Friday, June 19, 2015

Papal Encyclical Bingo


Eli, of course, remembers the old days of global climate denialist bingo, and with the coming of the Laudato Si, driving the crazy to infinity, thought it might be time to hand our new cards.  To get the bunnies started, the Rabett has filled in a few of the squares and welcomes suggestions for others.

There is a world of hurl out there to snark at, feel free.

19 comments:

Russell Seitz said...

Given all the miracles they believe in , their canonization is only a matter of time.

Everett F Sargent said...

“Pope Francis puts his moral authority as the leader of roughly 1.2 billion Catholics in jeopardy when he addresses technical scientific issues on which he has apparently only been given one side of what is a very vigorous scientific debate,” said Cornwall jihadist/terrorist/infidel/despot/tyrant Calvin Beisner.

"Pope Francis should champion economic development as a solution both to poverty and to environmental degradation." (said Cornwall jihadist/terrorist/infidel/despot/tyrant Calvin Beisner)

Hank Roberts said...

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/regional-nuclear-war-could-cause-a-global-famine

China: detonation of less than 0.03% of the current global nuclear arsenal = trouble.

Russell Seitz said...

Without looking, Hank, I'd guess Alan Robock & CO, re-re-re running their stratospheric loading enhanced replay of variations on TTAPS refinery targeting tactical war scenarios.

Some people never get tired of computer gamesmanship, but meanwhile, back in Kurdistan, another blown up refinery has failed to send another a soot plume into the real stratosphere

Fernando Leanme said...

You could use me and I'll give you suitable quotes like this:

"This is going to make Catholics unelectable for any political position above dog catcher"

Mal Adapted said...

EFS, quoting a Cornwall Alliance mouthpiece: "Pope Francis puts his moral authority as the leader of roughly 1.2 billion Catholics in jeopardy when he addresses technical scientific issues on which he has apparently only been given one side of what is a very vigorous scientific debate"

LOL! From An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, promulgated by the Cornwall Alliance and signed by such notable moral authorities as Roy Spencer, Joe D'Aleo and Ross McKitrick:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history...


"We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming..."

IOW, "To Hell with the evidence, we're gonna believe what we wanna believe and deny what we don't!" So much for Science as a way of trying not to fool yourself.

John said...

Thanks a Google, Mal !!!

(that's 10**94 more than "thanks a million)

It's the **deniers** who have staked out positions based on something like religious faith.

Global warming is based on logic, evidence, and the scientific method. The mainstream view explains a lot of things that are difficult or impossible to explain any other way.




Susan Anderson said...

[aside, brief mention in a NYT comment that one of the framers of the Cornwall declaration learned better once he took a closer look. If anybody really needs it I'll try to find it, but it may not be easy.]

The real reason I'm here is to mention James Delingpole, who better (have an intellectual rape on climate, why dontcha?)

If you can bear the original, here at Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/18/watch-delingpole-sticks-it-to-the-popes-eco-encyclical/

Otherwise, you can check it out here:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/19/3671144/the-pope-freaks-out-climate-deniers/
“If he really cares about the poor, the last thing he should be doing is endorsing this nonsense,” Breitbart’s James Delingpole told British news show Daily Politics.

Fernando Leanme said...

Susan, I just wrote an abridged version of the Popes encyclical (cut it down to five pages). The climate statements include a few mistakes and exaggerations, but they aren't nearly as bad as some of the other material, which ranges from a complete rejection of family planning to a dumb statement ordering governments to emphasize small landholder farming, to a rather odd closing insisting the Christian trinity exists. It's in my blog if you want to read it.

Russell Seitz said...

If you run the Decalogue through Fernando's Encyclical trimming algorithm, all that come out is

"Thou shalt."

Unknown said...

What is amusing is that the bulk of comment on this amounts to ad-hominem attacks on religion in general, the Catholic Church in particular and this particular Pope.

What the rabid rabble of the right do not address, is the failure of their own moral compass and compassion. This is now added to the scientific facts that they are incapable of addressing.

They are so lost that one has to regard them as proof of some other universe.. which one wishes mightily that they might return to.

bjchip

Susan Anderson said...

Thanks Russell, I think you're right. I love clicking on "said", very useful. People who respond without reading deserve not to be read.

I have found the morsels of text available from the encyclical to be very fine reading, and certainly don't need the - brevity, wit's soul - treatment.

Russell Seitz said...

Susan, my problem with Frenando's gloss is that it exceeds the ideal length for an encyclical by five pages.

His editorial skills might be better applied to past volumes of Advances In Mormon Archaeology

Fernando Leanme said...

Russell, you are negating centuries of religious and political tradition. Popes issue encyclicals, and those of us who don't follow the religion should respect those who adhere firmly to the "God is three" belief as stated by Pope Francis with such emotion in the Encyclical. I think my page version delivers a quality, concise version. That Encyclical is like a wood pile one can use to build a case for all sorts of religious and political beliefs (as long as they match the Pope's, of course).

Susan doesn't realize I gave her the opportunity to use the summary as a source to cut and paste really good Twitter and Facebook quotes. I even found the photograph of the two children in a garbage dump. Catholics can use the Pope's photograph, and those who want to discuss sea level rise can use the photo of Santa Maria del Mar beach (I thought using a beach named Holy Mary of the Sea was pretty good, and I expect a compliment for my originality and hard work using search engines).

Susan, the idea is to have you read it so you get the full picture. Many of you are Pope cheering fanatics because you only see the little pieces of wood you are shown. On the other hand I present you a heterogeneous and balanced selection. I do realize people prefer to get input which suits their mental framework, I call this the Vicente Effect, named after my grandfather, who was so set in his beliefs he never accepted the moon landings were real.

Mal Adapted said...

FL: "those of us who don't follow the religion should respect those who adhere firmly to the 'God is three' belief as stated by Pope Francis with such emotion in the Encyclical."

Hmm, "Words are slippery." (B. Schmidt). If by "respect" FL means "tolerate", then of course. An ordinary adult with a healthy apprehension of reality understands that people will think what they like. It's not as if anything I could say or do would cause the Pope, or any devout Roman Catholic, to question his faith. More importantly in the present situation, in a large-scale political conflict one welcomes fellow-travellers for as far as they go in your direction, whatever their origins.

OTOH, if by respect FL means "give credence to", then no. To an atheist like myself, the doctrine of the Trinity is just more irrational mumbo-jumbo from the priestly class.

snarkrates said...

What this thread needs is some H. L. Mencken:

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

H. L, Mencken, the cowbell of the bon mot.

Barton Paul Levenson said...

FL: Many of you are Pope cheering fanatics

BPL: I'm a Protestant, but I certainly cheer the good work being done by this Pope. You, on the other-hand, strike me as a Pope-hating fanatic. Physician, heal thyself.

Susan Anderson said...

Russell, you once again caught me not doing my homework. But when it comes to Fernando, since he doesn't listen and doesn't respond, just changes the subject, I don't think it's worth the effort. We all have better things to do than skate on his mobius strip.

Oale said...

an easy mark could be "church should not have any saying on earthly matters" (Pick your agnostic/atheist/lutheran/eastern orthodox denier)