Pope Francis' Encyclical On Climate Change Leaked...

[Old Rocks]

Dear Ms. Stephanie, we don't need a carbon tax. The renewables are now less costly for producing electricity than coal or natural gas. And will continue to get cheaper. And as the grid scale batteries come online, they will be 24/7.

That's not even in the same universe as true.

The shit you cultists spew...

Wrong again, Mr. Uncensored;

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My, my, Mr. Uncensored, you are such a silly ass. No, that is your way, not ours. We will simply make laws concerning how much pollution you can put into the atmosphere. And, since it is allready cheaper to produce electricity with wind, and soon will be the same with solar, all these laws will do will be to hasten the demise of the very dirty coal fired plants.

AGW is about money - about raiding the public treasury - that's all it ever has been.

And no, it isn't "cheaper" or even in the same realm to generate solar. Why you persist in silly lies is a mystery.

That the federal government provides hundreds of billions to China in subsidies to make solar panels, this does not make the technology actually viable. What the US Consumer pays for solar panels is attractive purely because they pay about 10% of the actual cost, with the rest paid to China through federal funds.

Blinded By The Sun How Much Do Solar Panels Really Cost - Forbes

Without the federal government - which means the US taxpayer, funding the solar deployment, few would opt for the expensive panels. Elon Musk rapes the public for billions each year with his "Solar City" scam. The money flowing to this plutocrat comes mostly from tax payers, not from "customers" who pay pennies on the dollar for solar systems.

 

[Stephanie]

 

[Stephanie]

 

[Crick]

Guess what, Stephanie: there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to keep damaging our environment and consuming our finite resources, you're going to have to pay for it. Get used to it.

 

[Stephanie]

Guess what, Stephanie: there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to keep damaging our environment and consuming our finite resources, you're going to have to pay for it. Get used to it.

I already do. TO MY STATE AND the utilities I USE. you go volunteer all your paychecks to the federal government to pay for their CARBON TAX if you want.
SNIP;
Chuck Schumer: Carbon tax has a chance if Clinton wins ByELANA SCHOR

6/23/15 7:28 PM EDT

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) outlined a path Tuesday for Hillary Clinton to enact a carbon tax if the Democrats prevail in the 2016 elections.

Schumer, the Senate Democrats’ leader-in-waiting, said that a Clinton presidency and the return of his party to the Senate majority in 2017 could pave the way for lawmakers to enact a carbon tax to help fund the government.



Read more:Chuck Schumer Carbon tax has a chance if Clinton wins - Elana Schor - POLITICO

 

[Crick]

Good. Let us all vote democratic. We should have anyway.

 

[HenryBHough]

In a magnificent display of belief in His Holy Ideals, Pope Francis announced today that The Vatican will put 10% of its art treasures up for auction each month, continuing until it's all gone.
The proceeds will be distributed to the poor to promote equality!*


*Headlines you'll never read dept.

 

[Stephanie]

Good. Let us all vote democratic. We should have anyway.

oh we are. and the people are saying NO. Especially after the Undemocratic way the commie/Democrats passed OscamCare onto our backs. the people got real democratic and KICKED them out of control of Congress. so you'll just have to whine about it

 

[Crick]

I am waiting to see, should the Supreme Court rule against federal subsidies for ACA and 12 million people who used to have medical insurance for themselves and their wives and husbands and elderly parents and FOR THEIR CHILDREN suddenly find themselves unable to afford it, just how incurably the RNC will have created 12 million PERMANENT ENEMIES.

We have wandered a good long ways from the thread topic.

Pope Francis' encyclical is no longer leaked, it's released. So, Stephanie, what do you think of the Pope speaking out on this topic and the direction in which he chose to throw his authority? Do you think preserving the Earth's environment is a moral issue?

 

[Crick]

In a magnificent display of belief in His Holy Ideals, Pope Francis announced today that The Vatican will put 10% of its art treasures up for auction each month, continuing until it's all gone.
The proceeds will be distributed to the poor to promote equality!*


*Headlines you'll never read dept.

Copped from Anthony Quinn in "The Shoes of the Fisherman"

 

[Stephanie]

You notice how these people like Crick thinks they own THE EARTH? he says we have to PAY for the use of the Environment and all the resources we use from it.

and we little people needs to pay them to live on it. You know like we are RENTING it from them

that's what Obama, the UN, the pope, etc is pretty much telling all you people

people need to open their eyes to these Fascist amongst us and SOON

 

[Crick]

You notice how these people like Stephanie think they own the Earth? She thinks their's no cost to their use of the Environment and the resources they take from it. She thinks they own it outright and can do whatever they want with it no matter WHAT effect that might have on the rest of humanity for generations to come.

People need to open their eyes to the environmental rapists among us, and soon!

 

[Treeshepherd]

Pope Francis Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early

I don't know what to say. I will continue to go to Church, but as far as this Pope is concerned, I am just going to ignore everything he says from now on.

The document states that the Church "does not presume to settle scientific questions". The Pope refers to a "very solid scientific consensus" about global warming, which is true. There is a scientific consensus that the planet has been warming of late, but the exact causes vary from scientist to scientist. Is CO2 80% responsible or 10% responsible? The Pope doesn't go there.

The fact of the matter is that "warming" and "climate change" are mentioned 9 and 12 times respectively. The document is over 40,000 words long. Taken as a whole, you might change your opinion. Most of the people who are characterizing the encyclical as a rebuke against 'deniers' would themselves find most of the encyclical unpalatable. It cuts way too deep for their tiny minds to fathom.

 

[flacaltenn]

Pope Francis Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early

I don't know what to say. I will continue to go to Church, but as far as this Pope is concerned, I am just going to ignore everything he says from now on.

The document states that the Church "does not presume to settle scientific questions". The Pope refers to a "very solid scientific consensus" about global warming, which is true. There is a scientific consensus that the planet has been warming of late, but the exact causes vary from scientist to scientist. Is CO2 80% responsible or 10% responsible? The Pope doesn't go there.

The fact of the matter is that "warming" and "climate change" are mentioned 9 and 12 times respectively. The document is over 40,000 words long. Taken as a whole, you might change your opinion. Most of the people who are characterizing the encyclical as a rebuke against 'deniers' would themselves find most of the encyclical unpalatable. It cuts way too deep for their tiny minds to fathom.

All that is true. The Vatican COULD have weighed on science, but stopped short... The APPALLING part to me isn't that the Pope confuses pollution with Global Warming. But that he is USING that campaign to bash Capitalism and free markets and goad the rich nations to redistribute wealth and presumably also redistribute the "ability to thrive"..

 

[Crick]

I think given his background, he probably had a certain antipathy towards free market capitalism before he ever heard of global warming. And it's not as if it's a huge logical leap to make: the primary ingredients to the financial success of the western industrialized nations and the failures of the third world is the energy supply and transportation. And, of course, these are two pf the largest contributors to human GHG emissions and global warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

You notice how these people like Crick thinks they own THE EARTH? he says we have to PAY for the use of the Environment and all the resources we use from it.

and we little people needs to pay them to live on it. You know like we are RENTING it from them

that's what Obama, the UN, the pope, etc is pretty much telling all you people

people need to open their eyes to these Fascist amongst us and SOON

Dear little Stephanie, we do not own this earth, we only borrow it from our children and grand-children.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Pope Francis Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early

I don't know what to say. I will continue to go to Church, but as far as this Pope is concerned, I am just going to ignore everything he says from now on.

The document states that the Church "does not presume to settle scientific questions". The Pope refers to a "very solid scientific consensus" about global warming, which is true. There is a scientific consensus that the planet has been warming of late, but the exact causes vary from scientist to scientist. Is CO2 80% responsible or 10% responsible? The Pope doesn't go there.

The fact of the matter is that "warming" and "climate change" are mentioned 9 and 12 times respectively. The document is over 40,000 words long. Taken as a whole, you might change your opinion. Most of the people who are characterizing the encyclical as a rebuke against 'deniers' would themselves find most of the encyclical unpalatable. It cuts way too deep for their tiny minds to fathom.

All that is true. The Vatican COULD have weighed on science, but stopped short... The APPALLING part to me isn't that the Pope confuses pollution with Global Warming. But that he is USING that campaign to bash Capitalism and free markets and goad the rich nations to redistribute wealth and presumably also redistribute the "ability to thrive"..

The encyclical mentions polluting gasses, lumping CO2 in with gasses that are actually toxic. But, it's really not the bulk of the message.

I don't find the encyclical to be prescriptive for governments. There's probably a few exceptions to that statement, but again, he doesn't get specific. For example, he prays for a positive outcome at the UN climate meeting. To me, that's not the same as being a lobbyist.

Is he anti-capitalist, or anti rampant consumerism? I say the latter. He says that empty hearts require the distraction of consumption and media bombardment. He asks for a cultural revolution with a shift in cultural values, not a socialist political revolution.

My full explanation;
Laudato Si. On the care for our common home US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[flacaltenn]

Pope Francis Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early

I don't know what to say. I will continue to go to Church, but as far as this Pope is concerned, I am just going to ignore everything he says from now on.

The document states that the Church "does not presume to settle scientific questions". The Pope refers to a "very solid scientific consensus" about global warming, which is true. There is a scientific consensus that the planet has been warming of late, but the exact causes vary from scientist to scientist. Is CO2 80% responsible or 10% responsible? The Pope doesn't go there.

The fact of the matter is that "warming" and "climate change" are mentioned 9 and 12 times respectively. The document is over 40,000 words long. Taken as a whole, you might change your opinion. Most of the people who are characterizing the encyclical as a rebuke against 'deniers' would themselves find most of the encyclical unpalatable. It cuts way too deep for their tiny minds to fathom.

All that is true. The Vatican COULD have weighed on science, but stopped short... The APPALLING part to me isn't that the Pope confuses pollution with Global Warming. But that he is USING that campaign to bash Capitalism and free markets and goad the rich nations to redistribute wealth and presumably also redistribute the "ability to thrive"..

The encyclical mentions polluting gasses, lumping CO2 in with gasses that are actually toxic. But, it's really not the bulk of the message.

I don't find the encyclical to be prescriptive for governments. There's probably a few exceptions to that statement, but again, he doesn't get specific. For example, he prays for a positive outcome at the UN climate meeting. To me, that's not the same as being a lobbyist.

Is he anti-capitalist, or anti rampant consumerism? I say the latter. He says that empty hearts require the distraction of consumption and media bombardment. He asks for a cultural revolution with a shift in cultural values, not a socialist political revolution.

My full explanation;
Laudato Si. On the care for our common home US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What a bleeding heart can imagine. His prescription is redistribution of wealth among nations and de-industrialization of the achievers. That "lump of shit" pile or whatever he called it -- I'm entirely certain he blames our (YOUR) standard of living as the cause. It's not consumerism he is against. It's ACHIEVEMENT of a standard of living where you DON'T live on dung heap and can AFFORD to remove and dispose of said dung heap..

He's a socialist. And WORSE -- he's an ACTIVIST socialist in religious garb.

Tell me, since you've read it. How many times does the concept of "social justice" or "sustainability" appear in there? Those are the calling cards of the socialist movement. Terms that mean almost anything they suddenly desire them to mean. But it's mostly about gaining the power to IMPLEMENT the agenda. And a Pope already HAS power to use to that end -- apparently whenever he chooses to do so..

 

[Treeshepherd]

What a bleeding heart can imagine. His prescription is redistribution of wealth among nations and de-industrialization of the achievers. That "lump of shit" pile or whatever he called it -- I'm entirely certain he blames our (YOUR) standard as the cause. He's a socialist. And WORSE -- he's an ACTIVIST socialist in religious garb.

By lump of shit pile, are you referring to this comment?: "The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish."

Well, there is a gigantic garbage patch swirling around in the Pacific, about the size of Texas. Central and South America have blatant litter problems. China is gross. Here in the US, we've cleaned up our litter issues and exported our manufacturing pollution.

This thread is 10 pages long and I haven't read thru. Has anyone provided quotes to back up the argument that he's an activist political socialist, rather than just someone appealing to individuals to share? The Church commonly argues for governments providing basic needs, but not to the point where free will is squashed and government gets in the way of the formation of organic human connections.