assumptions in what you believe, you said it by talking about "destroying western industrial system".

I have no grandiose moral self-righteousness because it's not moral, it's science (alltho seems to be the same for conservatives) and I do not carry my own opinions I am simply a humble rational person following the scientific method.

All of this has happened before:

Case one:

Scientists: the Earth is round.

Conservatives: the earth is flat you cannot prove is round.

Scientist: we have observed globe curvature.

Conservatives: your claim will destroy our society.

Few hundreds years later: scientist were right, we laugh at conservatives.

Case two:

Galileo: the earth spin around the sun.

Conservatives: is the other way around like we always thought

Galielo: we have observed the earth spinning around the sun

Conservatives: your claim will destroy our society, the earth and men are at the center of the universe.

Galileo threatened to be burned at stake abandon his claims

Few hundreds years later: Galileo was right, we laugh at conservatives.

Thank you for let us keep laughing.

Luckily you are a very, very, very very small minority in the world and soon to be extinct, the future belong to young open minded orientated to science, since its beginning, the world has always become more scientific, more liberal and nothing you can do to stop it.

Your sentence carry no weight just because you and some other fox news brainwashed conservatives think so, you need evidence. Claiming that a theory is wrong because is not been proven enough (to your opinion) doesn't make it such, nor the fact that a paid off minority of scientists claim so.

If you had studied in your life we wouldn't even be having this discussion because you would not be responding science with politics, you would know what scientific method is, I learned that is secondary school.

Reason-based beliefs are discovered and verified through the scientific method. The scientific method is when one observes reality with one's five senses, makes logical hypotheses based on one's observation, and then does experiments to prove or disprove one's hypotheses.

Faith-based goals usually are designed to make one happy, not to know as much about the real universe as possible. Faith-based beliefs are usually taught by some so called authority and then uncritically believed by the believer. They are not based on the scientific method.

[Nakajima]

Nakajima, you seem to be an angry person and full of insults. Did you know that is a sign of someone arguing from a position in which he has no confidence.

All I said was that there is no evidence that last century's warming (of less than a degree) cannot be discounted as part of the natural cycle. I say this not only because we are still recovering from an ice age, but also because the climate record shows many warming and cooling periods and we are currently at a low temperature - if you take the last 10,000 years as an average. In fact I would say it is unusually cool and any warming we are now experiencing is actually overdue. All of this is well documented and does not require any proving.

By the way you were correct about the correlation between CO2 and warming in the temperature record. But it is the other way around. The increase in CO2 lags behind the temperature increase by about 700 years. Indicating, that temperature increase drives the ocean to release more CO2. Oops, if temperature drives carbon, then how can carbon drive temperature. Head scratcher eh?

You have got to be kidding me right? You say it's unusual cool? I feel cold too tonight, well then you must be right! Yeah science works just like this.

You are really citing 'science' from The Institute for Creation Research http://www.icr.org/article/4128 and want me to answer you seriously?

You are coming discussing about science carrying the scientific "weight" of people that believe an invisible man created everything as it is few thousand years ago?

Then you wonder why I have to insult people like you?

Please go extinct like the dinosaurs Creationists believe existed not so long ago!

Mistake not, you will.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Nakajima

[Nakajima]

Nakajima, you seem to be an angry person and full of insults.

Don't you just love that rage?

The best-selling author Naomi Klein is full of it (in both senses) -- she's always trying to figure out how the massive manufactured 'consensus' of climate alarmists is getting beaten hollow in the court of public opinion by what she chooses to believe is a tiny minority of people, who, according to her, are made up of Old Conservative White Men (OCWM) who totter around retirement homes, wearing bathrobes and doing jigsaw puzzles.

The answer is that skeptics are supermen (and women).

They must be, because the AGW crowd claim to have the science, they claim to have the consensus; they have the money, academia and the media; they have the UN, the EU, the IMF, the World Bank, and still they're getting trashed. Another UN climate conference, another big zero.

Yes, just watch those OCWM 'denialists' race to the nearest phone booth to cram on their toupees and put in their teeth, as they transform into That Vicious Well-Organised Oil-Funded Denialist Machine to thwart the noble AGW fighters.

ooooooooooooooooh right! Science has all the money, not corporations! That makes sense! A lot! That's why we had to shut down many important research that would possibly find a alternative energy source because of lack of funding. Yeah yeah that makes totally sense. We all know scientists never need money and especially never from corporations. And we all know how oil doesn't really drive any political choice... sure sure.

That must be it! My rage doesn't come from arguing with people that have the scientific knowledge of a 6 yo kid, nor the fact that they are going after their idol "the pope" just after he started to talk against Reagan's faulty economics. I have never heard any conservative telling the previous pope to mind his own business when he welcome homophobic world leaders, ex nazi, child abusers! Not a word.

Gosh you would crucify Jesus again just to defend your real god: profit!

I don't mind I am an atheist but still....

Edited January 20, 2015 by Nakajima

[Nakajima]

There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. That is false propaganda.

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

I am sorry but I am unable to read your link because it's for subscriber only, but I am sure if the author is an accomplished scientist you will be able to find his research somewhere else to link, maybe a scientific site since we are talking about science would be preferable than the Wall Street Journal which is more of a business publication. But I will settle for anything I can read without need of subscription.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Nakajima

[RickBradford]

Gosh you would crucify Jesus again just to defend your real god: profit!

As a practising Christian, I find that remark extremely offensive. But you don't care about that, do you?

All you display, is trolling to get a reaction by abusing anyone who disagrees with you as stupid, evil, infantile, paid-off, and uneducated. Your abusive attitude says much more about you than it does about me.

[willyumiii]

Gosh you would crucify Jesus again just to defend your real god: profit!

As a practising Christian, I find that remark extremely offensive. But you don't care about that, do you?[/size]

All you display, is trolling to get a reaction by abusing anyone who disagrees with you as stupid, evil, infantile, paid-off, and uneducated. [/size]Your abusive attitude says much more about you than it does about me.[/size]

"As a practising Christian, I find that remark extremely offensive. But you don't care about that, do you?"

Why are Christians still practicing?

After 2015 years you would think they know what they are doing.

But no, justifying belief in an invisible man is still hard to do.

Get over your fantasies, global warming is real.

Only those who make money or hope to make money with the companies who are destroying the environment deny it exists.

This man is the first Pope who seems to put people before money in his church.

I am not Christian, but I admire him..he has balls and a heart!

Edited January 20, 2015 by willyumiii

[canuckamuck]

Nakajima, you seem to be an angry person and full of insults. Did you know that is a sign of someone arguing from a position in which he has no confidence.

All I said was that there is no evidence that last century's warming (of less than a degree) cannot be discounted as part of the natural cycle. I say this not only because we are still recovering from an ice age, but also because the climate record shows many warming and cooling periods and we are currently at a low temperature - if you take the last 10,000 years as an average. In fact I would say it is unusually cool and any warming we are now experiencing is actually overdue. All of this is well documented and does not require any proving.

By the way you were correct about the correlation between CO2 and warming in the temperature record. But it is the other way around. The increase in CO2 lags behind the temperature increase by about 700 years. Indicating, that temperature increase drives the ocean to release more CO2. Oops, if temperature drives carbon, then how can carbon drive temperature. Head scratcher eh?

You have got to be kidding me right? You say it's unusual cool? I feel cold too tonight, well then you must be right! Yeah science works just like this.

You are really citing 'science' from The Institute for Creation Research http://www.icr.org/article/4128 and want me to answer you seriously?

You are coming discussing about science carrying the scientific "weight" of people that believe an invisible man created everything as it is few thousand years ago?

Then you wonder why I have to insult people like you?

Please go extinct like the dinosaurs Creationists believe existed not so long ago!

Mistake not, you will.

Here is where we are at the far right of the last 10,000 year's temperature record.

[RickBradford]

Why are Christians still practicing?

After 2015 years you would think they know what they are doing.

As they say, the old jokes are the best ones. That one must be the exception that proves the rule.

This man is the first Pope who seems to put people before money in his church.

I am not Christian, but I admire him..he has balls and a heart!

So does a water-buffalo. The difference is that the water-buffalo can't produce Papal Bull.

[Scott]

Perhaps if the Pope would have them light fewer candles it would help.