6/09/2015 — MOUNT SINABUNG ERUPTS — LAKE TOBA SUPERVOLCANO NOW STEAMING +EMITTING FOUL ODORS OF GAS
Worthy to note, the Toba caldera produced the worlds largest eruption in the past 2 million years, and has not showed eruptive signs in over 75,000 years.
From Oregon state University:
“Toba caldera produced the largest eruption in the last 2 million years. The caldera is 18 x 60 miles (30 by 100 km) and has a total relief of 5,100 feet (1700 m).
The caldera probably formed in stages. Large eruptions occurred 840,000, about 700,000, and 75,000 years ago. The eruption 75,000 years ago produced the Young Toba Tuff. The Young Toba Tuff was erupted from ring fractures that surround most or all of the present-day lake. “
http://dutchsinse.com/6082015-mount-sinabung-erupts-lake-toba-supervolcano-now-steaming-emitting-foul-odors-of-gas/
Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 116. (Read 636443 times)
Record cold in the Netherlands
JUNE 16, 2015
Last night weather station Twente measured minus 4,1 Celsius. It has never been that cold in the Netherlands at this time of year, summer.For the coming night night frost is expected, too.Normally there is no night frost after the Ice Saints (May 11 -15).
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24162384/__Recordkou_gemeten__.html
http://www.telegraaf.nl/e/24162384
JUNE 16, 2015
Last night weather station Twente measured minus 4,1 Celsius. It has never been that cold in the Netherlands at this time of year, summer.For the coming night night frost is expected, too.Normally there is no night frost after the Ice Saints (May 11 -15).
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24162384/__Recordkou_gemeten__.html
http://www.telegraaf.nl/e/24162384
Last month was the coldest May in Iceland in decades.
The Icelandic Marine Research Institute’s annual spring expedition from May 18 to 30 concluded that the ocean temperature off Iceland has not been lower in 18 years, or since 1997. The number of krill is below average and not a single mackerel was caught.
http://icelandreview.com/news/2015/06/10/ocean-iceland-unusually-cold-no-mackerel
The Icelandic Marine Research Institute’s annual spring expedition from May 18 to 30 concluded that the ocean temperature off Iceland has not been lower in 18 years, or since 1997. The number of krill is below average and not a single mackerel was caught.
http://icelandreview.com/news/2015/06/10/ocean-iceland-unusually-cold-no-mackerel
Well, I can tell that you don't fully grasp the matter. So let me help out. Assume that you were actually one of the Authoritarian Perverted Nutcase Liberal Controllers. The first thing you want to do is control the language, so of course you intend to exercise your right to deem such comments Denial - in those cases where it suits you.
Such is the glory of powerfreakness.
Well, I can tell that you don't fully grasp the matter. So let me help out. You are an idiot.Such is the glory of powerfreakness.
Such is the glory of stupidity. Climate Change is both real and accelerating.
funny how im extrapolating valuable (bitcoin's) opinions from people's view in this climate thread.
there's the deniers, and those in denial.
Well, I can tell that you don't fully grasp the matter. So let me help out. Assume that you were actually one of the Authoritarian Perverted Nutcase Liberal Controllers. The first thing you want to do is control the language, so of course you intend to exercise your right to deem such comments Denial - in those cases where it suits you.
Such is the glory of powerfreakness.
Well, I can tell that you don't fully grasp the matter. So let me help out. You are an idiot.Such is the glory of powerfreakness.
Such is the glory of stupidity. Climate Change is both real and accelerating.
[...]
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.
The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME
Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.
The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME
Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html
Is it as easy as that. We see so many false or unsubstantiated claims from the warmists in these pages and it seems fair to challenge them. However anyone who does challenge them simply gets written off as a denier and can often be subject to abuse.
Most "deniers" accept that Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Many just dispute the extremity of the effects, be they observed or predicted. Is that denial?
Such is the glory of powerfreakness.
Let me help you show your image . Did you mean this ?
[...]
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.
The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME
Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.
The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME
Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html
Is it as easy as that. We see so many false or unsubstantiated claims from the warmists in these pages and it seems fair to challenge them. However anyone who does challenge them simply gets written off as a denier and can often be subject to abuse.
Most "deniers" accept that Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Many just dispute the extremity of the effects, be they observed or predicted. Is that denial?
[...]
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.
The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME
Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.
The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME
Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html
Is it as easy as that. We see so many false or unsubstantiated claims from the warmists in these pages and it seems fair to challenge them. However anyone who does challenge them simply gets written off as a denier and can often be subject to abuse.
Most "deniers" accept that Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Many just dispute the extremity of the effects, be they observed or predicted. Is that denial?
Pope Francis’ Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early by Italian Magazine
...
The 192-page document is Pope Francis’ first major teaching letter on climate change and its effects on the planet’s poor. Hailed by some as the “pope of the poor,” Francis’ linkage of environmental and economic issues puts the Vatican out front on a closely watched topic.
...
http://time.com/3921416/pope-francis-encyclical-leaked/
It is actually quite logical and effective to solve the poor's problems by killing them and/or making sure they are never born in the first place by killing or sterilizing their parents.
A permutation on this theme would be to use the power or the various powers that be to extort the masses in exchange for granting them the privilege of having offspring. This has a financial component which can attract a more broad support base, and it provides finer grained controls to help engineer a more desirable herd.
These ideas have resonated with (mainly) left-wing thought leaders (sponsored by oligarchs who have more money than they know what to do with and wish to make a lasting statement.) One of the few things that the Catholic Church had going for it (until now perhaps) is that they kind of rejected some of these ideas on moral grounds. As best I can tell from afar at least.
A more realistic solution would be for the catholic church to distribute their enormous wealth into projects to eradicate poverty. But of course that kind of thing doesn´t fit the mindset of these fruitcakes,
The actual wealth of the catholic church is hard to measure and widely debated. But I get the feeling you're overestimating how wealthy the church actually is. The catholic church couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, let alone corporate entities such as Walmart or Exxon Mobil.
And all that aside, they've actually managed to make a talking point of how climate change affects the worlds' poor. Which is a good thing.
You must be kidding. They´ve been selling tickets to heaven for over a thousand years. Now; that´s value and the demand is endless. And that´s just part of the racket. Of course prices have dropped in recent centuries though, especially after they were forced to drop torture and burning at the stake from the sales pitch to the occasional reluctant customers.
Why, that's only a small blip on the history of the faithful. I applaud the fact that the Popester has dignified the subject of Climate Change with his blessings. Let us move forward now, quietly at first, soon in huge groups, asking that the United Nations help in this virtuous goal. Onward, the Christian Soldiers must go, and ask that the United Nations form a Department of Settled Science.
The SS will protect us from the human weaknesses, such as falling into disbelief or it's evil cousin, Denial.
Hmmm, let me see...settled science cheek by jowl with religious righteousness. That should work out well if the common interest is money. Usually is the case when extremes of dysfunctional human behavior feed off each other.
Pope Francis’ Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early by Italian Magazine
...
The 192-page document is Pope Francis’ first major teaching letter on climate change and its effects on the planet’s poor. Hailed by some as the “pope of the poor,” Francis’ linkage of environmental and economic issues puts the Vatican out front on a closely watched topic.
...
http://time.com/3921416/pope-francis-encyclical-leaked/
It is actually quite logical and effective to solve the poor's problems by killing them and/or making sure they are never born in the first place by killing or sterilizing their parents.
A permutation on this theme would be to use the power or the various powers that be to extort the masses in exchange for granting them the privilege of having offspring. This has a financial component which can attract a more broad support base, and it provides finer grained controls to help engineer a more desirable herd.
These ideas have resonated with (mainly) left-wing thought leaders (sponsored by oligarchs who have more money than they know what to do with and wish to make a lasting statement.) One of the few things that the Catholic Church had going for it (until now perhaps) is that they kind of rejected some of these ideas on moral grounds. As best I can tell from afar at least.
A more realistic solution would be for the catholic church to distribute their enormous wealth into projects to eradicate poverty. But of course that kind of thing doesn´t fit the mindset of these fruitcakes,
The actual wealth of the catholic church is hard to measure and widely debated. But I get the feeling you're overestimating how wealthy the church actually is. The catholic church couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, let alone corporate entities such as Walmart or Exxon Mobil.
And all that aside, they've actually managed to make a talking point of how climate change affects the worlds' poor. Which is a good thing.
You must be kidding. They´ve been selling tickets to heaven for over a thousand years. Now; that´s value and the demand is endless. And that´s just part of the racket. Of course prices have dropped in recent centuries though, especially after they were forced to drop torture and burning at the stake from the sales pitch to the occasional reluctant customers.
Why, that's only a small blip on the history of the faithful. I applaud the fact that the Popester has dignified the subject of Climate Change with his blessings. Let us move forward now, quietly at first, soon in huge groups, asking that the United Nations help in this virtuous goal. Onward, the Christian Soldiers must go, and ask that the United Nations form a Department of Settled Science.
The SS will protect us from the human weaknesses, such as falling into disbelief or it's evil cousin, Denial.
Pope Francis’ Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early by Italian Magazine
...
The 192-page document is Pope Francis’ first major teaching letter on climate change and its effects on the planet’s poor. Hailed by some as the “pope of the poor,” Francis’ linkage of environmental and economic issues puts the Vatican out front on a closely watched topic.
...
http://time.com/3921416/pope-francis-encyclical-leaked/
It is actually quite logical and effective to solve the poor's problems by killing them and/or making sure they are never born in the first place by killing or sterilizing their parents.
A permutation on this theme would be to use the power or the various powers that be to extort the masses in exchange for granting them the privilege of having offspring. This has a financial component which can attract a more broad support base, and it provides finer grained controls to help engineer a more desirable herd.
These ideas have resonated with (mainly) left-wing thought leaders (sponsored by oligarchs who have more money than they know what to do with and wish to make a lasting statement.) One of the few things that the Catholic Church had going for it (until now perhaps) is that they kind of rejected some of these ideas on moral grounds. As best I can tell from afar at least.
A more realistic solution would be for the catholic church to distribute their enormous wealth into projects to eradicate poverty. But of course that kind of thing doesn´t fit the mindset of these fruitcakes,
The actual wealth of the catholic church is hard to measure and widely debated. But I get the feeling you're overestimating how wealthy the church actually is. The catholic church couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, let alone corporate entities such as Walmart or Exxon Mobil.
And all that aside, they've actually managed to make a talking point of how climate change affects the worlds' poor. Which is a good thing.
You must be kidding. They´ve been selling tickets to heaven for over a thousand years. Now; that´s value and the demand is endless. And that´s just part of the racket. Of course prices have dropped in recent centuries though, especially after they were forced to drop torture and burning at the stake from the sales pitch to the occasional reluctant customers.
Pope Francis’ Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early by Italian Magazine
...
The 192-page document is Pope Francis’ first major teaching letter on climate change and its effects on the planet’s poor. Hailed by some as the “pope of the poor,” Francis’ linkage of environmental and economic issues puts the Vatican out front on a closely watched topic.
...
http://time.com/3921416/pope-francis-encyclical-leaked/
It is actually quite logical and effective to solve the poor's problems by killing them and/or making sure they are never born in the first place by killing or sterilizing their parents.
A permutation on this theme would be to use the power or the various powers that be to extort the masses in exchange for granting them the privilege of having offspring. This has a financial component which can attract a more broad support base, and it provides finer grained controls to help engineer a more desirable herd.
These ideas have resonated with (mainly) left-wing thought leaders (sponsored by oligarchs who have more money than they know what to do with and wish to make a lasting statement.) One of the few things that the Catholic Church had going for it (until now perhaps) is that they kind of rejected some of these ideas on moral grounds. As best I can tell from afar at least.
A more realistic solution would be for the catholic church to distribute their enormous wealth into projects to eradicate poverty. But of course that kind of thing doesn´t fit the mindset of these fruitcakes,
The actual wealth of the catholic church is hard to measure and widely debated. But I get the feeling you're overestimating how wealthy the church actually is. The catholic church couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, let alone corporate entities such as Walmart or Exxon Mobil.
And all that aside, they've actually managed to make a talking point of how climate change affects the worlds' poor. Which is a good thing.
Pope Francis’ Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early by Italian Magazine
...
The 192-page document is Pope Francis’ first major teaching letter on climate change and its effects on the planet’s poor. Hailed by some as the “pope of the poor,” Francis’ linkage of environmental and economic issues puts the Vatican out front on a closely watched topic.
...
http://time.com/3921416/pope-francis-encyclical-leaked/
It is actually quite logical and effective to solve the poor's problems by killing them and/or making sure they are never born in the first place by killing or sterilizing their parents.
A permutation on this theme would be to use the power or the various powers that be to extort the masses in exchange for granting them the privilege of having offspring. This has a financial component which can attract a more broad support base, and it provides finer grained controls to help engineer a more desirable herd.
These ideas have resonated with (mainly) left-wing thought leaders (sponsored by oligarchs who have more money than they know what to do with and wish to make a lasting statement.) One of the few things that the Catholic Church had going for it (until now perhaps) is that they kind of rejected some of these ideas on moral grounds. As best I can tell from afar at least.
A more realistic solution would be for the catholic church to distribute their enormous wealth into projects to eradicate poverty. But of course that kind of thing doesn´t fit the mindset of these fruitcakes,
Pope Francis’ Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early by Italian Magazine
...
The 192-page document is Pope Francis’ first major teaching letter on climate change and its effects on the planet’s poor. Hailed by some as the “pope of the poor,” Francis’ linkage of environmental and economic issues puts the Vatican out front on a closely watched topic.
...
http://time.com/3921416/pope-francis-encyclical-leaked/
It is actually quite logical and effective to solve the poor's problems by killing them and/or making sure they are never born in the first place by killing or sterilizing their parents.
A permutation on this theme would be to use the power or the various powers that be to extort the masses in exchange for granting them the privilege of having offspring. This has a financial component which can attract a more broad support base, and it provides finer grained controls to help engineer a more desirable herd.
These ideas have resonated with (mainly) left-wing thought leaders (sponsored by oligarchs who have more money than they know what to do with and wish to make a lasting statement.) One of the few things that the Catholic Church had going for it (until now perhaps) is that they kind of rejected some of these ideas on moral grounds. As best I can tell from afar at least.
Pope Francis’ Climate Change Encyclical Leaked Four Days Early by Italian Magazine
The 192-page document is Pope Francis' first major teaching letter on climate change and its effects on the planet's poor
Italian Magazine L’Espresso leaked Pope Francis’ hotly anticipated encyclical on climate change on its website on Monday, breaking an embargo on the document set for Thursday.
The 192-page document is Pope Francis’ first major teaching letter on climate change and its effects on the planet’s poor. Hailed by some as the “pope of the poor,” Francis’ linkage of environmental and economic issues puts the Vatican out front on a closely watched topic.
A Vatican official told Bloomberg News that the leak was a “heinous act.”
“An Italian text of a draft of the Pope’s Encyclical ‘Laudato Si’ has been published. Please note that it is not the final text, and that the rules of the Embargo remain in place,” read an official statement from the Vatican. “We ask journalists to respect professional standards, which call for waiting for the official publication of the final text.”
http://time.com/3921416/pope-francis-encyclical-leaked/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the middle age did so much good on the planet and the poor...
VATICAN SPEAKER ON CLIMATE THINKS THERE ARE 6 BILLION TOO MANY OF US
One of the speakers slated for the Vatican rollout of the long-awaited Papal document on climate change once said the earth is overpopulated by at least 6 billion people.
I'm not liking the idea of this dude's idea of Heaven...
confirmed >> last pope / possible antichrist
The one with the stretched arm...
Why won't Climate Scientists produce the empirical data that will prove their theory that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary culprit behind Climate Change and shut their critics up once and for all? Answer: The reason they refuse to show any data is because the data does not exist. In fact all the empirical data refutes their theory. So instead of showing the data that would prove their theory they manipulate the data.
ftfy.
but yea, they would not even find the data for natural CO2.
Why won't Climate Scientists produce the empirical data that will prove their theory that CO2 is the primary culprit behind Climate Change and shut their critics up once and for all? Answer: The reason they refuse to show any data is because the data does not exist. In fact all the empirical data refutes their theory. So instead of showing the data that would prove their theory they manipulate the data.
https://i.imgur.com/dhlnNDY.jpg[/img]
...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/
Without the mask on:
https://i.imgur.com/5wgTXsf.jpg
Q: What's worse than a pedo-nest?
A: A pedo-nest of eugenicists.
Of course different groups may see things in different ways. I'm sure that the make-over has some appeal to those who built up the U.N. and I expect to see the Catholic Church rewarded for it's 'progress' by the same...just as have been the climate 'scientists' who've played ball.
Jump to: