Pope Francis urges UN conference to ‘act without delay’ on climate change



November 15, 2016

The international community has a “serious ethical and moral responsibility to act without delay” in combating climate change, Pope Francis said in a message to COP22, the UN climate conference taking place in Marrakech, Morocco…

Citing the need for “the promotion of lifestyles aimed at favoring sustainable models of production and consumption,” the Pope called for a “culture of protection” of one’s neighbor as well as of creation.


Hard to combat something that doesn’t exist…


Or rather, something that we don’t command in any case.



So you are implying the Pope, who has graduate education in science, and 1000s of climate scientists don’t know anything about anything and only you know the real truth?

God is Truth. Lying is a sin. Climate change denialism is not only a sin of lying, but also of putting millions of lives in jeopardy…billions if we fail to act now and we tip the earth system into an extremely life-inhospitable regime for 100s, 1000s, perhaps even 200,000 years as happened during the end-Permian great warming that killed off 95% of life on earth some 251 million years ago. Only that time was due to natural causes, so it took a lot longer for the system to tip into an extinction-level state for 200,000 years; we humans are doing it much faster, orders of magnitude faster, as if with a vengeance for life.

Prudence requires that we do our utmost to mitigate climate change, whether or not we accept or reject what Pope Francis has to say, or what 1000s of scientists have to say.


I am wondering if you could share the science with us. Peer reviewed please.

The only way to know if we cause climate change from a scientific perspective is to control one variable while all others remain constant and then observe the effects. So with that in keeping I am assuming this about your own personal combat against change and what nations must do as well:

You personally do not consume, use, buy or do anything that came from industrialized operations. No driving, airplanes, theme parks, clothes shipped from overseas, etc. Also I would assume you don’t have your own computer or cell phone since those both use rare earth elements, metals and plastics. They are also transported via carbon emitting planes and trucks. You definitely don’t shop anywhere, ever and only hand make your items. Maybe you buy at the local farmers market buying only hand made locally produced items.

On a national level there could be no trade or movement of goods. No major airlines can fly in or out, no ships which move cargo that emit carbon could come in or out of their ports. No cell phones, no plastics, no harvesting of trees which means no new home construction. No steel production or use. No coal use for energy, nothing with petroleum. Cars and trucks would have to be outlawed.


I’m not familiar with the subject of climate change, but your argument seems to be pretty easy to understand. :thumbsup:


Papa Francis should be cautious., the UN has a population control program called UNFPA…they might use “climate change” to try to secretly sterilize the poor and disabled in the third world countries.

And combating abortion and POVERTY is more important.


If you count the pope as a climate scientist then everyone with that level of education in any science must be counted as well. That makes me a climate scientist, and the pope’s scientific opinion on the matter is no more significant than my own. *Great as our filial duty of reverence is towards what ever [the pope] may say, great as our duty of obedience must be to the guidance of the Chief Shepherd, we do not hold that every word of his is infallible, or that he must always be right. Much less do we dream of teaching that he is infallible, or in any degree superior to other men, when he speaks on matters that are scientific, or historical, or political, or that he may not make mistakes of judgment in dealing with contemporary events, with men and things. *
(Cardinal Raphael Merry del Val, The Truth of Papal Claims, 1902, p.19)


That’s a really good point if he or they believe it’s man made which seems safe to assume they do.


So, climate change “denialism” is heresy…I wonder, would burning climate change deniers contribute to or mitigate climate change…


So…you trust and believe the pope when he says that a specific God exists and all the minute details that go with that belief–without any peer reviewed science to back up that claim–but not climate change, when the majority of scientists in the world who specialize in that area *do *back him up?



I don’t usually applaud other posts just to applaud them, but this one is outstanding. I’m glad I wasn’t drinking something when I read it.:tiphat:


I imagine they would say it is “carbon neutral”. The carbon output from the pyre (from sustainably harvested wood of course) would cancel out getting one of the non-prius drivers off the road.


No, I want to read the science as I haven’t yet. I’ve only ever heard people say “science has proven it.” Can someone provide us a peer reviewed paper on this subject or not?

The pope doesn’t tell us God exists, Jesus did that. Jesus was a real person, but this is off topic.


Sounds like prudence would dictate that the Pope fly commercial, like all us other schlubs, rather than in a private jet with a personal and press entourage. Seems like a small price to save the planet.


I’m with the agronomists at Texas A&M who say that if the grasslands in the U.S. were managed optimally, they would eat all the CO2 produced in the U.S. And then there are the forests…

I am also with Alan Savory who asserts that wretched management of the earth really does cause localized “climate change” by desertification. Bare ground absorbs solar radiation and then puts it back into the atmosphere, whereas ground covered with vegetation retains water, evaporation of which cools the ground and the atmosphere.

Desertification through mismanagement has taken over a huge portion of the earth, and unnecessarily. Who could deny, for example, that the disappearance of the Aral Sea has had a profound effect on a large mass of land. It disappeared because the rivers that flowed into it have been diverted to irrigate desert land for cotton-growing.

But to me, the most persuasive argument against MMMGW (as opposed to “climate change” caused by mismanagement) is the fact that nobody actually experiences it.


Climate change is just the natural course of events for this planet we live on. What “man made” things caused the ice age of ten thousand years ago and the subsequent warming of the earth?


Has it ever occurred to people that our relationship with the environment is out of whack because our vision of man is out of whack?


I have asked you before for a link to this study. I ask again.

But to me, the most persuasive argument against MMMGW (as opposed to “climate change” caused by mismanagement) is the fact that nobody actually experiences it.

This is as persuasive as the argument that the earth is flat, because aside from a few elites who have travelled in space, no one actually experiences that either. Your mistake is in assuming it ought to be something that everyone would recognize right now.


Citing things that man did not cause is not argument against things man is causing now.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.