Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

Ricter said:
Unless they're immortals, no, it's a different Vatican.
More...

Are you saying that Vatican City moved?

It's the same Vatican --- populated by people with the same level of scientific achievement. Has not changed in the past 1000 years.

So if support the Vatican so much then tell me about how much you support their positions on abortion, birth control, and gay marriage.
 
Ricter said:
The city does not make statements.

Great example you brought up, though. The takeaway is: listen to scientists.

:D
More...

The list below causes one to wonder why people of religion are accused of being scientifically illiterate. Just because a few fundamentalist think the Earth is only 5000 years old should not be reason to broad brush so many others with the same accusation. I'm not implying that you've made that accusation. I do hear it from left wing media non stop, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
 
Last edited:
Spike Trader said:
Jeb Bush: 'The Climate Is Changing' But We Don't Know Who's To Blame

Jeb Bush accepts that the climate is changing, but he is less certain about the notion, supported by an overwhelming number of scientists, that human activities have contributed to the problem.

The former governor of Florida weighed in on the matter Tuesday during a town hall in Derry, New Hampshire, his first campaign stop since announcing his run for president earlier this week.

"The climate is changing, whether men are doing it or not," Bush said, further calling for “policies of adaptation” to prep for its harmful consequences across the country.

Bush also drew applause when he said he remained "a little skeptical" about taking advice on issues like climate change from Pope Francis, who is expected to call for urgent action on climate change, which the pontiff describes as mostly man-made.

Bush, who converted to Catholicism 20 years ago, told town hall attendees that Francis is an "extraordinary leader" and "really cool," but that "religion ought to be about making us better as a people and less about things that end up getting into the political realm."

The governor is not the only candidate in the race for the Republican presidential nomination to acknowledge the existence of climate change. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an environmentally friendly Republican, has promised to "address climate change, CO2 emissions in a business-friendly way.” Candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the Sunshine State's other native son, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), however, have explicitly denied humanity's contribution to climate change.
More...

The right has a few fallback positions left.

Man is contributing, but not in the main.
Man is the main contributor, but nothing can be done.
Something could be done, but it's too costly.
It's less costly today then it will be tomorrow, but we need more study.
 
Oh no, the Pope has been possessed by Beelzebub himself. An exorcism is needed. Give Pat Robertson a call. Science Pope and religious Pope cannot share the same space.
 
cmon nitro...you are trolling... but you succeeded in pulling me back in.



a. so first I will ask you as the the science guy on this board... have you yet even found one peer reviewed paper stating man made co2 is causing warming? How come? I will tell you why... they don't exist.... there are few based on failed models... and there was one a few years ago which speculated co2 amplified warming which started via the sun's. (I posted that one here at et once)

so if all the science we have shows co2 levels trail warming and cooling (and this is science in peer reviewed papers) how can anyone claim they know man made co2 is causing warming without citing peer reviewed science?

Where is your science on this Nitro? What science do you have that shows man made co2 is causing warming? seriously... this is a joke coming from you.

b. do you care about the fake consensus? do I have to present to you all the quotes of great minds which explain that consensus is politics and but bad science?

c. finally... of course you realize

Catholics do not have to agree with the a Pope on much. and this pope has not made any ex cathedra statements of which I am aware.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

The terminology of a definitive decree usually makes clear that this last condition is fulfilled, as through a formula such as "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful," or through an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.[15]

For example, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words:

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI stated during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."[16] Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible."[17] A doctrine proposed by a pope as his own opinion, not solemnly proclaimed as a doctrine of the Church, may be rejected as false, even if it is on a matter of faith and morals, and even more any view he expresses on other matters. A well-known example of a personal opinion on a matter of faith and morals that was taught by a pope but rejected by the Church is the view that Pope John XXII expressed on when the dead can reach the beatific vision.[18] The limitation on the pope's infallibility "on other matters" is frequently illustrated by Cardinal James Gibbons's recounting how the pope mistakenly called him Jibbons.[19][20][21][22][23]
.[24][25]
 
Hey jerm. Did you ever find a quote from a publishing climatologist denying man made global warming? Come on, there must be at least one if, like you say, only 0.03% believe in AGW.

Come on jerm. ONE statement expressly denying AGW. If you cannot find one author denying it we must assume that the consensus is 100% not 97%.

You are a joke.
 
Dr. Oreskes’s approach has been to dig deeply into the history of climate change denial, documenting its links to other episodes in which critics challenged a developing scientific consensus.

Her core discovery, made with a co-author, Erik M. Conway, was twofold. They reported that dubious tactics had been used over decades to cast doubt on scientific findings relating to subjects like acid rain, the ozone shield, tobacco smoke and climate change. And most surprisingly, in each case, the tactics were employed by the same group of people.

The central players were serious scientists who had major career triumphs during the Cold War, but in subsequent years apparently came to equate environmentalism with socialism, and government regulation with tyranny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top