10 Things That Won’t Be In Pope Francis’ Encyclical ‘Laudato Si’

10 Things That Won’t Be In Pope Francis’ Encyclical ‘Laudato Si’ June 16, 2015



First off, I haven’t read any translation of the leaked draft of the upcoming encyclical. Doesn’t make sense to. Like most rational, level-headed, non-crisis monger Catholics (and non-Catholics, too), I’m waiting for the publication of the real deal. Then I’ll read it, and then, if I feel it’s necessary, I’ll write about it. And while some equally rational, level-headed, non-crisis Catholics (and non-Catholics, too) have read the leaked draft, it’s the ideologues who seem to be getting most of the attention. Ah well, let them. Crazies gonna cray, right?

Despite the fact the encyclical is still a couple days from publication, I’ve compiled a list of 10 things that won’t be in it. Absotively posilutely won’t be in there. In no particular order:

10) “An Inconvenient Truth” will not be required viewing for RCIA classes.

9)  Vasectomies and tubal ligations will not be declared the 8th Sacraments.

8)  Indulgences will not be granted if you install solar panels on your house.

7)  Anthropomorphic climate change skeptics will not be ex-communicated latae sententiae.

6)  Al Gore will not be declared a Doctor of the Church.

5)  Abstinence will not be encouraged as a means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions due to eliminated heavy breathing.

4)  Capitalism will not be declared a sin which cries out to heaven for justice.

3)   Mary, Mother of God will not be defined as “Mediatrix of All Greenhouse Gases”.

2)  Incense will not be replaced with the eco-friendly “E-Thurifer” (due to air pollution concerns).

1)  All parishes will not be required to have windmills installed on their property for sustainability.

Bottom line? The encyclical will be Catholic, and will espouse and expand on Catholic teaching. Faithful Catholics needn’t get their biodegradable knickers in a twist over Laudato Si. Those who are…well, they have an agenda to push. Will there be some things in the encyclical that might make us a bit uncomfortable? Sure, I fully expect it – because being a Catholic sometimes makes you a bit uncomfortable. Comes with the territory. Let the Right and the Left yammer about it – ignore them. Online at least – read the thing and be able to discuss it cogently and coherently with flesh and blood folks, like family members and coworkers.

A couple fellow Patheos bloggers have written about the upcoming encyclical – Mark Shea provides reasoned speculations, and Artur Rosman has an interview with Catholic climate change expert Anthony Annett. Check them out, and they both ultimately come to the same conclusion:

Laudato Si will be Catholic. Not Left. Not Right. Not applauding any narrow world view. Not appealing to any particular political bent. We’re called to be stewards of creation, to recognize our role and place within creation, and how we, made in the image and likeness of God, have grave responsibilities towards creation, which includes our neighbor. Is that a simplification? Perhaps. Let’s see what the Holy Father really has to say, and then try our best to follow through.

The crazies are gonna cray. You and me, let’s keep our heads, and just be Catholic about it.

Photo credit: Catholic Church (England and Wales) /Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

Don’t miss anything from Acts of the Apostasy – like my Facebook page!

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • tj.nelson

    This is actually kind of good Larry. I can see how the kool-aid is working – you are developing into a nice little Patheo-gen. What?

    Are you going to write about the NdoubleACP lady who is transracial?

    Once upon a time
    There was a little black girl
    In the Brewster Projects of Detroit, Michigan
    At fifteen,
    She was spotted by an Ebony Fashion Fair talent scout
    And her modeling career took off…


    • LarryD

      Oh Terry, you are a hoot.

      We don’t have kool-aid here. Just a fine selection of wine and liqueurs…

      • simplynotred

        Maybe too much?

  • Fr. Cory Sticha

    But I’ve already ordered my E-Thurifier with Giant Paper Mache Puppet scent! Now what am I supposed to do with it?

  • LT Brass Bancroft

    Will he address the threat of Man-Bear-Pig?

  • Colleen Kelly

    It is interesting that the expectation of the June 18 Environmental Encyclical, Laudato Sii, has gotten more hype than any anticipated document. I am also puzzled how comfortable and clearly our clergy can speak to our responsibility as stewards of the earth articulating our role to preserve and protect the earth. I do not recall any similar roll out with John Paul’s Evangelium Vitae in 1995 that called upon our better self to accept our stewardship to protect and preserve the inviolability of human life.

    • Sophia Sadek

      Protecting and preserving the inviolability of human life sounds like a tall order. It reminds me of the mahiyana Buddhist vow to save all beings. A person would have to be a fanatic to take it seriously.

      • simplynotred

        Why does the idea of pro-life offend you?

        • Sophia Sadek

          The irrational does not offend me. It makes me smile.

          • simplynotred

            Oh I get it. You’re PRO – DEATH. Great. Start with yourself. Then there will be no argument between you an me. Ever hear of Post Abortion. Have at it.

          • Sophia Sadek

            One of the aspects of irrational thinking is to claim that anyone who is not pro-life must be pro-death.

          • simplynotred

            So don’t mind me, if you need to take your medicine, go ahead. If you begin to act normal again, we will all be waiting for you on the other side. Mean time take it slow, and count to 10 backwards. 10, 9, 8, …..

      • Colleen Kelly

        Really????Defunding Planned Parenthood would be a start. Saving one child at a time is certainly not a tall order.

        • Sophia Sadek

          I know a number of people who would not be alive today had Planned Parenthood not been there to assist their mothers when they were in need. You may see them as monstrous, but others see them as a blessing.

  • Spiritual Ronin

    Another thing you won’t see (most likely) is an appeal for more Christian mercy toward animals. I have scanned quite closely the text of this draft looking
    for the discussion of the relationship between humans and animals. The
    encyclical denounces in strong terms the “despotic human dominion over
    creation” (paragraph 200) and in several places either corrects the extreme
    interpretation of Genesis 1:28 or speaks about injustices against animals (for
    example, paragraphs 92 and 139). Despite these hopeful signs, Christian
    anthropocentrism remains in the encyclical front and center as evinced by the
    following unfortunate rebuke against, I assume, animal welfare activists:

    “Si avverte a volte l’ossessione di negare alla persona umana qualsiasi preminenza, e si porta avanti una lotta per le altre specie che non mettiamo in atto per difendere la pari dignità tra gli esseri umani. Cer­tamente ci deve preoccupare che gli altri esseri viventi non siano trattati in modo irresponsabile, ma ci dovrebbero indignare soprattutto le enor­mi disuguaglianze che esistono tra
    di noi, perché continuiamo a tollerare che alcuni si considerino più degni di
    altri.” (paragraph 90) – the gist: some people worry more about animals than
    about their fellow human beings. I always found this kind of thinking very
    wrong – after all, charity is charity and pitching one kind of it against
    another is absolutely counterproductive.

    I was hoping for a mention of the obscene evil of industrial farming (which cannot be ignored by the self-proclaimed “religion of love” as it is not ignored by Buddhism, the religion of compassion) and of some encouragement of vegetarianism/veganism but I couldn’t find any. However, this glaring omission is not completely unexpected. It will take a long time for the Church to realize that its
    attitude toward animals leaves it not only behind some other religions but even
    behind the contemporary secular society. The Catholics will still pray to the Lamb of God at the Mass and then go home to happily eat a leg of lamb for Sunday dinner…

    • simplynotred

      Please go back to PETA where you belong.

      • Spiritual Ronin

        You’re right – I’d rather be with those who show mercy toward animals than with those hypocrites who limit their “Christian love” to humans only. Shame!

        • simplynotred

          No you belong to PETA not the Catholic Church. You’re an animal and you belong there with the animal kingdom to be petted and feed, and domesticated, and tagged and loved by your owner, and have pictures taken of and put on the internet, and most of all neutered so that you won’t reproduce.

          As as far as human hypocrites who limit their “christian love” to humans only. I never met one yet, but maybe in your dreams you foster strange beings and call them hypocrite because you hate humans and only love animals.

          • Spiritual Ronin

            Don’t worry, I have left the Church a while ago, not being able to withstand all that hypocrisy. And yes, if you consider yourself a human being, I’d much rather be an animal.

          • simplynotred

            I don’t care what you’ve done, you want to leave mother earth go ahead, you sound sick and probably need some help. But don’t look to me, go to your animal friends and check each other’s fleas.

          • Spiritual Ronin

            Went on a day pass and forgot your meds, buddy?

          • simplynotred

            You can stop looking at the mirror, I don’t think the guy your looking at is your buddy. He really is lying to you.

          • Spiritual Ronin

            A very Christian behavior, buddy. Really Christian. Go ahead and have the last word, I’m done here.

          • simplynotred

            Awe come on chill out – just funnin you a bit. You can take it. Even Jesus called his adversaries names. Sorry somebody screw up your Catholic Faith, this pope is probably gonna do more damage than the guys that made you leave the church. It happens a lot. The trouble with being a Catholic is that “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

            “What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but an absence of self-criticism.”

            “Man is always something worse or something better than an animal; and a mere argument from animal perfection never touches him at all. Thus, in sex no animal is either chivalrous or obscene. And thus no animal invented anything so bad as drunkeness – or so good as drink.”

            “It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.”

  • capaxdei

    You know what else won’t be in the encyclical? An acknowledgement of my contributions to its content. Do you know why it won’t be in there? Because I didn’t contribute to its content. I wasn’t even asked, despite how badly Pope Francis needs my help.

  • Mike17

    “We have a moral duty to look after God’s creation.” That’s moral teaching and we need to pay attention to it. I’m happy for the Pope to repeat that.
    “Global warming is mainly caused by humans putting too much carbon into the atmosphere.” That’s a statement about science. I’ll take my science from the scientific data, thank you. If there’s anything in the encyclical not supported by scientific data (like the statement in quotes) I’ll ignore those bits. But I’ll be sorry if the Church is seen to be supporting theories which are unsupported by the data.

    • yan

      Why do you place your understanding above the Pope’s in determining what is, and what is not, ‘supported by scientific data’?

      If you are a Catholic, you should consider more deeply how your attitude expressed here may conflict with your duty to respect the Holy Father’s request to ‘accept with open hearts this document.’

      • simplynotred

        Why would you listen to an amateur about anything rather than a professional? So many Catholics just love being told what to do without question even when it has nothing to do about the Catholic Faith. Rediculous

        • Martha Arenas

          The new pope has a strong education background. Before joining the
          clergy, he earned a master’s degree in chemistry from the University of
          Buenos Aires.

      • LyingMediaScum

        The Pope can say the moon is made of green cheese. Such a statement does not fall within his teaching authority to make. And we wouldn’t have to listen to such nonsense. Faith and morals. To insert himself into an ongoing scientific debate which has recently sprung into a this zealous movement, is outright absurd.

        Then there is all of the finger pointing at “rich nations”. If the USA were as poor as Africa, Africa itself would not be better off. 1/3-1/2 of their population would be gone due to HIV and starvation. Absurd.

        Its one thing to preach concern for the planet and charity for the poor, its another to abuse your position as Pope to promote certain views about politics and science without having the authority to do so by virtue of your office.

        In my lifetime I have lived through 2 great Popes. Church history is full of bad Popes. This one is a reminder of how we had been spoiled.

        • yan

          Oh really? Which popes were great? Let me guess: John Paul II and Benedict XVI? Both of them were against the Iraq war; both of them were against capital punishment in modern societies. Benedict wrote an encyclical criticizing our economic system. Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the encyclical which explained the morality of labor unions. But, you think these men were great Popes because the media said they were ‘conservatives.’

          Economics entails making moral choices; thus it is most certainly within the purview of the papal office to opine on economics.

          • LyingMediaScum

            I happened to agree with both of them on the Iraq war and capital punishment. Benedict’s discussion capitalism was a critique of unregulated capitalism–but not against capitalism as an economic system. Also, labor unions 100 years ago were a good thing.

            So what is your point again (other then to be a liberal Catholic troll)?

          • yan

            Hah right! I’ve been praying outside the downtown abortion clinic regularly each week for over 10 years. I’ve been teaching catechism to children for the same amount of time, as a volunteer. How about you?

            What’s my point? I have several:

            Maybe you should try reading the encyclical with an open heart, the way the Pope says, and not think you know more about the world than he does.

            Maybe you should consider the possibility that he is better informed than you are.

            Maybe you should consider the possibility that he would not have written this encyclical if he were not convinced that the science underlying his views is reliable.

            And finally, maybe you should act like the Catholic you claim to be by reverencing what the Holy Father says.

            The Pope you think is great, JPII, apparently thought that labor unions in the present day are also a good thing. How about you? Or, if you find you now disagree with him, is he no longer a great Pope?

            If you think there is any space between Benedict XVI and Francis on the issue of economics, you are just a bad reader or wilfully ignorant. If you read it, please re-read Benedict’s Deus Caritas Est. Here’s a little nugget from that. Remember, he is one of the ‘good’ Popes, in your estimation:

            ….The world’s wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase. In rich countries, new sectors of society are succumbing to poverty and new forms of poverty are emerging. In poorer areas some groups enjoy a sort of “superdevelopment” of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation. “The scandal of glaring inequalities”[56] continues…. Par. 22.

            The scandal of glaring inequalities!! Wow, Pope Benedict was really a communist! How come no one noticed? Here’s more communism from the same encyclical:

            Today, as we take to heart the lessons of the current economic crisis, which sees the State’s public authorities directly involved in correcting errors and malfunctions, it seems more realistic to re-evaluate their role and their powers, which need to be prudently reviewed and remodelled so as to enable them, perhaps through new forms of engagement, to address the challenges of today’s world. Once the role of public authorities has been more clearly defined, one could foresee an increase in the new forms of political participation, nationally and internationally, that have come about through the activity of organizations operating in civil society….par. 24.

            Wow! A real socialist! Kind of like that liberal Pope Francis. And how is it that somehow Rush Limbaugh was able to completely miss this little ditty back in 2009:

            The market is subject to the principles of so-called commutative justice, which regulates the relations of giving and receiving between parties to a transaction. But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy, not only because it belongs within a broader social and political context, but also because of the wider network of relations within which it operates. In fact, if the market is governed solely by the principle of the equivalence in value of exchanged goods, it cannot produce the social cohesion that it requires in order to function well. Without internal forms of solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfil its proper economic function. par. 35.

            As for this great Pope’s views on the environment, see par 43-52. Way too much to quote here. Good luck with your education.

          • LyingMediaScum

            Nice ego trip there. Me? I will keep my work and sacrifices for the Church to myself rather than brag about them anonymously on the internet.

            I feel sorry for those kids in your catechism class. I can only imagine the kind of nonsense being taught. Let me guess: fundamental option and people are incapable of committing mortal sins. Or how about: its ok to vote for pro-abortion politicians because Republicans don’t care about the environment, poor people, and they favor capital punishment (which isn’t an intrinsic evil like abortion). Or my favorite, that being pro-life isn’t just about abortion its also about plants too. Or its ok to reject dogma and elements of the deposit of faith, but when the Pope says something that resonates with your true religion (the Democrat party) then its time to make that the subject matter of every lesson plan. I had to suffer through that kind of nonsense for years while all but two of my classmates in Catholic school left the Church.

            Why don’t you head over to other websites and brag about how much you pray? Then after that go study a little Church history afterwards–specifically about the many many bad Popes. Then consider the fact that not everything that comes out of the Pope’s mouth is Gospel. We only have assurances of two things regarding the papacy: 1) that while speaking ex cathedra that he will not err in matters of faith and morals and 2) that as bad as Popes can get and as corrupt and insulated as the clergy gets, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

            To be a good Catholic you don’t have to give up critical thought every time the Pope decides to speak–that is especially true when he speaks regarding subjects that fall outside the domain of his competency and takes sides on matters of prudential judgment. And I don’t have to revere a man who makes statements that have contempt for truths that are in the broad daylight for everyone to see. Or a man goes around with guards armed with handguns and assault rifles who states that people who manufacture firearms aren’t real Christians and are “hypocrites”. There is a difference between the office of the papacy and the sinner in that position–as history has shown repeatedly.

            Talking about Rush Limbaugh? Seriously? And with that, I am done with you. I have better things to do.

          • yan

            Ok! Great! Now go read the encyclical! With an open mind and heart. And for the record, I’ve never yet voted for a Democrat in my life, and none of your guesses about my catechism class are correct. Each human act has moral consequences, as clearly re-taught in Veritatis Splendor. There is no fundamental option without a repentance for our sins, and repentance means acknowledging our sinfulness and desiring to do differently.

            Oh, but Veritatis Splendor wasn’t taught ex cathedra, so I guess you don’t have to believe that if you don’t want to….there’s no guarantee of its truth, according to your understanding of papal authority.

            You are obviously a spiritually sick individual to judge the Pope the way you have, based on your political prejudices. God bless you. I’m sure if the Pope knew, he would pray for you and bless you anyway, sinner though he may be.

  • LyingMediaScum

    I’m so glad I didn’t become a priest. Best decision I ever made.

    • simplynotred

      Me to, and I wanted to be a Jesuit!

    • Jamesthelast

      Only if God isn’t calling you.

  • simplynotred

    Well like so many of these reporters and politicians who vote for a writ, NOT having read it – How would you know – that those items and variations of what you listed are not in the Encyclical. I am beginning to really HATE people who say “The Documents contents are OK, even though I haven’t read it.” In your case you said “First off, I haven’t read any translation of the leaked draft of the upcoming encyclical. Doesn’t make sense to.”

    Which is rather STUPID, if your going to support it. Blind Catholicism IS NOT Catholicism Never has been, Never will be. Time for you to just join the Masons they love blind obedience like yours.

    The facts are it supports Anthropocentric Global Warming (an unproven fact) and strongly suggest that the world reduce its dependence on Oil, Gasoline and Coal and Natural Gas. Can you just stop using 90% of your electricity, Gas, Coal Oil, or what ever you use to sustain you lively hood. NOT LIKELY. And as for the concern for the Poor – making you equally poor is the general solution. So are you ready to give up you happy lifestyle to feed the poor. You gotta reach down and give not just the spare change, but really reach down and give of your very core.

    • Jamesthelast

      It’s not true that we can’t get electricity without oil gas and coal. With a WWII like effort, we can go a 100% renewable, and maybe with some nuclear thrown in.

      • simplynotred

        Nice words spoken. NO FACTS to support you notion. People believe in many phenomena, Fairies, Leperchans, Easter bunnies, etc. But powering up the world with renewable s would require a couple thousand Nuclear Plants as an alternative, and you’re not in the business of living with people, but with Nature, meaning you would never put on Nuclear plants if you could help it. The facts remain, that Africa is still backwards because people like you want them to live on renewable s, and its just anti-human what Environmentalist have done to the people of African.

        • Jamesthelast

          Dude, the whole US could be powered from solar panels that take up a tiny part of Nevada.

          Wind and solar have made many advances, and will only continue to get better as time goes on.

          • John Stevens

            “Dude, the whole US could be powered from solar panels that take up a tiny part of Nevada.”

            To satisfy the entire electrical needs of the USA (not all its power requirements, just the electricity used) would require us to cover an area about 60% of the size of the State of Colorado (which I used because it is basically square, making the math easier).

            That isn’t “tiny”, and in fact, would be an ecological disaster in its own right.

            My recommendation, made 15 years ago, would be to slowly build out solar cell arrays along the major highways: easy access to them, right of way probably already negotiated, minimal additional ecological damage (dude, the roads are already there!) and probably the shortest distance between them and the user.

            Of course, any major traffic accident would cause a black out, but you can’t have everything.

            But no matter how you slice it, covering a huge part of the Earth with solar cells will be an ecological disaster, to say nothing of the mining, toxic waste production, processing, shipping and disposal impacts.

            Nothing comes for free.

          • simplynotred

            So why isn’t it happening?

          • John Stevens

            Because it is too expensive, and the ecological impacts are pretty horrendous. The green’s are opposing even small (3,000 acre) projects due to the wildlife impact.

            See: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/its_green_against_green_in_mojave_desert_solar_battle/2236/

            Remember, solar power has a much lower energy density than traditional power generation systems, thus the physical plant has a much greater per square foot impact on the environment.

            This is why the Mojave plant was situated where it was: access to existing roads and grid infrastructure, which keeps the costs down.

          • simplynotred

            Explain One Simple thing. How is power generated at NIGHT when lights, heat, cooking, are necessary and electric cars are being charged? Second can the one place produce 4,000,000 MWH’s of power?

          • John Stevens

            Umm . . . I think you responded to the wrong person. I was the one questioning the idea of supplying our entire nation’s electrical energy requirements using solar cells.

            In point of fact, you and I raised the same challenge.

            That said, there have been hypothetical solutions proposed: most of them pretty horrendous, too. The “lights off energy storage problem” is a non-trivial one, and the suggestions proposed of “spinning up huge flywheels” or “creating huge pressurized gas storage systems to be used to turn turbines during off hours” are a recipe for disaster, as the cost, fragility (see: Infrastructure Terrorism) and risks of such systems is enormous.

            Huge banks of batteries would be an ecological disaster.

            Chemical storage would be hugely wasteful (increase the size of your solar panel field by about a factor of 5 to account for this waste), but at least the chemical storage solution (Think: hydrogen) has some beneficial secondary uses (you can’t power a 747 with batteries) and if properly done wouldn’t be too dirty (burning hydrogen with pure oxygen produces water, while burning hydrogen mixed with air produces some pollution).

            As I said: this kind of analysis is the job of an expert, and is not something that we can expect to be implemented in a fashion that is even as neat as the expert’s solutions. The real world is messy.

          • simplynotred

            Sorry it does happen, and thanks for your contribution but my point is clear.

            What can these monster I.E. environmentalist Wacko’s ever accomplish giving everyone on earth the essential cheap power necessary for life. The only viable one for them is to kill 5.5 billion people.

            That is what the New Science Advisor just hired by the Vatican – German Prof. John Schellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims is absolutely necessary.

            In 1992 the German government established the German Advisory Council on Global Change. Schellnhuber has been either its chairman or vice chair for most of its history. He is currently the leading climate advisor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel – whom he has known since at least 1995.

            For years, Schellnhuber’s public remarks have been filled with talk of “dangerous andcatastrophic climate change,” tipping points, and predictions that 6 billion could perish if the climate overheats.

            In 2003, he authored an article for the UK Guardian that characterized the use of fossil fuels as “a lifestyle of mass destruction.” He suggested that wealthy Westerners should feel guilty “for eco-crimes that sink distant island states” via an “SUV culture out of control.” In his view, the least we should do is establish “a UN supervised adaptation fund worth several trillion dollars.”

            Despite the long list of pompous pronouncements in that Guardian piece, not once did Schellnhuber explain why his physics training gives him special insight into economic, social, or political questions.

            In late 2009, he referred to the upcoming Copenhagen UN climate summit as “the most important meeting in the history of the human species.” Shortly afterward, he issued a dire warning: “This is the final scientific call for climate negotiators.”

            Last month, ahead of the Doha UN climate talks, Schellnhuber complained to a news magazine that politicians weren’t taking his advice. “We’ve stressed time and again, that we need nothing less than a new industrial revolution,” he said. Another news storyquoted him: “in ten years it will be too late.”

            Schellnhuber’s over-the-top views were similarly on full display at a gala dinner in Doha. While delivering a keynote address, he uttered this inflammatory line: “First law of humanity – don’t kill your children.” The UN climate chief seconded the inanity byquoting him on Twitter.

            Schellnhuber is the co-author of yet another article, published in 2010 in a respected journal, that discusses how scientific insights can be employed to “change human behaviour” and “influence political will.”

            Let us be clear on this point: it is not the business of physicists to change human behaviour.

            This man is a menace. Like Canada’s own David Suzuki, Schellnhuber thinks we should listen to him because he’s a scientist. But he sounds – and behaves – exactly like a politician.

            The German government’s chief climate advisor is the furthest thing from an objective, dispassionate scientist. He thinks using fossil fuels amounts to “a lifestyle of mass destruction” – and that the UN should be put in charge of trillions of dollars.

            When assessing Schellnhuber’s judgment it’s worth considering how he described the IPCC in a 2008 article published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science:

            “the monumental reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are the guideposts for both experts and stakeholders. The IPCC format, perfected by the late [IPCC chairman] Bert Bolin, is a painstaking self-interrogation process of the pertinent scientific community. In this process, virtually every stone in the cognitive landscape is turned and the findings, however mundane or ugly, are synthesized into encyclopedic accounts…”


          • John Stevens

            “Sorry it does happen, and thanks for your contribution but my point is clear.”

            Sorry, but your point isn’t clear: what “it” is it that “does happen?” Lacking a referent, the use of “it” is ambiguous here.

            The rest of your posting seems to be a list of concerns about the competence or motivation of a given person. I can’t speak to that.

          • simplynotred

            Sorry, I know you and I are taking about the same thing. The real issue here that Greens want to simply rule the world but with a twist that goes against all sound human reasoning. You and I agree. Sorry I went off on the tangent regarding what the Greens are doing on the bigger scale with this Papal encyclical and the Scientist who actually wrote the darn thing.

            I have liked your idea, and think much of it, have seen bits of evidence of it in the past, but not recently. If its is so effective in producing power and I am assuming that it is considering the 400 MWH (is that right that much) output 10 of those would produce the equivalent power to provide for current US consumers. Why hasn’t it happened if the Obama administration wants to go Green. They (the greens) want to go ANTI-OIL, COAL, etc but they do not want a real substitute. Now do they. If they did, why haven’t they produced 10 more 400 MWH solar power generating units?

            We have a water crisis in California. We are on water rationing. One town the other day had its water turned off by the State. We are suppose to limit our daily intake of water to 35 gallons per person. Right now in my own home, we have reduced our intake from 641 gallons per day (one year ago) to 197 gallons per day for 3 people – which is 92 gallons above what Jerry Moonbeam wants each person to use.

            So why didn’t Jerry Brown build reservoirs and dams to accumulate waters necessary for the growing population of California. I think it’s the same question you’re asking regarding the solar cell units. In fact Mr. Brown’s daddy Edmund Brown is the one who built the major canal system that California has been using since the 1960’s and it was adequate for 16 million people who lived here at the time. Jerry has now been governor twice and has never put any efforts to construct any reservoirs or dams in this state. WHY?

            Greens don’t really want anything more than to reduce the world population. I know that sounds sick, but its not just their words, it s their actions that demonstrate it. That appears to be their goal, as I was making reference to the Scientist from Germany Prof. John Schellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who has promoted that goal, has helped the Vatican make its new encyclical to promote it under obligation for the world governments.

            Energy like your referring to would only sustain the current population world wide and even make it grow since these units could be place in all seven continents. It the greens the ex-communist activist and progressives who have taken over the UN and for that matter multiple governments US, France, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain etc. who just want the world population reduced to 1 billion. I am not making this up, and I am not a conspiracy theorist.

            Hans Joachim (John) Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute will be one of the presenters at tomorrow’s unveiling of the ghost-written Encyclical of Pope Francis, Laudato si. I’ve asked the question recently, is he a Malthusian when he said referring to his theory that the temperature of the earth could rise by 9F degrees:

            “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,”

            Today, Pope Francis has appointed Shellnhuber to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

            In his own words: Schellnhuber has said…

            “Let me conclude this short contribution with a daydream about those key institutions that could bring about a sophisticated—and therefore more appropriate—version of the conventional “world government” notion. Global democracy might be organized around three core activities, namely (i) an Earth Constitution; (ii) a Global Council; and (iii) a Planetary Court. I cannot discuss these institutions in any detail here, but I would like to indicate at least that the Earth Constitution would transcend the UN Charter and identify those first principles guiding humanity in its quest for freedom, dignity, security and sustainability;the Global Council would be an assembly of individuals elected directly by all people on Earth, where eligibility should be not constrained by geographical, religious, or cultural quotas; and the Planetary Court would be a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution.”

            I thought that I saw the 400 MWh system 3 years ago in an article, not the one you made reference to – Is it still online? Who paid for it operation?

          • John Stevens

            In the year 2012, the US of A used 4 times 10 to the 15th watt hours of electrical power. That’s 4,000 billion kilowatt hours.

            The plant that they are trying to open in California is good for about 350 Megawatts at peak, and is going to cover about 3,000 acres, not including all the support, access, trunking, converters, facilities, etc.

            The US base load is 460 billion watts. That means that if the sun stood directly over head, 24 hours a day, we’d need about 1,304 of these Soda Mountain Plants.

            That plant is asking for 4,000 acres of land. So, that means 5.2 million acres to start with. Multiply by 4, because the sun does not stand over our heads 24 hours a day, about 10% of your panels will be down on any single day, the efficacy of those cells degrades over time, and they get covered with dust, pollen, windblown garbage which reduces their productivity: That’s 20.8 million acres.

            If you are willing to spring for the cost of single axis tracking mounts and motors for each and every panel, you can get that down somewhat, but those kinds of mounts and motors hugely increase both the original cost, as well as the failure rate and maintenance costs, so you increase the productivity of your cells, but loose the productivity of the ones whose mounts are locked, frozen or whose motors aren’t working that day. Most engineers agree that pure solid state (no moving parts) makes more sense for large projects that are designed to run for years.

            Solar cells produce DC. The US grid carries AC. That means inverters, which waste about 15% of the power put into them . . . 25 million acres.

            Now, we should talk about lights-off storage . . . splitting water to hydrogen and oxygen, depending on the technologies used, gets about a 33% efficiency rate. So, conservatively, two thirds of your field needs to be tripled in size. Now, there are new technologies that get that to about 66%, but will not be available for large scale commercial use for about a decade.

            Let’s assume 66% efficiency, anyway, and that means that about two thirds of your field has to be larger to account for this waste: 33 million acres. Add in the space for such machinery, the piping, compressors, storage systems for working fluids, boilers, turbines and generators, and remember, the Carnot cycle is not 100% efficient, either: 38 million acres, ’cause the energy density of such plants is HUGELY greater than the density of solar energy, so such systems do not take up much space.

            Do I need to mention just how much screaming about water there will be? The best places for solar power are the worst (See: Mojave desert) for having a lot of water you can sequester in the hydrogen fuel cycle. Don’t like the hydrogen cycle for lights-off power storage? The calculations for compressed air or flywheels are a lot worse.

            The state of Colorado is 66 million acres. So, if you started building your solar field just east of Denver, filling the entire space between the Wyoming and New Mexico borders full of solar cells, and didn’t stop building out solar power plant until you were well into the western parts of Kansas and Nebraska, you could just about supply today’s US of A electrical power usage needs with renewables.

            Hence my statement that our base load will have to be nuclear (thorium, when that tech gets to commercial-ready), with renewables filling in the gaps.

            Now, anybody want to do the environmental impact statement on covering half of a state with a solar power farm? I’ll beg off on that one, considering the Soda Mountain project (a mere 4,000 acres) is stalled because of the negative impact the plant will have on a herd of 100 bighorn sheep.

          • Jamesthelast

            Your math is wrong. http://modernsurvivalblog.com/alternative-energy/amazing-total-area-of-solar-panels-to-power-the-united-states/

            “The United States Energy Information Association (eia.gov) reveals in their December-2013 ‘Electrical Power Annual’ report, in Table 8.6.A,
            that the peak load for all interconnections of electricity during the
            summer of 2012 was 767,762 Megawatts within the contiguous United

            It is also reported that total electricity consumption for the United
            States during 2012 was 3,694,650 million kWh (million kilowatt-hours).

            Total 2012

            Total 2012

            Daily Average

            Hourly Average

            Peak Load

            I chose a 250-watt Sharp ND-250QCS solar panel (made in the USA) 65″x39″ each.

            767,762,000,000 watts / 250 watts per panel

            3,071,048,000 total panels

            PER PANEL

            2,535 sq.”

            17.6 sq.’

            TOTAL NEEDED

            54,063,240,833 sq.’

            1,939 sq. miles

            44 miles per side of square”

            That’s a small part of a state.

          • John Stevens

            There’s so many errors in that analysis. For starters, the sun doesn’t shine 24 hours a day. The production of a solar cell is not constant throughout the day. You didn’t calculate in the cost of conversion. And etc.

            Leave the engineering analysis to people who have the training to do it.

          • Jamesthelast

            Well, if you read the article, you would see that there are caveats! Of course that’s not the energy solution that we can do right now, but it does show that renewals are much more capable than simplynotred thinks.

          • John Stevens

            “Of course that’s not the energy solution that we can do right now,”

            Which is my point. We still need fossil fuel burning power plants to supply our base load.

            “but it does show that renewals are much more capable than simplynotred thinks.”

            I wasn’t addressing simplynotred at all . . . my comments were to your post. If you want to know what I think of simplynotred’s comments, it is just this: “There is no simple solution, but it is clear that nuclear will have to be part of that solution.”

          • John Stevens

            No, my math isn’t. See my “back of the envelope” posting.

            The figure of 4,000 billion kilowatt hours per year is from the government’s web site.

            Note that the site you posted the link to admitted that there were caveats, but even so failed to do a proper analysis of those caveats.

  • “Al Gore will not be declared a Doctor of the Church.”

    I thought that one particularly funny. But don’t be so sure. If Al converts he might well be made a saint and Doctor.

  • Jamesthelast

    Point 5 is kind of silly because humans don’t produce CO2 from breathing as we are only exhaling the already existing CO2 we breathe in.

    • TerryC

      I’m afraid that your understanding of the Human Respiratory Cycle is flawed. Humans (and all other animals) breath in oxygen. The oxygen is absorbed in the lungs into the blood stream, where it is eventually carried to the cells. In the cells the oxygen is used by the cells as part of a biological cycle which releases carbon dioxide back into the blood, where it is carried back to the lungs and released to the air.
      Humans (and all other animals) contribute to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, although at a very small level.

      • Jamesthelast

        No, it’s right, the CO2 comes from the plants that are digested, meaning humans aren’t contributing more by breathing. It’s a carbon neutral cycle where CO2 is absorbed by plants, and then is release back to the air by humans. Humans and animals are not adding a net gain in CO2 by breathing.

        • John Stevens

          “Humans and animals are not adding a net gain in CO2 by breathing.”

          Which argues that, with sufficient additional plants or more uptake by plants, the whole CO2 thing might end up being a bit of a red herring.

          There is, in fact, evidence that as CO2 levels rise, plant uptake in increases, plants grow faster and larger, and that where possible, plants will increase their range.

          This makes sense, as “runaway global warming” is statistically unlikely, so there must be some kind of constraining, counterbalancing system. If not, the Earth would have burned up long ago.

          The real question being: at what point does the level of CO2 dumping outstrip the ability of the planet to adapt to the rising levels? That, nobody knows.

          • Jamesthelast

            Obviously there’s a counter balance to CO2. The problem is that man is releasing way too much CO2 to fast and is disrupting the normal cycle.

            The earth will certainly adopt to it, the question is, can we?

          • John Stevens

            “The problem is that man is releasing way too much CO2 to fast and is disrupting the normal cycle.”

            That’s actually one of the things that we don’t know . . . whether or not the uptake of CO2 is increasing to match to the production, and if so, how much and how fast.

            The NGCCR lists a number of different studies that talk about increasing uptake, and model that change.

    • Mike Blackadder

      Not true actually. We do exhale CO2 as a biproduct of digestion. And yes we actually will exhale more of it from strenuous activity. 😉

  • Yankeegator

    Nothing Catholic about it since 1958…

  • Diego Cueva
  • sliver1935

    Are your sure? So far, all this Pope has sewed confusion and sorrow among traditional Catholics. You remember traditional Catholics don’t you? Padre Pio, Bishop Sheen, St.Elizabeth Seton, Bernadette, etc, etc. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a pope deliberately and purposefully insult those Catholics who hold fast to their traditions, while praising the Vatican II fiasco which in and of itself has wreaked havoc on,not only the Church but also the world. Sadly I’m only waiting for the next shoe to drop this fall.