Well, setting aside the climate change issue, I guess I'm confused that you seem to think that raising taxes on alcohol or tobacco doesn't result in lower usage.

Maybe I misunderstood your point….

No, I read the entire thing and gave it all of the gravity that it deserves being a weighty Papal encyclical, yet still non-binding.

Dies Irae said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

This is so religious...


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-an-end-to-the-era-of-fossil-fuel-in-prayer-for-creation-message/

---

You should not be posting about the Pope in negative ways in public.

---

No one is above criticism.

---

Definitely not, but the Church is our mother, and even if you have a bad mother, you shouldnt air your dirty laundry in Public, keep it in the family.

---

The Pope put this in public. Are you suggesting this neomarxist tripe is magisterial teaching?

---

No, only that he is currently the Vicar of Christ, and deserves the respect that comes with it

---

I respect the truth and agree he is the vicar of Christ. Unfortunately his political sensibilities and/or the political sensibilities of those he chooses to surround himself with are sympathetic to neomarxism, whether he realizes it or not. Do you think it is disrespectful to state the obvious?

---

It was the Pope's political activism that compelled me to take a long, hard, look at him and of the doctrine of Catholicism which culminated in my leaving that system. I realized that the Pope was NOT following the example of Jesus as evidenced by his frequent forays into the political realm, something that Jesus NEVER did nor did the apostles. Soon thereafter I realized that both the Pope and the Catholic Church are "of the world".

1 John 5:19
19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

John 15:19
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

---

This is a terrible reason for leaving the Catholic Church

---

But it explains his posting style. He's still trying to convince himself he did the right thing.

---

You can continue to follow and exalt the Pope but I'm going to follow Jesus. No problem.

---

Jesus was the first person to institute and exalt the Pope while giving him his charge, in the Gospels of Matthew and John.

Do not be like those who said "this teaching is hard, who can accept it?"

The Church is His body, that He has instituted to lead His flock in His earthly absence. Defy that at your own risk.

---

You sound like some of my Mormon neighbors who justified Brigham Young's defense of slavery "because he was the Prophet".

Think of the poor as the canary in the coal mine.

UTExan said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

This is so religious...


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-an-end-to-the-era-of-fossil-fuel-in-prayer-for-creation-message/

---

You should not be posting about the Pope in negative ways in public.

---

No one is above criticism.

---

Definitely not, but the Church is our mother, and even if you have a bad mother, you shouldnt air your dirty laundry in Public, keep it in the family.

---

The Pope put this in public. Are you suggesting this neomarxist tripe is magisterial teaching?

---

No, only that he is currently the Vicar of Christ, and deserves the respect that comes with it

---

I respect the truth and agree he is the vicar of Christ. Unfortunately his political sensibilities and/or the political sensibilities of those he chooses to surround himself with are sympathetic to neomarxism, whether he realizes it or not. Do you think it is disrespectful to state the obvious?

---

It was the Pope's political activism that compelled me to take a long, hard, look at him and of the doctrine of Catholicism which culminated in my leaving that system. I realized that the Pope was NOT following the example of Jesus as evidenced by his frequent forays into the political realm, something that Jesus NEVER did nor did the apostles. Soon thereafter I realized that both the Pope and the Catholic Church are "of the world".

1 John 5:19
19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

John 15:19
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

---

This is a terrible reason for leaving the Catholic Church

---

But it explains his posting style. He's still trying to convince himself he did the right thing.

---

You can continue to follow and exalt the Pope but I'm going to follow Jesus. No problem.

---

Jesus was the first person to institute and exalt the Pope while giving him his charge, in the Gospels of Matthew and John.

Do not be like those who said "this teaching is hard, who can accept it?"

The Church is His body, that He has instituted to lead His flock in His earthly absence. Defy that at your own risk.

---

You sound like some of my Mormon neighbors who justified Brigham Young's defense of slavery "because he was the Prophet".

---

In what way? The Catholic Church is a 1990 year old institution (literally today is our birthday), led by fallible humans. Our First Pope denied Christ three times in one of his greatest moments of need, why should we expect his successors to be perfect?

PabloSerna said:

---

Think of the poor as the canary in the coal mine.

---

I advocate any voluntary giving to the poor.

I can give a million dollars and it will not lower the temperature.

Dies Irae said:

---

No, I read the entire thing and gave it all of the gravity that it deserves being a weighty Papal encyclical, yet still non-binding.

---

Audible version for me, thems a lot of words!

OK, so I do not recall where the Pope wrote, in THAT encyclical, the "redistribution of wealth" a key factor to lowering global temperature. Can you kindly remind me, chapter and verse?

Maybe I missed it?

PabloSerna said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

No, I read the entire thing and gave it all of the gravity that it deserves being a weighty Papal encyclical, yet still non-binding.

---

Audible version for me, thems a lot of words!

OK, so I do not recall where the Pope wrote, in THAT encyclical, the "redistribution of wealth" a key factor to lowering global temperature. Can you kindly remind me, chapter and verse?

Maybe I missed it?

---

I think you are confusing my posts with Dermdoc, I said the Pope doesn't think that redistribution of wealth is a way to lower global temperature, but rather a way to mitigate some of the fallout that has impacted poor countries from climate change.

Doc, if you come away with anything from this discussion - it is not just about redistribution of wealth in order to lower global warming.

I pointed you to a wealth of literature the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has published. But it would be like telling fishermen who have been fishing all day, having caught nothing, to put into the deep.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

This is so religious...

Government redistributing income.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-an-end-to-the-era-of-fossil-fuel-in-prayer-for-creation-message/

---

You should not be posting about the Pope in negative ways in public.

---

No one is above criticism.

---

Definitely not, but the Church is our mother, and even if you have a bad mother, you shouldnt air your dirty laundry in Public, keep it in the family.

---

The Pope put this in public. Are you suggesting this neomarxist tripe is magisterial teaching?

---

Concern about the environment is Marxist, now? What exactly isn't Marxist?

---

Concern about the environment is good.

All the "solutions" I have seen are socialist in nature. Basically having rich countries transferring wealth to poor countries.

---

What is it you think socialist means?

---

Government redistributing wealth.

---

That's not just socialism. Every system involves that.

Ah- yes, I do know what this line of thinking is in reference to, the common good.

So there is no solution but the Pope is advocating giving more to poor countries?

I am fine with that. But just say that.

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

This is so religious...

Government redistributing income.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-an-end-to-the-era-of-fossil-fuel-in-prayer-for-creation-message/

---

You should not be posting about the Pope in negative ways in public.

---

No one is above criticism.

---

Definitely not, but the Church is our mother, and even if you have a bad mother, you shouldnt air your dirty laundry in Public, keep it in the family.

---

The Pope put this in public. Are you suggesting this neomarxist tripe is magisterial teaching?

---

Concern about the environment is Marxist, now? What exactly isn't Marxist?

---

Concern about the environment is good.

All the "solutions" I have seen are socialist in nature. Basically having rich countries transferring wealth to poor countries.

---

What is it you think socialist means?

---

Government redistributing wealth.

---

That's not just socialism. Every system involves that.

---

Cool.
So tell me what the Paris Accord was about. And what is has accomplished.

dermdoc said:

---

So there is no solution but the Pope is advocating giving more to poor countries?

I am fine with that. But just say that.

---

Solution is a loaded term, instead " is there a way to make the problem better, without causing more issues than we solve?" Is the question we should be asking.

You have to remember the Pope should not be advocating for explicit policy, more to draw attention to an issue and to highlight the moral implications the issue contains. The Pope will almost never say "the United States should immediately ban abortion after conception except when the life of the mother is at stake", rather he will talk about the "culture of death" brought about by contraception, the death penalty, abortion, and guns.

dermdoc said:

---

So there is no solution but the Pope is advocating giving more to poor countries?

I am fine with that. But just say that.

---

I think this is an over simplified way of seeing it. I scanned the Encylical again, and found were some of this thinking may be coming from:

171. The strategy of buying and selling "carbon credits" can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors.

As indicated, the Pope is not advocating for this form of redistribution of wealth because he rightly recognizes that it will only mean that those with the money will do what they want any way and that the cost to do so is not an issue.

Rather, the Pope calls for a new understanding he calls the common good of the environment. A good case in point is the current plight of the Colorado River out west. It is in grave danger of drying up unless all those along the river agree to abide by rules.

One good thing that came out of the Paris Agreement were the Net-Zero targets set for 2030 and 2050.

dermdoc said:

---

So there is no solution but the Pope is advocating giving more to poor countries?

I am fine with that. But just say that.

---

I understand that he is saying that in the future, the more industrialized countries are in a far better place economically to make the transition than other developing countries:

"A further injustice is perpetrated under the guise of protecting the environment. Here also, the poor end up paying the price. Furthermore, since the effects of climate change will be felt for a long time to come, even if stringent measures are taken now, some countries with scarce resources will require assistance in adapting to the effects already being produced, which affect their economies. In this context, there is a need for common and differentiated responsibilities. As the bishops of Bolivia have stated, "the countries which have benefited from a high degree of industrialization, at the cost of enormous emissions of greenhouse gases, have a greater responsibility for providing a solution to the problems they have caused".

Can't really argue with this line of thinking. Was it General Colin Powell that said, "If you break it, you have to fix it"?

Dies Irae said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

First of all, as a Christian I am all in favor of voluntary charitable giving, or voluntary "wealth redistribution". if you will. And I think it is effective.

How does forced or voluntary wealth redistribution lower temperatures? It seems absurd to me.

---

In trying to understand Laudato Si, it seems that the argument is that first world nations have a standard of living that requires harvesting resources (both human and natural) from 3rd world countries and paying them a pittance. Essentially that you have westerners with 6 tv's per house and multiple cars and blah blah blah and the huge energy requirement and you have poor countries with nothing. Now the western countries are using much cleaner energy than the poor countries, but still the Pope is almost always going to sympathize with the poor.

---

And that is fine. How does sending poor countries money help cool things off? And why is that even a suggestion?

---

I don't think that sending monies to poorer countries helps cool things off. I think the Pope is saying that it helps to mitigate some of the damage done by climate change, for those poorer countries. Again, I am not giving you my opinion, just what I think the Pope's point is.

---

I think this gets at the core of the issue for me. Why should richer countries pay poorer countries just because of climate change. Scientist can't even agree on the extent that man causes this. Imagine our ego as a species to think that we have this much control over our surroundings. This is why I think this pope is either not the sharpest knife in the drawer or he just can't help himself due to his poorly formed Jesuit upbringing.

RAB91 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

First of all, as a Christian I am all in favor of voluntary charitable giving, or voluntary "wealth redistribution". if you will. And I think it is effective.

How does forced or voluntary wealth redistribution lower temperatures? It seems absurd to me.

---

In trying to understand Laudato Si, it seems that the argument is that first world nations have a standard of living that requires harvesting resources (both human and natural) from 3rd world countries and paying them a pittance. Essentially that you have westerners with 6 tv's per house and multiple cars and blah blah blah and the huge energy requirement and you have poor countries with nothing. Now the western countries are using much cleaner energy than the poor countries, but still the Pope is almost always going to sympathize with the poor.

---

And that is fine. How does sending poor countries money help cool things off? And why is that even a suggestion?

---

I don't think that sending monies to poorer countries helps cool things off. I think the Pope is saying that it helps to mitigate some of the damage done by climate change, for those poorer countries. Again, I am not giving you my opinion, just what I think the Pope's point is.

---

I think this gets at the core of the issue for me. Why should richer countries pay poorer countries just because of climate change. Scientist can't even agree on the extent that man causes this. Imagine our ego as a species to think that we have this much control over our surroundings. This is why I think this pope is either not the sharpest knife in the drawer or he just can't help himself due to his poorly formed Jesuit upbringing.

---

Charitably, I think the Pope was raised in an environment sympathetic to liberation theology and some of that rubbed off on him. I give him lots of credit as he seems to be a true believer and sympathizer to the Poor while also shunning the more luxurious trappings of his office. I also think he's a very old man who sometimes muses or thinks out loud without realizing the weight of ALL of his comments.

I do not mind his urging of rich countries to help poor countries, even if the reasoning may be flawed. The rich should always help the poor. My response would be that Subsidiarity dictates we help our own first, and I do think we need to do a better job of that.

Quote:

---

Scientist can't even agree on the extent that man causes this.

---

Aside from a few outliers who are usually funded by fossil fuel companies, that's not an argument amongst working scientists in the relevant fields.

If you were in someone's house and broke something - would you offer to fix it?


ETA: (can't type as well on the iphone)

#1 - You actually say "sending money" to poorer countries, when that is not what Ladato Si advocates.

#2 - The most developed nations have achieved this status at a great cost (environmentally). Think of that disappearing rain forest.

#3 - We (earth folk) need to do a better job of being caretakers of this planet. This is a biblical calling as well.

#4 - The most developed countries (see #2) bear a higher cost.

It's a simple concept, however, nobody likes to get stuck with the tab- and yet here we are and its time to pay. I hope for all of our sakes we can do the right thing and do it quickly.

PabloSerna said:

---

If you were in someone's house and broke something - would you offer to fix it?

---

Sure.

My question is how do you fix it?

dermdoc said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

If you were in someone's house and broke something - would you offer to fix it?

---

Sure.

My question is how do you fix it?

---

The first step is having the right attitude. Start with your carbon footprint and act responsibly at a local level. Its a mess, but to deny we are harming the environment with our development is in my opinion selfish.

I mentioned incandescent light bulbs, bad for the environment in so many ways, buy the more expensive LEDs, they will actually save you money in the long run.

PabloSerna said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

If you were in someone's house and broke something - would you offer to fix it?

---

Sure.

My question is how do you fix it?

---

The first step is having the right attitude. Start with your carbon footprint and act responsibly at a local level. Its a mess, but to deny we are harming the environment with our development is in my opinion selfish.

I mentioned incandescent light bulbs, bad for the environment in so many ways, buy the more expensive LEDs, they will actually save you money in the long run.

---

Already do that for the most part and I think most responsible people do.

The first thing that needs to be done is get politics out of it.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Scientist can't even agree on the extent that man causes this.

---

Aside from a few outliers who are usually funded by fossil fuel companies, that's not an argument amongst working scientists in the relevant fields.

---

Politics

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Scientist can't even agree on the extent that man causes this.

---

Aside from a few outliers who are usually funded by fossil fuel companies, that's not an argument amongst working scientists in the relevant fields.

---

And you probably believed that Covid was from a wet market and that you were fine after your third booster.

AggieRain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Scientist can't even agree on the extent that man causes this.

---

Aside from a few outliers who are usually funded by fossil fuel companies, that's not an argument amongst working scientists in the relevant fields.

---

Politics

---

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Scientist can't even agree on the extent that man causes this.

---

Aside from a few outliers who are usually funded by fossil fuel companies, that's not an argument amongst working scientists in the relevant fields.

---

And you probably believed that Covid was from a wet market and that you were fine after your third booster.

---

And that all of Joe's 81 million "votes" were legitimate.

File5 said:

---

Until nuclear power is number one on everyone's priority list I will continue to dismiss it as a blatantly political issue.

---

The Washington establishment does not want inexpensive energy because then they cannot force the people into more expensive alternatives.

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Scientist can't even agree on the extent that man causes this.

---

Aside from a few outliers who are usually funded by fossil fuel companies, that's not an argument amongst working scientists in the relevant fields.

---

And you probably believed that Covid was from a wet market and that you were fine after your third booster.

---

Just two boosters. And yes, I'm fine. And yes, it's most likely from a wet market.

M1Buckeye said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Scientist can't even agree on the extent that man causes this.

---

Aside from a few outliers who are usually funded by fossil fuel companies, that's not an argument amongst working scientists in the relevant fields.

---

And you probably believed that Covid was from a wet market and that you were fine after your third booster.

---

And that all of Joe's 81 million "votes" were legitimate.

---

They were. I think some of you are oblivious to just how despised Trump is.

Sapper Redux said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Scientist can't even agree on the extent that man causes this.

---

Aside from a few outliers who are usually funded by fossil fuel companies, that's not an argument amongst working scientists in the relevant fields.

---

And you probably believed that Covid was from a wet market and that you were fine after your third booster.

---

Just two boosters. And yes, I'm fine. And yes, it's most likely from a wet market.

---

There is no way in hell it was from a wet market