Pope Francis made his strongest statements yet about climate change Wednesday, rebuking fossil fuel companies and urging countries to make an immediate transition to renewable energy.
In a new document titled “Laudate Deum,” or “Praise God,” the pope criticizes oil and gas companies for greenwashing new fossil fuel projects and calls for more ambitious efforts in the West to tackle the climate crisis. In the landmark apostolic exhortation, a form of papal writing, Francis says that “avoiding an increase of a tenth of a degree in the global temperature would already suffice to alleviate some suffering for many people.”
“Laudate Deum” is a follow-up to the pope’s 2015 encyclical on climate change, known as “Laudato Si’,” which lamented the exploitation of the planet and cast the protection of the environment as a moral imperative. When it was released, “Laudato Si’” was viewed as an extraordinary move by the head of the Catholic Church to address global warming and its consequences.
Nearly a decade later, the pope’s message has taken on new urgency.
E: the user I am talking with here attempted to impersonate me, and got banned.
Politeness is a courtesy, not a virtue, and one you made clear you werent interested in returning.
You havent laid a case, you posed a question you know cant be answered. “Show me proof of the popes words changing catholic opinion in 3 decades” is nebulous nonsense and you know that. Its why you asked it. You would need a depth of polling data to “”“prove”“” that statement, which is often not public if anyone has even done that polling.
Now, you know fallacies as well as virtues, since I provided a single arguement. The professionals who know better than you know this demographic matters. I guess backing that up with the size of the demographic confused you? But the point stands firm, which is why youre blindly guessing Im religious (Im not, poor luck) instead of addressing it.
If youre really in a STEM field like you claim, you must not be great at your job. Most science professions require a better reading comprehension level than this.
Oof, you talk of fallacies and then use an ad hominem attack To defame my character? You reduce my question to only being solvable by a cherry picked method of evidence that no rational person would accept?
Your inability to reason is on display for everyone to see. You attack my question when it was not I who made the claim to begin with. Travel back up the thread and you’ll see it was the person I responded to who made the claim. I responded by asking for proof which is the prerogative of a scientist and a rationalist.
You’ve been wrong about so much in such a short time and I am still left wanting for any real explanation as to why the claim that the pope has any outward or meaningful effect on political decisions has any veracity at all - a claim that I’ll remind you again I did not make. Maybe you’d like to make the same awkward and hackneyed challenges to the person who did?
Your mocking tone and decidedly poor character have admittedly not been worth the effort I’ve given them. Take your ego away and bruise it elsewhere.
… you brought up fallacies, not me. Just like how you claimed the pope, leader of the catholic church, has no influence on the members of the catholic church. You are making the claim that the leader of a group has no influence over the group, and asking for proof to the contrary. Or did you misread your own comments?
Whats your field of research? I cannot believe a real scientist got a degree with this piss poor reading comprehension. Whats your work in?
Or were you wanting to make up more guesses about me? We could do that too, youve yet to get one right.
I made no such assertions. I decline to provide you more details of my character to fallaciously attack. You cannot reason well enough to make this worthwhile. This conversation has concluded. Move on.
