Stunning Photo Reveals How Vatican Learned to Spin Global Warming

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale. Pope Francis’s entry into the political climate-change debate was welcomed by some, frowned on by others. A new photo reveals who taught the Pope the proper way to spin global warming. Pope Francis Global Warming Advisors [My apologies to the Harlem Globetrotters.] Will the Vatican be adding solar panels atop the Sistine Chapel and a windmill at the peak of the obelisk in Saint Peter’s square?  They should lead by example.

UPDATE:  My little add-on note at the end was unwarranted.  According to blogger imoira, the Vatican had added a large photovoltaic plant a number of years ago and has proclaimed itself the greenest state in the world.  See Vatican City Is The ‘Greenest State In The World’

Thanks, imoira.

 

Advertisements

140 thoughts on “Stunning Photo Reveals How Vatican Learned to Spin Global Warming

    • I think that’s the stand-by coal generator for when the solar panels are off air….

  1. Ya know, I get the humor. And the pun is deserved.
    But, it just makes me sad. I’m not a Catholic, but, it makes me so sad.
    ********************************************
    Re: Vatican adding solar panels/windmills to St. Peter’s Square buildings
    Vatican (look right, look left): How much is it worth to you?
    Scripture for Sunday:

    “… Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area …
    ‘Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!'”

    John 2:13-16.

      • Can’t you almost hear, echoing across 2,000 years, the cynical sneer of one of Caesar’s functionaries:
        “What is truth?”
        Pontius Pilate, Roman Procurator of Judea c. 33 A.D. (John 18:38)

      • I think the holy see is all at sea and have lost the chart and the paddle on this.
        As you say Janice very sad.
        I see my branch of the church also making sad statements on this as well.
        James Bull

  2. It seems like one miracle, like one volcano could easily erase all the warming of the past 100 years.

    • Considering it was a small-scale rescue from the coldest decades of the last 100 centuries, that would be a malevolent miracle.

  3. The memories of hundreds of children abused at the hand of evil priests is less easily erased. One wonders if there weren’t some back door deal made between the Vatican and some governments to avoid prosecutions.

  4. I am glad in a way to see the Pope take this stance. After all, the Roman Catholic Church has almost always been wrong in matters of science so this is just one more nail in James Hansen’s stupid theory.

    • markstoval,
      As a scientist, I would like to read what the Pope is putting in his encyclical before I decide on whether I will have a hard time with it or not. The Heartland Institute made a valiant effort to be heard at non-scientific gathering of world leaders on climate at the Vatican before the encyclical is published.
      The pope has disappointed many in the left wing media for not adopting positions he was purported of holding. eg Abortion , gay marriage….etc
      I hopefully anticipate a watered down version of what the UN wants. After all the church magisterium are not idiots. I will withhold my criticism until I read it myself.
      As far as your statement ” after all, the Roman Catholic Church has almost always been wrong in matters of science”, you could not be more wrong. More often than not the church has advanced, participated in and was on the right side of science, even wrt the myth of the Galileo trials. Any preconceptions you may have about those are likely unfounded and I would be happy to dispossess you of your unfounded biases for I do know my history relatively well.

      • Your reply reminds me of an old Soviet joke: “”The future is known, it is the past that keeps changing.”
        You may keep your impressions of the history of the Church to yourself, I do not need (or want) your “help”.

      • OK the markstoval, I will reply not to you, but to the people to whom you were communicating when you said “after all, the Roman Catholic Church has almost always been wrong in matters of science”.
        Markstoval is uninformed. He does not know that:
        1) modern science was invented by catholic monk, Roger Bacon and his method was documented in his Opus Majus. ~1220 AD.
        2) Modern genetics was invented Gregor Mendel, another catholic monk,
        3) Copernicus, a catholic cleric documented the heliocentric universe in about 1542, with the blessing of Pope Paul III
        4) The big bang was invented by Fr Georges Henri LeMaitre, PhD, a belgian catholic priest and physicist.
        (the “atheist” scientific community has tried to conceal their dismissal of Lemaitre for 90 years, but the facts are known now. The “atheist” cosmologists were hardly objective… they were down right anti-catholic… and wrong.)
        the list goes on…
        Here is an abridged wiki version…
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
        Now you know that Markstoval is uniformed on this matter, and a little hostile about it, so on other matters, he may suffer bias, hostility and unscientific, opinion as well. For future reference.

      • As always, thanks Paul W
        There are many other religious scientists among the Muslim scholars who are unknown in the West. Ignorance is pervasive it seems.
        Also the Aztecs, Mayans and in China, India – there have been many who contributes to the corpus of global scientific knowledge.
        It is only by shrinking their view and experience that the materialist scientists of today manage to continue to deny that it was the inspired who led us into the modern age.
        You’d be surprised how many people in the West think Al-Gebra is a terrorist organisation.

      • Crispin,
        Al Gerbra, Al Jazeera, Al Qaeda Al Capone….. all criminals!
        Sorry to bore you with the canned diatribe….It is like NOBODY has ever read anything. Gregor Mendel… really in this day and age? People don’t know who Gregor Mendel was?
        The wiseacre dim wits really stand out though

      • While I think markstoval’s blanket criticism of the Roman Catholic Church is almost certainly wrong, I note that Paul Westhaver didn’t actually address his point. He was talking about the Church, i.e. the authority and teachings of the Church, but Paul responded with a list of individual Catholic scientists, none of whom were apparently in any position of authority.
        I don’t know much about the history of the Catholic Church and science, so I did a quick web search. According to this Wiki page,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
        in 1633 the Inquisition convicted Catholic scientist Galileo of being “vehemently suspect of heresy” for teaching heliocentrism, banned all his publications past or future, and sentenced him to house arrest for life. Earlier the Church had “banned all books advocating the Copernican system.” Copernicus was of course a Catholic scientist on Paul’s list. It’s Wiki, so if this is wrong in any way, Paul will hopefully weigh in. Otherwise, it’s one point for markstoval.
        On the other hand, I found this Wiki page on the Church and evolution:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
        This claims the Church said nothing authoritative on evolution until 1950, when “Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution…” If this Wiki page is correct, then I’d say it’s one point for Paul Westhaver.
        Two cases can’t decide the truth of markstoval’s claim, and I’m too lazy to check further, but no doubt history expert Paul Westhaver has several more examples readily at hand. Paul?

      • Paul Westhaver whined:
        “OK the markstoval, I will reply not to you, but to the people to whom you were communicating when you said “after all, the Roman Catholic Church has almost always been wrong in matters of science”.
        “Markstoval is uninformed. He does not know that: …”
        —-
        Interesting to see that you think you know what I am aware of and what I am not aware of. Besides believing in a magical being, you are a mind reader also; or claim to be one. And yet with all your magical powers you can’t read for understanding. Typical of the fanatics like yourself.
        The Church once governed Europe in effect. At that time the monasteries allowed men to work in thoughts much like the US government today gives grants to practice climate “science”. This allowed for some to move us forward. So? Do you have the mistaken idea that Bacon ran the church?
        The fact that some scientists who believe in a “God” have done good science is not an answer to what I wrote. If your logic skills were any good you would know that. (probably you do, and are being disingenuous)
        The RC Church has taken few official positions on scientific matters. Almost all were wrong. For example, the official position of the Church was that the universe revolved around the earth. Are you going to defend that position? The Pope has no business involving the church in scientific matters. The Church has far more important issues to address and this will be a debacle. I have made a testable prediction.

      • Markstoval, You said that you didn’t need my help. Well. You obviously need help from someone.
        You suffer a condition called “Invincible Ignorance”. You are actually so profoundly ignorant of science and history that you cannot be held responsible. Like a small child can’t be held responsible for things it simply cannot know.
        Troublingly you may also be “willfully ignorant”. That is to say you could know, but choose to not know, when knowing in possible. In that case, the choice is yours. There are plenty of books.
        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/
        and you can STILL buy a copy,
        http://www.amazon.com/Revolutions-Heavenly-Spheres-Great-Series/dp/1573920355/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1/189-1586341-1861261
        A cleric, a famous one, Nicolaus Copernicus wrote “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” [On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres] over a period of years, and began to have it published in 1542. Prior to publishing it, he sought and obtained the blessings of the Church for his scientific theory. This about 50 years BEFORE the Galileo issue.
        Yes ~50 years BEFORE Galileo the Church accepted, and authorized the publication of the heliocentric cosmos as a scientific theory.
        Markstoval can pretend in his anti-catholic hostile child-like mind, that the book never was written.
        But even Galileo, in a letter to Johannes Kepler made reference to Copenican’s Work before he published his work. Documented facts are rather stubborn, aren’t they.

      • Amen!
        It is a shame that this myth of religion vs. science seems to still be present, even in more rational sites.
        One has only to look at the number of global universities initiated by religious organizations :
        http://mste.illinois.edu/courses/ci407su02/students/ssilic/Famous_Universities.htm
        The list does not include the much longer list of monastic & other learning institutions at lower levels that brought learning, including the production of written material, that helped spread ideas across nations.

      • “…and you can STILL buy a copy”
        So Paul, you’re saying the Church was FOR heliocentrism before it was AGAINST it before it was FOR it? 🙂

      • Gary Hladik says: “So Paul, you’re saying the Church was FOR heliocentrism before it was AGAINST it before it was FOR it”
        YEEEP! Well sort of but close enough.
        You see, the scientific community never talked about it after Roger Bacon (a monk) invented science in ~1267 AD or before 1400s. Nobody talked about Nuclear Power before the atom was understood.
        Once Copernicus set it out in 1542, his friends in the Church though nothing of it. for 70 years except that it really got under the skin of the 1550-ish scientists at the time who nearly all still thought the earth-centric model was valid. You see the Church accepted it but in the face of the contemporary scientific firestorm they didn’t want to advance it as the “correct theory” because they didn’t know for sure. Galileo read it, wrote to Kepler about it, and told Kepler that he didn’t want to come out of the closet as a Copernican because he’d look the fool, amongst his fellow scientists. Eventually, Galileo got over his reservations and published some works in 1622 (and others), at the encouragement of Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, who became Pope in 1623. Urna VIII. In 1616 the Copernican book was banned due to errors in 9 sentences which were fixed and the book was unbanned in 1622.
        In 1633 the second trial took place and Galileo referenced Copernicus, which was accepted, and restated the Copernican model after having published it in the vernacular c/w some theological implications about Joshua. Galileo’s second trail was less about science and more about contract law. He promised not to contradict Scripture and he did so, invoking Copernicus in the process.
        So the tribunal asked him if he could prove the sun was fixed and that the planets orbited the sun in a circular path and he could not prove it. He admitted that. They now had a bigger problem. Most of the scholars were already Copernicans and they were relying on Galileo to prove it and he could not. So they shelved and condemned Copernicus’ book (NOT BANNED) and told Galileo to shut up.
        So in relation to heliocentricity they 1) never thought about it, 2) accepted it from Copernicus but were afraid to mention it because of the literalists in the protestant reformation, 3) accepted it again after revision, then 4) ruled it as unproven by way of the second Galileo trial.
        So Galileo shot too soon and too weak. And p1ssed off his benefactors in the process.
        Pope Gregory the great changed the calender by decree in 1582 with the advice of Christoph Clavis, a Jesuit and mathematician and astronomer. FYI
        The Popes relied on the scientists! Galileo let them down, and threw Copernicus under the bus with himself.

      • @Alba ask rather than sneer and Paul will give you a thorough tutorial! I agree the actual wording of the encyclical may surprise everyone though the warmistas are likely to receive it and try to spin out of context lines just like the press reported that recent magnificent triumph in diplomacy pulled off by Kerry with Iran.

    • A public event such as this climate meeting was could not have taken place without at least the Pope’s knowledge if not his approval.
      The RC church is not a democracy and its clergy do take vows of obedience. No would have been no.

    • Anyway, the April 2015 “Declaration” had to be signed by the participants. So they had to come out from underneath the woodwork to sign it.
      Perhaps fortunate for those who were not invited to the conference?

  5. It would be a “stunning photo” indeed if you could teach Rome anything it did not know already. (:
    But it looks like a fun afternoon in the Eternal City.

  6. Alas, the Vatican led by example in 2007. A company promised to plant a forest in Hungary in some sort of carbon dioxide emissions trade. I read somewhere that the the company didn’t plant the forest. This link tells the story: http://www.americancatholic.org/news/report.aspx?id=2511
    And the Vatican has already installed solar panels. inhabitat.com/the-vatican-city-is-the-greenest-state-in-the-world/

    • Thanks to Imoira, Bob had to make corrections to his posting. When should we expect to see all the needed corrections from Bob regarding the mis-information spread on his blog site and here over the many years? Maybe even a formal apology to all his closest followers for misleading them?
      By the way Bob, I am still waiting for you to provide even a simple summary of your work experience that can add any credibility for your illusionary expertise on climate science. So much for any chance of transparency coming from you.
      Go Pope Francis!

  7. Okay. I needed a smile, so:
    Presenting…. The Harlem Globetrotters!!!

    (youtube)
    #(:))
    Those guys are SO COOL!

  8. Tell me. Are the comments on this website about Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, etc any better-informed than those about Pope Francis and the Catholic Church? I sincerely hope so. But when people want to stay in the darkness they try to shut out the light. So instead of actually examining whether they are making statements that are informed rather than just prejudiced some people, as I say, prefer the darkness to the light.

    • Alba,
      There’s no Catholic version of the ADL so basically anything goes when it comes to Catholic bashing.
      But do note that there are some thoughtful posters who will take a stance, such as Paul Westhaver.

      • Max, you honor me. I so dislike deceit, and the carping “drones amongst the bees”, especially those who pretend to know classical history combined with jingoistic wholesale disparagement of a class of people who are objectively undeserving of such maligning.
        Somebody says Pope and the turkeys gobble gobble
        <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9zvgcOrTtw"Watch the turkeys Gobble Gobble
        Honestly, rarely does anyone who actually know history make a snide remark. It is usually an ignoramus looking to get cheered on. That works elsewhere but here, generally, readers and commenters have read a few books, It is a betrayal of both ignorance at gutter talk.
        Keep up your off-beat wise cracks Max… they are rich!

    • tons of sealed documents in the cellars of the Vatican.
      Forged documents about donations to the church and monasteries.
      Decades of work for courts.
      Bring them to the light, Alba.

    • Alba, one would think Gavin Schmidt is presently fighting to keep funding for NASA GISS.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/02/tough-times-for-nasa-giss/
      James Hansen retired a couple of years ago and is no longer in the limelight (aka, Hansen’s a has-been). And even the CO2 obsessed have abandoned Michael Mann.
      Regarding Mann, there are 14,000 people enrolled in John Cook’s UQ Denial101 class.
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Week-1-Denial101x.html
      That online course includes a plethora of YouTube videos, many of them interviews. As of today, two weeks into the class, less than 400 persons have watched the YouTube interview with Michael Mann. In other words, about 97% of the enrollees in that class couldn’t be bothered to even click on the link to Mann’s interview, let alone watch the full hour.
      https://www.youtube.com/user/denial101x/videos
      Cheers.

      • “abandoned Michael Mann” has published 8 peer reviewed papers in 2014 and has already 7 papers in 2015.
        I wonder what the max number of papers in ’14 and ’15 are for any at the Heartland Show next month.

      • I am one of those enrolled. I really could not stomach to watch more than three “lectures”. It was sick making on a number of levels. The introduction to the course was pure and simple propaganda; the next two lectures had more mistakes than vowels; AND I used to hold UQ in such a high regard as one of the best universities in the world. Sadly, science is giving way yet again to religious fervour. The vatican is just cashing in on the fact that a percentage of the retards that “believe” in global {warming|change|disruption} might be Papists and therefore should continue to tithe until the end days. Which is REAL soon now. Well, three days ago according to the Warmies.

      • OBVIOUSLY trafamadore has never read the Climategate email dump. It’s very clear that Michael Mann and a few others of his ilk control the climate pal review industry. So one of the good ol’ boys gets papers published? As Gomer would say, “Suprize, suprize, suprize!”

      • trafamadore, I explained my “abandoned Michael Mann”. Mann may have published a bunch of papers in the past couple of years, but apparently no one, even the CO2 obsessed, are interested in what he has to say. In other words, Mann and Cook wasted an hour on that interview for that denial class.

      • at 4:53 where trafamadore uses the law of large numbers to praise Mann –
        Why does he need so many? If he is right, one would be enough!
        [Apology to A. Einstein]

    • vatileaks: combined forces of NSA and google digitilazation.
      Fasten seat belts.

  9. They do lead by example:
    1. Confess your sins you sinner.
    2. Pay penance for your sins you sinner.
    3. This sin is forgiven you, but you are bad to the bone and will sin again real soon.
    4. Be sure not to miss your next appointment or the acropolis will fall on your head.
    5. Send in the next idiot on your way out, thanks..

    • I would suggest in their mind good business.
      The pagans showed the way its about joining but getting something out of it.
      My interest is to see who becomes the dominant player in the new improved religion.
      Will it be Catholicism with a green world tax or IPCC with lots of flash church’s to gather the people into with wind turbines and solar panels all round and over them.
      in my mind they are both stuffed and they are doing it to themselves.
      Why would a religion chase that false prophet.

  10. In the first few weeks I thought this was a Pope who was trying to reach out by acknowledging the realities of the world. But in an effort, by the Cardinals, to find someone more relevant I believe they are making the Church irrelevant. He seems to be just a pop culture wannabe.

    • Mark,
      Yeah… it looks like a Vatican press office debacle to me. I doubt the Vatican will reverse on it central principles. ie population control, supremacy of God, man having dominion over the earth, all those things the left want the Church to back away from.
      I however can see them arguing in favor of a justification for a UN tax, which I will not like.
      WRT “science” the Vatican is going to point to the so-called 97%

  11. Wait just a minute,
    that’s Lord Monckton of Brenchley in the background (have to squint).
    This is the Heartland B-Ball team, disguised as Globetrotters, finally getting on with the Pope.

  12. Maybe a new word will appear in the Dictionaries below ‘Pontification’,
    ‘Popetification’.

  13. This is the lowest the Warmistas have yet descended. The current Pope was a liberation ideologist, i.e. lefty, and his being recruited for the cause degrades the Catholic church to a political pawn.

  14. Cardinal George Pell from OZ is now a senior cardinal at the Vatican. The Pope recently used his economic understanding to overall the Vatican finances.
    But he is also a CAGW sceptic and must be shaking his head in disbelief at this latest nonsense from the Pope. Here is his 2011 address to the GWPF when he was still Archbishop Pell of Sydney. Here’s the video link.
    http://www.thegwpf.com/the-2011-annual-gwpf-lecture-by-cardinal-george-pell-the-archbishop-of-sydney/
    And here is a PDF of Cardinal Pell’s Address. I’m sure most readers will find his address very interesting.
    http://www.thegwpf.com/images/stories/gwpf-reports/pell-2011_annual_gwpf_lecture_new.pdf

    • Cardinal Pell has vow of obedience to the Pope. He can’t say or do as he pleases.
      The situation was different in 2011 than it is now.

      • I think in private quarters it would be difficult to presume the conversation. Also. the encyclical is not yet published and Francis has made a habit of disappointing the leftist press on key matters.

  15. “The Holy Father and the U.S. Catholic Bishops recognize climate change as a moral issue …” dang, I thought it was a political issue.

    • They are right; it is a moral issue (as well as political and scientific). It is immoral for the Climate Liars to push their CAGW ideology, forcing energy prices sky-high to the detriment of all humanity, thus lowering living standards which hurts the middle class, especially the poor, very likely causing millions to die.

  16. Someone way smarter than me once said something like:
    “Never Discuss Politics or Religion in polite company”
    ========
    It never turns out well, no matter the good intentions.

  17. Whoring fer the UN–that’s a little cheap. Guess when yer main business is failin’, ya has to tries somethin’ else. Let’s hope he’s the last…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
    But yous can’t expects much from a Nazi. Ratzi run-off with his boyfriend when the goin’ got tuff. Now this one’s not even takin’ care of business!

  18. Vatican was spending $660 million on a massive 100MW photovoltaic installation
    estimated to have saved the Vatican 89.84 tons in oil.
    ==============
    about 600 barrels of oil, at $60/barrel. $36 thousand dollars.

  19. I suppose a carbon tax (or green subsidies) is like paying a modern day indulgence. After all, it’s paid to avert the threat of being roasted.

  20. “ferdberple
    May 9, 2015 at 9:45 pm
    Vatican was spending $660 million on a massive 100MW photovoltaic installation
    estimated to have saved the Vatican 89.84 tons in oil.
    ==============
    about 600 barrels of oil, at $60/barrel. $36 thousand dollars.”
    From the article discussing the installation:
    “The main solar array is located on a 740 acre site near Santa Maria di Galeria, but the solar panels that were installed on Paul VI’s conference hall were put in two years ago and are estimated to have saved the Vatican 89.84 tons in oil”
    So it’s the panels on the conference hall roof that have apparently saved the Vatican 89.84 tons in oil, not the $660 million installation.
    Sadly, they don’t mention how much those conference hall panels cost.

  21. The Pope has said nothing as yet. Before he does he will, no doubt ponder Pope John-Paul II’s observation, “One Galileo is enough”.

  22. All religions of the world aren’t worth one hair on the head of a prophetic genius, Giordano Bruno (after a long torture, burnt at the stake upside down at 6 AM while gagged that he couldn’t say anything to the few onlookers that happened to witness his execution at this early hour (what cowards!) — and all this for saying that stars are other Suns, that there are other planets, and that the Earth is not in the center of everything).
    I would be ashamed to call myself a Christian.

    • Christianity, what it is really about, is not what men have done to other men but about what God has done in Christ for Man despite what Man has done to God.
      Many have done things in the name of God before first finding out what it is God wants done. Don’t blame God for that. There’s only been one who by his freedom of will always did what God wanted done. (And what He wanted done was for our benefit. If you want to learn mote, go to the Book itself and not just what someone told you about it.)
      PS I was born and raised Roman Catholic. Then, after a few side trips and a heart-felt plea to God, I was helped and directed to The Book itself.

      • There is no logical argument capable of convincing a believer.
        Therefore, any intelligent conversation with believers is impossible.
        You just have to live with your Book until the end of your days, when you shall disappear, and your Book will remain, forgotten, in the dust.

  23. One Galileo? ONE Galileo??? How about hundreds and thousands of the best minds of Europe, burnt alive, disemboweled, quartered, tortured, persecuted, hunted down, castrated, denounced and given to the crowds to have bloody fun, belied, defamed, slanderer, destroyed physically and spiritually for centuries?
    Christians like so much talking about their martyrs who died for nonsense but they created hundred times more martyrs who died for reason. And still, Vatican is at it: it supports and finances the gigantic lies of climate change and its last cast for creationism, the Big Bang Idiocy.
    Oh boy, if only I could say what I really think about this old socialist fox in Rome!

    • Wow.. got a real hate on doncha? Here to begin, and where to end? You know your facts are so abusively wrong and you frame of mind so intractable hostile, I ain’t gonna bother with you at all. You are a lost cause.
      Folks, if you at all believe this troll, I suggest you challenge anything and everything he just wrote, and look up anything for yourself.

      • Paul Westhaver,
        Yes, I am hostile to murder and torture. Facts are on my side, and you know it.
        Bring William Tyndale back to life, then we’ll talk again.

      • “…I suggest you challenge anything and everything he just wrote, and look up anything for yourself.”
        CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!!

        Being lazy, I started and stopped with Wiki. I assume Alexander Feht refers to the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition, so I went straight to the page on the Spanish Inquisition, which is of course just part of the story but arguably the worst part:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
        By one estimate, in its entire history the Spanish Inquisition “processed” some 150,000 people, executing some 3,000 to 5,000 of them. This is, frankly, less than I expected, though it’s horrific enough. Of course there was also considerable torture and intimidation involved, not to mention collateral damage such as the deaths of children orphaned by the Inquisition.
        Although some of Alexander Feht’s “best minds of Europe” may have fallen victim, the Inquisition seems to have been more interested in enriching the Church (and presumably the Inquisitors) than enforcing scientific orthodoxy:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Confiscations
        You don’t suppose some of the modern Gaia worshipers have shrines to the almighty Dollar in their basements, do you? 🙂

  24. If they closed down Vatican City how many carbon PILGRIM footprints’ could be saved!

    • K, Why not try Agnosticism, Catholics(Christians) are only Human beings. They have no special connection to God. Why throw the baby out with the bath water.

      • Clearly atheism is a belief in itself as you can never rationally eliminate all possibility of a god, that is rationally.
        So agnosticism is the rational consequence of not adopting a religion but continuing life with an open mind which is the rational position.
        CAGW is a belief because it lives as a settled position we are told, if we oppose we risk ridicule. the most irrational space.

  25. I also like many young Catholics abandoned my faith but took it up when I had children.
    Why? The atheists’ thinking is don’t impose your values on your children. Let them decide.
    How ridiculous. If you never expose your children to religion how will they ever experience it to make a decision between religion and atheism?

    • I think that people naturally move in and out of their relationship with their religions. People grow, suffer, learn, change, and somehow the process of life adds to the complex Mulligan’s Stew of our mind. People go through rationalism, charismaticism, stubborness, loneliness, boyant exhilaration, dark abandonment… all of it.
      People are not computers, they feel. When you have children, you share in our divine nature as creators.
      I suppose if people don’t provide a child with a philosophical framework, the child will find one, likely in the dark reaches of the internet.

      • Mr. Westhaver, your comments regarding religion are the most thoughtful and intelligent that I’ve read here.
        Although I was raised Eastern Orthodox, my parents allowed me to attend many other churches when I was young, since there wasn’t an Orthodox church near our house. They taught me me that ALL religions, not only Christian or the various denominations, were good. Governments may make laws, but it is religions that instill morals, what is right and wrong, and even more important, these morals guide us from within – we strive to do the right thing even though there isn’t a sanctioned punishment for doing the wrong.
        I do not have children, but as I entered mid-life, I returned naturally to the religion of my childhood; it also helped that my wife was of the same religion. There is a degree of comfort with this.
        One last thing – whenever I read or hear of the “evils” of religions, they always neglect to mention what religions do provide: hope. There are untold number of people on this planet, for which life would be unbearable without the hope that religions give them.

      • Stevan Makarevich,
        Life is a rough road. And Life is good.
        Слава Ісусу Христу!
        Cheers.

  26. Looking at many of the posts, I would think I happened to click on RealClimate or SkepticalScience.

  27. UPDATE: My little add-on note at the end was unwarranted. According to blogger imoira, the Vatican had added a large photovoltaic plant a number of years ago and has proclaimed itself the greenest state in the world.

    You corrected a mistake. Now I know that you are not a “Climate Scientist”! (A sub-pontife.8-)
    Regarding what I quoted, I for one am not green with envy.

  28. It’s easy to be the greenest state in the world when you are the 19th wealthiest “country” on the planet and have a land surface area the size of a good sized college campus. However, if one extends the size of this “country” to include all church owned real estate and investments and possessions globally, where would they rank then? It seems difficult to imagine that they would be anywhere but near the middle, given that almost none of those investments, possessions, and so on generate their own electricity on the limited premises, but instead get electricity from whatever the local power grid happens to be.
    We could also tot up the non-green cost of all of the gasoline and fossil fuels required to heat the churches, consumed by individuals who make a mandatory trip at least once a week to a common building that could be many miles from their homes to attend a pointless group reconditioning session to help them continue to believe in the unbelievable, expended in making odd custom clothing complete with funny hats to indicate “rank”…
    But even if Francis makes the church truly “green” or the more difficult “carbon neutral”, it won’t alter the underlying facts and science of the climate, which is more unknown and less known, although even as a new world religion it is better known than the absurdities of the old ones.
    rgb

  29. Paul Westhaver
    May 10, 2015 at 7:13 am
    …”I became an atheist at a very young age”
    =======================
    Yes, I did.
    I also stopped believing in santa clause elves and the easter bunny a young age.
    But some people never grow up.
    [trimmed]

  30. At the age of seven I became convinced somehow that my true essence could not be annihilated. I have never doubted that since. –AGF

    • Since the atoms that you are made of were created billions of years ago, and will continue billions of years from now, you are essentially correct.

    • Since the atoms that you are made of have existed for billions of years and will continue to exist for billions of years, you are essentially correct. Religion is not required.

      • There’s no reason a mature human brain could not eventually be replicated on a circuit board, but to believe you could create a conscious being out of it takes more faith than I have. –AGF

    • Agf, you must not have fluoride in your drinking water. 😎
      (Reference to “Dr. Strangelove”.)

  31. “The man and his religion are one and the same thing. The unknown exists. Each man projects on the blankness the shape of his own particular world-view. He endows his creation with his personal volitions and attitudes. The religious man stating his case is in essence explaining himself. When a fanatic is contradicted he feels a threat to his own existence; he reacts violently.
    The atheist projects no image upon the blank whatever. The cosmic mysteries he accepts as things in themselves; he feels no need to hang a more or less human mask upon them.”
    — Jack Vance

    • Except for the atheists of the 20th century, who through their totalitarian government apparatuses, killed 262,000,000 people in projecting their world view that humanity has no intrinsic value.
      Atheism… 350 million gallons of human blood spilled in the last 100 “enlightened” years
      Atheism.. high tech rational mass murder on a mega scale.

      • Thank You Mr. Westhaver. Our Western Civilization, created by believers in your Faith, is decline. Believers will abide while the destroyers bring down what was built, truths will live on in books and, perhaps, new Irish monasteries, will save the West once again. Hold fast, brother- from an old Protestant.

      • Paul, Alex seems to be a “True Un-Believer”.
        He’s heard. He has the rest of his life to choose.
        “When a fanatic is contradicted he feels a threat to his own existence; he reacts violently.”

      • Mr. Westhaver,
        You’ve been true to a form. I criticized your religion, not you personally, but you immediately attacked me personally, calling me a “troll” and saying many other things about me, for which you should apologize for. As turning the other cheek is obviously an alien concept to you.
        Communism is an illogical religion in itself, and, clearly, a derivative of Christianity. In spirit, there is no difference between a Communist Party meeting (I’ve been there, I know) and a collective worship, be it Christian or Muslim (been there, too).
        Stalin was not an atheist. He christened his children and regularly attended a church in Kremlin. The irony of it all is that religion doesn’t make a moral man; most of the murderers, liars and con artists are devout god-worshipers.
        Atheism also doesn’t make a moral man (morality, I think, is an in-born, evolution-created instinct that some people are lacking genetically) — but at least it calls for spending our energies and time to solve problems of this life and this world, not to deserve the ridiculous eternity (who or what do you think you are, to deserve an eternal life?).
        You would have to work on your arguments, folks. Religion is absurd by definition, so, while you are digesting your misery, I’ll take a nap.

        • It seems quite hard to not have a belief on that argument.
          I quite like that, belief is hard wire into language, we ask if you believe in CAGW when in fact it is a rational analysis separate from “belief” supposedly.
          i don’t think the 20th century was very different from the others in brutality probably less so on a per capita basis we also have very much better tech.
          consider the US civil war relative to the then population of the US .2% of population killed.

      • Bill Treuren wrote:
        consider the US civil war relative to the then population of the US .2% of population killed.
        That can’t be right. Weren’t about 600,000 killed?

Comments are closed.