Putting papal authority behind yet another failed scientific paradigm
Guest post by Alec Rawls
As Galileo insisted about the perversity of his persecution by the Catholic Church: “[I]t is impossible for a conclusion to be declared heretical while we remain in doubt as to its truth.”
Now 400 years later, with the Pope’s new Laudato Si’ encyclical, Dr. Soon notes that the Vatican is again engaged in this same error, lending papal authority to highly uncertain scientific views that lie well outside of the Church’s sphere of moral authority.
Willie’s op-ed can be found at the Breitbart News website. I’ll just post a trio of fair-use excerpts here:
The verdict is clear: Any attempt to stop the use of available fossil fuels for life and all human activities will cause far more harm and lead to more deaths than the theological belief in future catastrophic disasters endorsed by the encyclical. Even worse, the church knows that many of the predicted catastrophic disasters from the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide are highly exaggerated if not outright fraudulent. Yet Laudato Si’ gives credence and praise to these predictions by relying on climate models scenarios that have been proven to be false.
Plus:
I fear that this encyclical is driven not by science, but by social motivations and political yearnings.
And again from Galileo:
“[C]ertainly no one doubts that the Supreme Pontiff has always an absolute power to approve or condemn; but it is not in the power: of any created being to make things true or false, for this belongs to their own nature and to the fact.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
After all the praise for this Pope he turns out to be a silly communist. At least he’s honest enough to expressly advocate poverty for all. This will not end well for the Vatican.
And this big new fixation on the moral imperative to stop “climate change” is potentially an epic act of political suicide. Which is the bigger sin, failing to stop a so-called global warming crisis which has increasing credibility problems with its underlying science assessments, or breaking the 9th Commandment – calling skeptic climate scientists ‘paid industry shills’? Character assassination in pursuit of causing the greater public to ignore any kind of critics is not exactly a tactic most people would call moral.
Poverty for all except the ruling elite.
You dont expect them to roule tte on an empty stomach do you???
“Poverty for all except the ruling elite.”
Indeed.
Many years I was travelling behind the Iron Curtain (before it rusted away like an old BMC 1100) and one of the citizens remarked “you can tell the Communists, they’re the ones in the big black cars”.
Plus ca change…
At least there is an explicit call for energy to remain affordable in poor countries, and for rich countries to pay for ‘alternative energies’ if they want them implemented elsewhere. Otherwise, sickening to the stomach for the thinking catholic this string of platitudes. One should also point out that the previous pope gave short and courageous shrift to climate alarmism.
“One should also point out that the previous pope gave short and courageous shrift to climate alarmism”
Reference please.
A cynic might say that Religions and democrats both need the poor and the helpless as their base. What better way to increase poverty.
A side benefit is to use their plight to extract money from the rich & middle class.
The leaders of both will never suffer.
Poverty for all, except for his science advisor, the IPCC’s past “chief Scientist”, the director of the UNFCCC, a few environmental organizations; a small, friendly club united by COI —“Schellnhuber is on the Climate Advisory Board at Deutsche Bank with Rajendra Pachauri, Lord Browne, Lord Oxburgh, Klaus Töpfer, Amory Lovins, (Rocky Mountain Institute), Robert Socolow, (Carbon mitigation Institute, Princeton), Fabio Feldman, (board member at Greenpeace International, The Nature Conservancy (Brazil), and Friends of the Earth Brazil).
Ciao Koch-Weser of Deutsche Bank was on Ban Ki Moon’s “High Level Climate Finance Panel”, with Chris Huhne, Lord Stern, Christine Lagarde, (now IMF chief), George Soros et al. It was set up to advise on the Green Climate Fund of $100 billion per annum, which was agreed at Copenhagen. Their report was released three weeks before the Cancun Climate Conference. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/high_level_climate_finance.html
Koch-Weser’s wife, Maritta Koch-Weser, has served on the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED) with Rajendra Pachauri and became a trustee of Teri-Europe after Richard North revealed John Houghton and Crispin Tickell as trustees. They are now “advisors”. http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-teri-europe-enigma-part-1.html.
At Cancun, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christina Figueres was given the task of convening a new transitional committee to begin work on the formation of the Green Climate Fund and was to second staff from the UN and other international institutions to support the work of the committee. Before her current position she had been involved in carbon trading with the Carbon Rating Agency, a subsidiary of Idea Carbon, to which Lord Stern is advisor, along with his colleague, Sam Fankhauser, of the UK CCC.
http://sppiblog.org/news/a-nest-of-carbon-vipers
Christina Figueres says she learned climate science from Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”
It’s grievances politics. The perfect storm of dogmatic religious and Marxist ideoligies. Intelligent people on both sides of the political spectrum know to ignore such things. The pope’s world view ironically is based on vengeance and ego. He has picked out the devil and the victims and that is that.
It is grievance politics, but it also places Catholicism as a tool of the UN’s New World Order vision in much the same way as the UN wishes to use Bahai. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/substituting-human-values-for-spiritual-growth-lets-education-become-the-driver-towards-the-new-world-order/
The UN deplores religions like Judaism and the Protestant faith that historically focused on the individual instead of the group and society. This encyclical puts Catholicism on the side of the collective religious faiths. It further plays into the vision laid out in 1993 at the Parliament of the World’s Religions. Interestingly enough, that took place in Chicago where Bahai finds its home.
That 1993 Parliament stressed a “Commitment to a Culture of Solidarity and a Just Economic Order.”
There is also a push called the Kairos Conference that is much the same vision that the Pope seems to want to be connected with. The Marxists always did want to try to bring Heaven to Earth.
I, for one, welcome our new overlords, Us.
========
@ur momisugly kim –
I think I’d prefer to be ruled by giant alien ants.
“I’d prefer to be ruled by giant alien ants”
I hear their energy is from direct-formic acid fuel cells, it’s worse than we thought…
Papa has spoken, you shall not question – pish tosh remove the non-spiritual assets and it falls like a stone.
Who said “Religion is the Opium of the people”?? The UN will give us a double dose of Opium: Gaia and Bahai… Gota love’em!!
Unfortunately the Pope has made a nearly heretical declaration for collective action. Christ, probably the most revolutionary of all revolutionaries, preached the revolutionary idea that an individual human life is the most important value. A life is important because God made it. And the greatest duty of one life to another is to respect and care for others- “take what you have, give it to the poor, and come follow me”. Christ never once said anything at all about collective action or “take what they have and give it to others”. The duty and in the end the reconciliation is between one God and one soul.
The Bahá’í World Center is in Haifa, formerly in the Ottoman Empire, then British Palestine, now Israel, where it has been since 1868.
The National seat of the Bahá’ís in the USA is in Wilmette, Illinois, near Chicago.
The Bahá’ís have no clergy and teach that the individual is ultimately responsible for their own knowledge and understanding. They have the right to hold their own interpretations, skeptical or not, but do not have the right to enforce their opinion on others, as others have their equal right to inform, and form, their own opinion according to their understanding.
Galileo’s science didn’t affect people’s lives back then the way these pronouncements will affect people’s lives at the present time.
Conservative Castholics, a ?20%? minority, have long been chary of this happy go lucky Jesuit who scourges all around him. A tell tale flaw of Progressives is the twofold assumption of moral and intellectual superiority based upon the egocentric conceit that ‘they’ are one of the good guys.
Jesuits are by their training ultra-rational and may be somewhat divorced from reality. They are also really good at arguing so they tend to get their own way. The results of their efforts will often disappoint them and they won’t understand why. Those aren’t really the characteristics of a great leader.
“They are also really good at arguing so they tend to get their own way”
A hell-fire and brimstone sermon from a Jesuit in my schoolboy days successfully catapulted me from the Catholic Church. If that was his mission, he was highly successful.
No commieBob, they assert they are ultra-rational and then assert that makes them fit to run everything which is the ultimate irrationality. Writers like John Ralston Saul take issue with that and books like Volaire’s Bastards set out the case.
Like bobburban below they too catapaulted me from the Catholic Chjurch in my schoolboy days courtesy of their vile, slithering and utterly unChristlike arrogance and manifest sociopathy. Of course they were all just in desperate need of a decent shag with a real woman and a pair of female breasts to sleep upon (sorry girls to seem so sexist, there are whole other dimensions to you I know but that is the one missing from the lives of those poor, frustrated bastards).
All that said the eco loons seem a very close fit to the Jesuits and just I hope they don’t go all martial like the SS. They will make ISIS/ISIL,Daesh seem warm and cuddly.
I was educated by the Jesuits for the first two years of college and then for three years of law school. I had and still have a high regard for their ability to teach logical thinking. When it all sank in, I had a different view of t he Church as a whole. It is a damned good business.
If the John Ralson Saul you have quoted is from Canada then you should check out his relationship to Maurice Strong.
Saul worked for Strong for a while. He quotes him four times in Voltaire’s Bastards. Saul seems to have great respect for Strong.
Having said the above, I still think he makes a lot of good points, the main one being: way too many people put way too much reliance on words rather than reality. Such people often find themselves in positions of power and the damage is often severe.
@ur momisugly bobbururban, 7. 39 am, that makes at least 2 of us!
Saul is close enough to Strong to host Strong’s 85th birthday party at Saul’s home in Toronto in April 2014.
I cherish the chary. Like finding a pit in a pie.
=======
The Papacy to the left
Continues to lurch,
Does not bode well
For the Catholic church!
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/global-warming-and-the-catholic-church/
The Pope does not want to be left behind on Marxism. The Dali Lama already stated he was a Marxist and wishes to be a woman.
Look into the Dalai Llama’s involvement with the concept of a Holos Consciousness along with Ervin Laszlo and Nicholas Negroponte. The Club of Rome gets the press but the Club of Budapest may well have the more effective program sneaking through the cracks.
Thanks Robin…I’ve never heard of the Club of Budapest.
Are you saying the Dalai Lama is a Buddha-pest?
The pope reveals he is really a woman in a man’s body, has a sex change operation and becomes the first female pope? That is almost believable — which is a comment on the state of the world. Name something so bizarre that it would totally surprise us — can you?
Eugene WR Gallun
Name something so bizarre that it would totally surprise us
Actual headline: “Entire Klimate Kabal Admits Scam, Returns Billions, Resigns in Shame”
I’ll have whatever Piper’s having.
The “rapture” as predicted by Evangelical Christians actually occurs, and I see it happening with my own eyes instead of just on TV and the “official” media.
I Am actually an African woman lesbian hidden in a mans body. So disagreeing with Me means you are both sexist and rasist.
And yet, it cools.
=============
Nice.
And yet, it cools.
Gods having a mysterious movement !!
You’d have thought pope would have some insider information or is he yet another false prophet
KIm …. superb !
If the church in general and the Vatican in particular was driven by logic and pursuit of truth, there would be no Vatican and no church. Dogma is their trademark and stigma is their tool.
But the upside of this is that nobody can deny any longer that global warming is a religion. It even has a pope 🙂 Leftist media has really taken to this. It must help a lot not to have any principles, otherwise it might look silly one day ridiculing the pope and the next, eat out from his hands.
You can’t beat a dogma with a stigma.
Sorry that should read “beat a dogma”
[Reply: Fixed it for ya… -ModE ]
My karma just ran over your dogma.
His dogma is a catechism.
Or maybe their dogma killed his catechism…
So no papacy for Al Gore then. He’ll have to be happy with being a prophet crying in the wilderness.
The Pope in his encyclical says
“but numerous scientific studies indicate that most of the global warming of recent decades is due to the large concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other) issued mainly because of human activity.”
The Pope may learn a valuable lesson that most sceptics have already recognized , that these scientific studies can be manipulated for political purposes to exaggerate and produce almost any result you want as we saw with the recent Karl et al ocean temperature changes which by a stroke of a pencil doubled the most recent global ocean SST’s. rate of warming
NOAA in their article posted at their NATIONAL CLIMATE DATA CENTER entitled The RECENT GLOBAL SURFACE WARMING HIATUS claim that their recent study “refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or hiatus in the rate of global warming in recent years
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus
Yet NOAA’s own records show this to be incorrect. The hiatus is still happening despite NOAA gyrations to hide it.
• There is clearly little global warming happening since 2005 when it comes to global land area.
• Global land area temperature annual anomalies during the last 10 years show a flat or negative( cooling )trend of -0.02 C / decade according to NOAA own Climate at A Glance data. UAH satellite data confirm this
• Northern Hemisphere land area 12 month temperature anomalies during the last 10 years show a flat or slightly negative or cooling trend -0.05/ C/decade respectively according to NOAA own Climate at A Glance data.
• In North America, Contiguous US annual temperature anomalies show a negative or cooling trend since 2005 at 0.69 F/decade and a cooling trend of 0.48/decade since 1998 according to NOAA own Climate at a Glance data
• A similar pattern appears to be in Canada where 7 out of 11 climate regions show declining annual temperature departures since 1998; one is flat and 3 show warming from the. In other words 70 % of North American climate regions are not experiencing global warming but cooling.
• So how could global warming HIATUS be refuted when it is clearly still happening on most land areas globally or where people live.
The Popes real responsibility is that science is not turned into a religion. Its not to tell his flock to believe in another religion.
As used by the Pope, “scientific” is a polysemic word that changes meaning in the midst of the Pope’s argument. That it changes meaning makes of the Pope’s argument an example of an equivocation. An equivocation looks to the naïve like an argument having a true conclusion aka syllogism but isn’t one. Thus, it is logically improper to draw a conclusion from an equivocation. Nonetheless, the Pope draws the conclusion that “…most of the global warming of recent decades is due to the large concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other) issued mainly because of human activity.” In drawing this conclusion, the Pope is guilty of application of the equivocation fallacy.
Through application of this fallacy the Pope makes a deceptive argument. The leader of the Catholic Church should not make a deceptive argument.
Your comment was posted over 15 hours ago; you should recheck those 10-year trends. Decadal temperature trends published by NOAA can change dramatically in 12 hours.
CORRECTION
The last sentence on the above post should read
So how could global warming HIATUS be refuted when it is clearly still happening on most land areas globally or where people live.
[Reply: Fixed that one too. Proofread, then post… -ModE ]
That correction works fine. I simply substituted ‘not’ for ‘still’ in your original data. The ‘adjustment’ seemed appropriate.
================
Ah, the old ‘hang the church out to dry because Galileo’ tactic. While I disagree with the scientific content of the encyclical, and support those who are working hard to bring the scientific problems of AGW to the world, I also disagree with this bad history of Galileo.
Galileo wasn’t a scientific debate. In fact, Galileo couldn’t demonstrate parallax shift, and so the good scientists of his time recognized that while his theory offered accurate predictions (as did the primary theory of the time), it could not be proven. Galileo went off trying to reinterpret scripture based on his unprovable (at the time) theory, and made some bad political choices along the way.
For some background, see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzohx5oim4w
This is what really gets me about the op-ed. The Galileo mess was all about reinterpreting scripture based on an unprovable science, but it was the Church pointing out the unprovability. In current times, the players appear to have switched roles.
And that was why he was placed on house arrest. He was a good catholic, but his science was not provable?
If you watch the video, it will go into more detail. The short answer is that he wrote a book that called the Pope an idiot, and went around reinterpreting scripture based on his unproven theory.
The issue was never the theory itself.
He insisted that he was able to tell priests and bishops what to preach, that being heliocentrism. The Church position was largely neutral and wanted to remain that way until final proofs came in. It’s not ok for a layman to do this sort of theological back seat driving.
James wrote: “Ah, the old ‘hang the church out to dry because Galileo’ tactic.”
Spot on.
I too do not agree with the encyclical, but bringing Galileo into this is ridiculous. I am not Catholic, but I am pretty sure that an encyclical is not dogma. One can disagree with it and still be a good Catholic.
Galileo, on the other hand, was not being a good Catholic in publicly challenging church dogma. I suppose that the logic challenged won’t see a difference.
By the way, although Galileo could not observe the parallax of fixed stars, I think he did have observational evidence for the heliocentric theory: The phases of Venus.
Good point on the phases of Venus.
It’s interesting that, in the past, a robust scientific debate about what constituted proof and evidence was alive and well. It was also well respected and opposing sides would listen to each other (Galileo was invited to speak many times).
The outrage happened NOT because a theory might be disproven, but because a theory was being used BEFORE it was proven. I would much prefer that behavior.
You’re wrong about the church in Galileo’s time, they declared themselves to be THE standing authority on ALL science much like federal government does today and just as unchallengeable. So it wasn’t just “dogma”, what the church did to Galileo then is no different than what Senator Whitehouse wants to do to me today.
It was pretty clear that the heliocentrists were winning. The Church did not have much of a dog in this fight. Long before Galileo, monks, priests, and bishops had thought through the issues and come up with a way forward no matter which theory turned out right. But they didn’t want to make this sort of thing a stumbling block for people committed to one theory or another so they wanted neutrality while the issue was in any doubt whatsoever and Galileo was determined not to let them stay neutral.
If Aristotle had a telescope he would have changed his tune.
James, what nonsense. Galileo couldn’t demonstrate parallax shift,
The non-uniform movement of the planets was well established in Ptolemy’s time. The very artificial Epicycles had graduated to third order epicycles in Galileo’s time. That system could not be proven and was an increasing embarrassment with every measurement of Tycho’s
Galileo with his telescope proved there were at least 4 companions near Jupiter, that the Moon had mountains, that Venus had a crescent phase.
You are right in that Galileo wasn’t a scientific debate, Indeed not. The Science was settled and the Church forbade any discussion on the matter. If Galileo tried to reinterpret scripture, it is likely an effect of his censure as he was left no other avenue in which to discuss the Copernican system.
I highly recommend TOF’s “The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown” post list: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html
It goes over the history of astronomy in great detail, and will answer some of your statements.
The science might have been settled but Galileo was wrong about crucial details of the heavens so which horse are you backing as having settled the issues? Galileo insisted that planetary orbits must be circles. We know today that they are not. Galileo’s theory of comets is just laughably wrong, viewing them as plays of light instead of real objects. He got heliocentrism right but it was a heliocentrism where the sun was the center of the universe (and thus wrong).
So no, the science wasn’t settled. The Church was right to try to stay out of it. The penance Pope St. John Paul II passed on the Church regarding the Galileo affair was because of due process violations because Galileo’s abrasiveness led the judges to lose their dispassion.
I agree with James. It is a shame that most people got their story of Galileo from Bertholt Brecht’s play, Life of Galileo. Brecht was a German communist. His intention was not so much to tell Galileo’s story as to besmirch the Papacy. As presented in the play, Galileo is a poor struggling scientist persecuted by the pope. In reality, Galileo was a devout Catholic and had done quite well for himself through sales of his various inventions. Galileo and the Pope were friends. The Pope treated Galileo very well. Galileo was arrogant and rude to those who challenged him and so did not win friends among contemporary philosophers.
Now I’ll watch the video recommended by James.
Sometimes, I attend United Methodist worship services on Sunday. During service, they said that a few parishioners had attended a United Methodist conference in Denver this past week. The main topic seems to have been what can we do to green our churches and reduce our carbon footprint. They want all churches to replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs. One of the conclusions was what would Jesus say if he returned today about how we have destroyed our environment. I suspect Jesus would ask the church how it has strayed so far from the mission given to it which is stated in the Bible.
Well, ya see, this angel got jealous, or so I’ve heard.
==============
Here’s a song about him.
There is a ‘faith’ document, produced by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev and distributed globally, together with educational materials, to schools. It is called the Earth Charter but Earth Manifesto would suit it. Both Strong and Gorbachev have said that they hope it will replace the Ten Commandments and Strong has said that it is a kind of new Magna Carta. The United Nations Energy Program (Strong) had originally planned to have an Earth Charter endorsed at the Rio meeting in 1992 where they were successful at having Agenda 21 approved. In 2000, 8 years after Gorbachev took it on as a project of his Green Cross Foundation and Stephen Rockefeller created a panel of Sierra Club and other green radicals to put a new version together, UNESCO endorsed the Earth Charter. So did green groups but so did the United Church of Canada, the Episcopalian Church (U.S.) and others.
The text ‘affirms’ that Earth is in a fragile condition and by the end of the document, affirms that the only way to save Earth is through renewables and global governance. The document is online at http://www.earthcharter.org
As if to ridicule Biblical religions, Stephen Rockefeller and cohorts at the organization built a sort of replica of the Ark of the Convenant, decorated it with earth symbols and put in it the Earth Charter. Several days after 9-11, they paraded it from someplace in Connecticut to the United Nations where, except when it is being paraded about elsewhere, it is housed in the UN’s Meditation Room. Anyone who wonders if Environmentalism is a cult, will have no doubt after investigating this.
Well, there is the small matter of entropy. You are quickening the pace towards the great ends of the universe. Might I suggest LED lights though? They’re more efficient, and deliver on the promise of cheaper lighting that CFL’s never attained. Just saying.
Way ahead of you.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/11/leds-rule-twisty-bulbs-drool/
For many folks, my spouse among them, the excess 540 nm blue in LED lights causes insomnia:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/superchiasmatic-led-light-insomnia/
I now have a drawer with about $200 of LED bulbs in it, but we sleep much better now without disrupted biological clocks.
CFLs for high use areas, incandescents on dimmers for rapid start sporadic use and mood areas. Lifetime supply of high watt incandescents in the closet… (on a dimmer, lifetime is greatly extended, but at the cost of efficiency. Worth it for a gentle start to the bathroom lights at 2 AM…)
Someday, when they make an LED without the 540 nm spike, I may try ONE again.
We declare that “X” is now a sin so now you owe us regular indulgence payments for it, (so we can pay our electric bill and buy new weapons for our Swiss Guard to protect our growing assets).
Read Technochracy Rising by Patrick M. Wood. Watch this intervue with Woods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H7QlOTi86Nk
Shawn Marshall (above post) has it correct: “A tell tale flaw of Progressives is the twofold assumption of moral and intellectual superiority based upon the egocentric conceit that ‘they’ are one of the good guys.”
So, be very skeptical of elitist scientists and their agenda.
Vatican banned skeptical scientist from climate summit…
A French doubter who authored a book arguing that solar activity — not greenhouse gases — was driving global warming, de Larminat sought a spot at a climate summit in April sponsored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Nobel laureates would be there. So would U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs and others calling for dramatic steps to curb carbon emissions.
After securing a high-level meeting at the Vatican, he was told that, space permitting, he could join. He bought a plane ticket from Paris to Rome. But five days before the April 28 summit, de Larminat said, he received an e-mail saying there was no space left. It came after other scientists — as well as the powerful Vatican bureaucrat in charge of the academy — insisted he had no business being there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/how-climate-change-doubters-lost-a-papal-fight/2015/06/20/86af3182-15ce-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.html
How about that, the Vatican and the EPA work the same way!!
Perhaps de Larminat doesn’t have financial backers?
Check out the link of Sachs to The Institute For New Economic Thinking/INET and its founders which include Soros.
http://www.ineteconomics.org/about/leadership-staff
United Nations/UN
GSP-Panel Members Pages
James L. Balsillie/Jim, Co-Founder of INET and Chair. of CIGI, Canada
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/pages/gsp/group-members_1/Jim_Balsillie
Check out the connections at INET.
Maybe this is the beginning of the end of the church!! Ironically, it seems that the Catholic church, having blundered so terribly with Gallileo, is atoning for it by jumping ahead of the science today. When people begin dying in unmistakable numbers from the energy craziness of renewables replacing fossil fuels, then they will simply say “Thank God we nipped fossil fuels or it would have been so much worse.
Make no mistake, we have regressed already a few centuries with loss of freedoms and growing tyranny of an oligarchy of elitist misanthropes. The poor Pope doesn’t get it that he is being used by an anti-God new world order clique that will see his end too. Even most ‘Climate Scientists’ don’t know that they are being used by this ugly bunch but they do know that their paychecks from governments depend on aiding and abetting this.
The Irish on their gay marriage vote showed the World that the edict of the Pope can be challenged successfully. The Pontiff may still end up with egg on his face. I always had my doubts about this Argentinian.
@ur momisugly John Peter,@ur momisugly 12:27 pm.
They sure “spun” him as the “People’s” Pope. Rode a bike, the bus etc read by candle light and all that BS. The masses sure had their h(P)opes up, I can’t believe how they fell for it. But then denying simple things like cheap power and access to water and hygiene so people can advance themselves doesn’t matter to them does it. I am starting to wonder what the word “Pope” stands for. ( I have a few thoughts)
I suppose he washes his own feet regularly, probably one at a time.
===============================
The Pope deals in Faith and Belief, Science in Observation, Logic and Facts. The Church has no business making its views known about science, than science has about making its views known about Faith. Prof Dawkins, please take note!
+1
His Holiness may have done all rational folks a big favour. For quite some time many observers have been pointing out how much the global warming/climate change/climate disruption/bogey-man-gonna-get-you construct ressembles and behaves like a religion rather than science. The Pope, well intentioned though he may be, has just put the vatican seal to that observation.
(reposted from No Tricks Zone)
Came across this intriguing tidbit—that the Vatican’s science advisor is “…a self-professed atheist…named Hans Schellnhuber [who] appears to believe in a Mother Earth [GAIA].”
In the same article, GAIA is described as, “…“[a] scientific pantheism,” a kind that appeals to atheistic scientists. It is an updated version of the pagan belief that the universe itself is God, that the Earth is at least semi-divine — a real Brother Sun and Sister Water! Mother Earth is immanent in creation and not transcendent, like the Christian God.”
And THIS is the input that restricted climate “skeptics” from offering opposing views to global warming, and upon which the Pope relied in forming his encyclical? Oh, my! Source: https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/
http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/23/flagship-german-faz-assails-popes-distorted-depiction-of-civilization-encyclicals-vision-a-frightening-idea/#sthash.S3PTfo47.dpbs
The Catholic church was invented for totalitarian control of the masses with an “infallible” and therefore unchallengeable authority – God speaking through the Pope. The penalty of dissension is death, and there is a long history of the church exercising this ultimate authority to beat the masses into line.
Other than that, they are charming folk.
The Catholic Church was for 1500 years the Christian Church. It was introduced (during the Roman Warm Period) into a totalitarian/police state that was the Roman Empire. From its beginning, it was persecuted because it was not an approved ‘state’ religion. The idea was to separate church and state but to provide moral guidance to the state. A 2013 book called Worshipping the State, How Liberalism Became Our State Religion by Benjamin Wiker is a helpful read in understanding the historical relationship between religion, science and politics.
Strike two on science.
It is unfortunate that the Pope or one of his Cardinals could not attend the 10TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE and heard PAUL DRIESSEN on Panel # 5 talk about CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPACTS and how the implementation of global warming action plans that the alarmists propose will really hurt the poor of the world , not help them . He seems to be getting bad advise on global warming science and broader energy issues. It is really unfortunate that a kind person that he is, that he is getting so much distorted information.
You can hear it here
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/63538667
Ok, I have a startling announcement to make. I’m afraid to do so, the payback could be a bi..h. But, it’ll be worth it. Now, I’ve commented on my sister, my older sister, many times; how, in a previous life she must’ve been a beastly apparition; how she was responsible for my arrested development; how she tormented me; how she’s a vampire who, uniquely, is unaffected by daylight. But, trust me, I have not told you the worst. Ready?
My older sister was … a nun!
Yes, she was a nun and I’m not making that up. She wore one of those all black outfits with one of those white cardboard head thingies with a black veil around it and a Rosary as jewelry.
Now, when my family gets together we talk about what we were, are now, and what we’ve overcome. For instance I was an alcoholic who, while hospitalized with liver disease, was able to quit drinking on the spur of the moment, yet can still enjoy alcohol in moderation – to the amazement and respect of my family and friends. I accomplished something to be proud of. A sibling was a coke head with a uni-nostril but is now clean and now runs a successful business that makes tissue paper. He can be proud of what he overcame. Another sibling was a bank robber but saw the light during a stint in prison, has reformed, and is now raising a family and advising people what investments to put their money into. And another sibling was a meth addict and she hooked on the mean streets of Des Moines, Iowa to pay for her habit. But she has come clean too, and now she works for a pharmaceutical company developing a cure for erectile dysfunction.
When we get together to talk amongst ourselves we confess to what we were and take pride in what we’ve become. We have nothing to be embarrassed about. Except of course for one of us. And you know who – my older sister. She readily admits that she wishes she had been a hooker, or a smack head, or an alcoholic. I mean, think of it: sitting in a circle saying, “I was a hooker but I’m not anymore,” and all the attendees nodding in approval. And it goes to the next person who says, “I was a heroine addict but I kicked it,” and all the attendees nod, perhaps clap, and marvel at that person’s inner strength. And it continues this way until it gets to my older sister who says;
“I was a nun.”
And all the attendees do their best to avoid peeing in their pants, blasting the day’s food and liquids out at each other, and getting side aches and cramps.
So, let the foregoing be a warning to our dear Francis and his Encyclical. You see, when all the other popes get together to reminisce in the afterworld pope nursing home they may confess things like, “Yes, I was involved in a plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth, but I’ve since recognized the error.” Or, one might confess, “I instigated the Inquisition, but I’ve since reformed.”
And, what is Pope Francis going to say;
“I hooked up the Catholic Church to global warming.”
Tom J rolls another one.
Keep it up, if you please.
Thanks. You realize, however, that my older sister has a voodoo doll with my likeness (I never thought I was quite that homely). And, she’s right now sticking a hat pin deep into it. I can feel it. Ah, but it’s worth it.
Think of it as if she’s giving you acupuncture by teleconnection, Tom.
@jorge, thanks there goes another key board
Dr Willie Soon says:” I fear that this encyclical is driven not by science, but by social motivations and political yearnings.”
Now I happen to agree that the Pope has made a big mistake putting his authority behind a failed analysis of climate change. (And I say that as a Catholic.) But I do wonder if Dr Soon had bothered to read the Encyclical. I mean, the whole Encyclical rather than just the bits about climate change. The bits about climate change occupy a relatively small portion of the Encyclical. I also wonder what gives Dr Soon the qualification to discern that the Encyclical – in his view – is driven by ‘social motivations and political yearnings.’ Does he have some special insight into the mind of the Pope? Let’s stick to what the Encyclical says rather than making wild assertions as to its motives. Would Dr Soon like it if climate alarmists made wild assertions about the motives of his publications?
Dr Soon might also benefit from reading past Encyclicals written by Popes on social issues. I recommend that he starts with ‘Rerum Novarum’, written by Pope Leo XIII in 1891.
Alba, would you have us follow, or ignore ignore the Pope’s encyclical opinion and advice? The climate meanderings were certainly not produced by adherence to the encyclical’s own entreaties (see para.188)
pimf- plase ignore one each “ignore”, above.
@ur momisugly alba 8:36 am,”Now I happen to agree that the Pope has made a big mistake putting his authority behind a failed analysis of climate change”
I somewhat agree . Why I am worried (and not surprised) is that a lot of the Encyclical are NOT the Pope’s thoughts but rather the results of the deep political infighting within the Church that has been going on for centuries. And the effect it has had on the history of humankind.
What is behind the curtain? What made the Pope with all his advisers (they are not stupid people) publish on Global Warming? Obvious politics is involved, but what was the incentive for the Church?
Now this is where we need wikileaks and a lot of young people are starting to see it this way too. Shred the curtain.
Perhaps the incentive was to be on ,what they at the Vatican perceive to be, the winning side.
Agree. It didn’t want to be left behind.
If you’re looking for a theory, here’s one:
Having somehow been convinced that the worst effects of climate change will disproportionately affect the poor (mostly Third World), the Pope and his advisers have decided to deploy the precautionary principal in response. Smart as they are, the RCC has historically had an unfirm grip of economics and tends to believe that wishing can “make it so”.
OR…. while the right hand is covering over the discussions of child abuse, the left hand is making grandiloquent, virtuous gestures to the public. Government by red herring. An oldie but a goodie.
Well, there was that account with the ‘surprise’ $ 1 Billion sitting in it. 🙂
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+$$$$$$$$$