To the Editor:

The recent papal encyclical, Laudato Si', has sent climate-change deniers into paroxysms of outrage and hysteria.  Conservative politicians are falling all over themselves to insist that the Pontiff should stick to what he knows (morality, theology) and leave science to the scientists.

Would that these politicians could take their own advice.  In fact, they cannot, because there is not a bright line between morality and politics.  Every political decision is also a moral decision, from deciding which bridges to fix to deciding how to distribute and fund health care.

Now, as it happens, the Pope was a diplomate (technician) in chemistry before he entered the Church.  But this is not important.  Most of us are not in any formal sense “scientists,” let alone climate scientists.

But this does not release us from the obligation to be as well informed as we can be about scientific and technical matters that affect our own lives and the lives of our fellow human beings.  Nor does this prevent us from having an intelligent understanding, at an appropriate level, of the basic elements of — in this case — climate science as it now stands.

In his document, the Pontiff makes the following points:

— 1. The Old and the New Testaments make quite clear our obligations to help the poor and the impoverished;

— 2. The worldwide effects of climate change and global warming (if they are occurring) will fall most heavily on the poor and impoverished.  The impacts of sea-level rise, more extreme weather, changing water and farming patterns, and spreading disease will fall more severely on the impoverished than on anyone else;

— 3. Global warming is happening; and

— 4. Recent warming is primarily due to the activities of human beings.

The first point is a distinctly moral claim (in this case, based on a particular theology).  The remaining points are empirical claims, subject to verification and falsification in the ordinary way.

The third and fourth points are separate.  Global warming might be happening for any number of reasons, not including any contribution by human beings.  But either way, the catastrophic impact of continued global warming is not in serious doubt.

It will be easier for us to do something about it if we are part of the cause, but this is not necessary.  We still would be faced with the challenge of mitigating the results, especially for impoverished populations and countries.

This is the moral obligation of which Pope Francis reminds us.  One can deny this obligation, or deny that there is any reason to exercise it (because nothing bad is going to happen).  But granted the obligation, and granted that the Pope has got the scientific picture pretty much right, then our faith demands that we act to help the less fortunate — to protect the unborn, if you will.

After all, whatever the cause of global warming, it will result in a world quite different from the one human beings have lived in for their entire history on the planet.

The only other option is to deny that global warming is happening in any serious way, and this just does not seem at all plausible given what virtually all climate scientists are now telling us.

Tom McFadden

Guilderland