Guest opinion by Joe Ronan
Laudato Si – A cry for the poor
Why is Pope Francis writing about climate change? Because he cares for the poor, and wants us all to look at how we use the resources of the world. His objective is to ask each of us to look at how we use the resources available to us, and how to be good stewards of creation. Whether we consider ourselves as owners or tenants of this planet we are asked to use it’s bounty to the good of all, and to avoid laying it waste to the detriment of our brothers and sisters.
He looks at a number of ways in which the poor more than most suffer from environmental damage that man has control over. The first thing he mentions (paragraph 20) is something well aired on these blogs: atmospheric pollutants affecting the poor, using as an example the breathing high levels of smoke from fuels used in heating and cooking. He talks of pollution caused by transport and industry, soil, fertilizers and insecticides. Then he mentions dangerous wastes and residues and the despoiling of landscapes. Again, his concern is primarily for the people these affect, and secondarily for the ecosystem (though he stresses our responsibility for that too).
The climate comes in at paragraph 23 and here the leaked paragraphs that have had such wide coverage are reasonably accurate. Climate is a common good, and science indicates that man is having some effect on this. The language is sufficiently vague that I doubt he’ll end up in a Galileo scenario of pinning his colours to a sinking ship, but there is no doubt that the rather partial advisers he has had have coloured the thinking to a very large extent. Paragraph 24 provides perhaps the most obvious slip up, when it suggests
“If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us”.
There is no inkling that the pause has been mentioned to the Vatican, or that Pope Francis is familiar with the now infamous twitter exchange where Naomi Oreskes is denying the pause to Doug MacNeal.
The biggest disappointment with this section is how poorly it is referenced. Not even the IPCC is mentioned. Many of the statements should be backed up by source or attribution, but there is none. When the document moves into moral territory there are comprehensive references, so I see this as a real naivete on behalf of the drafters.
Climate change is called a global problem and “one of the principal challenges facing humanity” (25), not the greatest challenge as I’ve seen reported in some places. The concern though is not for the planet per se but for the people, and particularly the poor. That the poor are by their poverty more heavily affected by natural disasters, and by manmade damage to the environment is a concern that I think we can all get behind. The letter also dwells on the related but separate issue of water resources, and the necessity of the provision of clean water. The effects of dysentery and cholera, inadequate hygiene and many other factors are mentioned (29).
He looks at loss of biodiversity, and at some length on the quality of human life and societal breakdown. (43 onwards). This is definitely not a “climate change” encyclical, it deals with much wider questions.
Where the letter becomes really interesting is when it develops themes of how we approach the problems of inequality and systems of politics, economics and governance. Paragraph 129 seeks to promote an economy that favours production diversity and business creativity. I don’t see Jeb Bush having a problem with that!
“Business is a noble vocation (129) …directed to improving the world”.
There is throughout an antagonism to untrammelled markets, especially for global business that appear to ignore national rules and suit themselves. It does however recognise the impossibility of regulating for all possible events, and instead asks for the growth of inner morality – we should know when what we do will harm our fellow men, and we should know to avoid that without being policed.
I think many will read paragraph 182 with a rather different focus than may have been meant in it’s writing:
“[182] Forms of corruption that conceal the actual environmental impact of a given project, in exchange for favours usually produce specious agreements which fail to inform adequately and to allow for full debate.”
and again in 183
“…fully informed about projects and their different risks. Honesty and truth are needed in scientific and political decisions…”
184 continues the theme with “decisions must me made based on a comparison of the risks and benefits forseen for the various possible alternatives.”
Matt Ridley, and Bjorn Lomborg will enjoy that bit, and the following request for proper analysis of the costs and on whom they fall. There is acknowldgement that achieving a broad consensus on policy is not easy, but we are encouraged to have an honest and open debate so that “particular interests or ideologies will not predjudice the common good”. I think we can all say ‘Amen’ to that.
There is a pretty strong attack on the way the banks were bailed out at the expense of the people, and a concern with the centralisation of financial and economic power (189).
The idea of a limit to growth is put forward, and here I think the document fails for lack of reference and a fallback to assertion. The assumption is that there is a zero sum game, and I would not agree that history shows that to be the case.
Politics and economics with their blame passing and corruption are given a going over (198) but science is also said to be powerless if it loses its moral compass. (199).
Throughout the later sections the document is asking for dialogue; how do we protect nature, defend the poor and build networks of respect and fraternity. Open and respectful dialogue is what we need not idealogical warfare.
I would encourage you all to read the final section, even those of you not of a religious inclination. It deals with releasing real humanity from within ourselves, and perhaps is the type of writing that reflects most closely Francis’ agenda – the best flourishing of the human person, and the building of a good society. He recognises that the things that we do to ‘save the earth’ will not change the world, but will call forth from us each “a goodness that spreads”.
It is also a call to joy and completeness as humans, and a call to engage with those around us.
This is a flawed document in many ways: it has had input from a limited range of views, and on the technical side is badly referenced. It paints complex issues in simplistic terms and ignores the whole history of how technological development has been of enormous benefit to mankind.
What it does succeed in doing however is to provoke each of us to consider inside ourselves how we relate to our fellow travelers on this planet. Even though the letter is addressed to the whole world, it’s real target is you. I recommend it to you all, flawed and incomplete as it is, as a look into our own minds, and invites us consider again at our common humanity.
Full document here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
So the guy who is going on about the atmospheric pollution suffered by the poor – whilst the films of him show him swinging a gold smoking bucket around – not cooking on it as that would be at least useful – but for show . So get all the poor people into your church and smoke their lungs even more . !!!!!!!
The RC church has always been the handmaiden of TPTB, since the Council of Nicae 787 AD, ever since Constantine instituted RC as official state religion ~ 300 AD. This is the supreme diplomat survivor, the RC 1700 year old business, proving that, whoever wins, globalists or humans, the Vatican, Country, City State, Religion & corrupt home of untold riches & un-numbered paedophiles will survive.
John Doran.
UK.
Time for a change, isn’t it? So give that man a chance. To me he seems to be a man who deserves it.
Non Nomen, Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.
N’est-ce pas?
🙂
Nonsense. He’s a Communist idiot, surrounded by Communist idiots. Remember that Communism killed 100 million people during the 20th Century for a total failure political religion that turned countries into prison camps, complete with barbed wire borders & machine gun posts to prevent the inmates, sorry, citizens, escaping.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/13/climate-expert-marxists-global-warming-extremists-control-vatican/
This will likely fall on deaf ears, but I suggest you read – in total, not pulled-out-of-context snippets – everything early Christian church leaders wrote from the time of the disciples on. Perhaps start first with the letters to the various churches by Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (of the Holy Hand Grenade) while he was being led to Rome to be torn apart by wild beasts for his faith – Ignatius was taught by the Apostle John himself – and go from there. The early Church of the first 4 centuries was 100% Catholic, and it was councils of Catholic Bishops who gave us the canon of the Bible at the end of the 4th century.
Not that you would likely care about all this…
I was brought up RC, Frodo, had a paedophile uncle who was a RC priest, a total disgrace of a human? being, & you’re quite right: I have zero interest in digging into the fables of RC history while I have job enough on my hands keeping up with the realities behind all the BS being pumped out now.
Sorry to hear that. Yes, your uncle was a disgrace. Though, that has zero to do with whether or not the Catholic Church is what it claims it is. I know of a number of great priests myself, none of whom were pedophiles, all of whom live holy, sacrificial lives. One, a friend of mine, gave up a medical practice to become a priest when he felt the calling. Though, none of that is really relevant to whether the church is what it claims it is. Have a great day!
Wrong.
There were various Christianities in the first four centuries of he religion. Catholicism was backed by the Empire and took over its structure. The early competitors were eventually declared “heretical”.
The barbarian invaders tended to be Arian Christians, for instance.
Church councils did indeed select which books to include in the Catholic Bible, but there were other bibles as well, with other books. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls, the only full test of the Book of Enoch came from the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible.
The church was backed by the empire in the first centuries? Tell that to those who were used as human torches in the gardens of Roman nobles. Tell that to the Bishops who showed up at Nicea in 325 with one of their eyes gouged out (as just one example of what they went through) after being tortured for their faith – yeah, that’s where the Arian issue was decided – before the canon of the Bible was decided. They were Catholics. And yeah, there were Arians still around after the issue was decided at Nicea, I am not saying there weren’t always heretics. But from the beginning, was the Catholic Church, starting with those like Ignatious and Polycarp who were instructed by the apostle John himself.
Were there those in the first centuries who disagreed with Catholic teaching? – sure. For example, there were those that denied either the humanity or the divinity of Christ – and who also denied the Catholic teaching of what the Eucharist was. But, of those that fully accepted both Christ’s humanity and divinity – i.e., the current understanding of almost the entirety of Chrstianity today – 100% agreement on what the Blessed Sacrament was (the constant teaching of the CC) – no exceptions.
Anyway, it’s pretty useless to argue with you. Your one of those that simply needs prayer, and hopefully the Big Kahuna will eventually soften your heart, have a great day!
Frodo,
I didn’t say the Empire backed the Church in the first three centuries AD, only after it became the official religion of the Empire in the 4th century. Then it took over the imperial structure, with its hierarchy of bishops (from the Greek via Latin for “overseer”).
Gibbon blames the decline and fall of the Roman Empire on its replacing paganism with Catholicism, and made such a good case that it still stands.
About 150 years after this replacement, Rome fell to Arian Christian “barbarians”, the revenge of the heretics.
PS:
Polycarp is a prime suspect as the forger who perpetrated the false letters of Paul, upon which so much Catholic doctrine is based.
There were 10 disciples other than Paul and Judas, who went to various corners of the known world and founded churches. The Roman Catholic Church is also known as the Paulian church. There are 15 million Coptic Church followers in Egypt alone, and the Roman Church was in competition with the Byzantium. So the Christian “tradition” is not all about the Roman Catholic Church which became a state religion of the Roman Empire. There were over twenty gospels in circulation at the end of the fourth century, and the bible reproduces only four. We in the West hear little about the other churches and think the RC church is the only one. The latest Pope is only one figurehead of Christianity and his utterings on things temporal are not all that relevant to Christ’s teachings. This Pope is leaning towards communistic ideas in keeping with his South American experience, unfortunately.
Ok, I said I quit but I did think some about this off-line…
I can’t speak to your claims w/r/t Gibbon – I really do not know anything about that, and I don’t want to take the time to research from scratch, this is taking too much time already
As to you assertion that the Catholic hierarchy was established in the 4th century – no. From the earliest writings we have – for example Bishop Ignatius in approx 107 – just a few examples in Ignatius’ writings (not exhaustive):
“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. —Letter to the Romans, Intro”
“You have envied no one; but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instruction may remain in force. —Letter to the Romans, Ch 3”
And please note – No – Ignatius was not going to mention the Bishop of Rome by name, or any other distinguishing characteristics. In the first few centuries, becoming the Bishop of Rome was, with some lucky exceptions – a death sentence.
To the Ephesians:
“It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.”
To the Magnesians:
“Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.
As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and
and presbyters”
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8”
Already by Ignatius’ time – approx 107 AD, we have a hierarchy in place, which is quite astounding, when you think about it
And after thinking a bit, I realize we are coming from two different places – I don’t understand you and vice-versa. What I mean is:
If most people who call themselves Christians – with a few exceptions (Mormons, JWs, etc) went back to the first centuries, they could pick out who were the Christians and who the heretics. BUT – a modern day Catholic would feel much, much more at home in early services. The service centered around the Eucharist, with the Eucharist having the(constant) Catholic teaching it has now. Infants were baptized. Sins were confessed orally, with very severe penances – much more severe than today. Prayers to saints (including Mary) were found on catacomb walls. The hierarchy was already in place, with strict allegiance to it. No weekly scripture studies, of course – most people could not read anyway, printing press a long time away – but various texts , a number of them orthodox but not part of the final canon were read in church – really Mass (just like the scriptures are today).
The Christians were Catholics. And yeah, there were heretics that called themselves Christians, but they were so far gone that both Catholics and Protestants would recognize them today as such
There were no Baptists, for example. No “say the words and once-saved-always-saved” . The rapture (basically invented by John Nelson Darby in the 1800) was not acknowledged. I could go on, but you get the point – that Church was Catholic
And – to my separated brothers and sisters – many of you are much better Christians than I am – I am in awe of many of you . But – as John Henry Newman said after his own conversion to Catholicism – “To be deep in History is to cease being Protestant”
Ok, now I’m done
Frodo,
Thanks for your long reply.
Actually, I do understand you. You’re just wrong about the Early Church. It was not anything like any Christianity today. It was strange, to put it mildly.
During its first decades, the Church expected Christ to return promptly. Unlike today, the Church was not “family friendly”. You were supposed to give away your riches, abandon your family, and, ideally, quit reproducing. Paul said it was better to marry than to burn, but better yet was celibacy, not just for priests (which didn’t yet exist), but lay people.
There were female “priests”. To prove their devoutness, believing men would sleep with virgins without touching them. Castration was also common. This was the church of the martyrs, bizarre by our standards but effective in attracting converts among women and slaves.
When it became clear that Christ wasn’t coming back any time soon, a new organization was called for. It was at this time, in the 2nd and 3rd century that the fake Pauline letters were composed, for instance calling on women to be subservient.
Bishops, like the suspected forger Polycarp, did emerge in the 2nd century to administer churches (which often met in houses or catacombs), but they did not yet have the kind of authority that began with the doctrine of apostolic succession.
What happened after the establishment of the Catholic version of Christianity as as the official Roman religion was the take over by Catholic bishops of the imperial provincial administration. Orthodoxy as determined in the 4th century councils was enforced by the state, until the barbarian invasions brought heretical Christians into power.
The Catholic Church eventually triumphed over the heretical creeds. A key event was the switch by the Frankish kings from Arianism to Catholicism.
This Pope has no moral authority until he fully exposes the Catholic Churches cover up of it’s child abuse sex industry. He could start by excommunicating Cardinal Mahoney. He also has no business lecturing people about science or climate change. The Catholic Church has a terrible record regarding science and what does this guy know? An article that resonates with me (a former catholic):
http:// http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11682830/If-we-need-the-Pope-to-teach-us-about-science-then-God-help-us-all.html
‘The Catholic Church has a terrible record regarding science ‘
Really? Tell us more. (Please don’t start on the Galileo meme that’s just like the 97% Cook one).
BTW ever heard of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences? You’d be surprised at how many eminent scientists have been members of it over the years. But you’d have to get over the handicap of your anti-Catholic bias first as it is blinding you with regard to the truth about the Church.
I have a hard time relating to a church that covers up child sex abuse. I also have a hard time with Cardinals that hide documents of crimes from authorities all the while reassigning abuses priests to other parishes only to have the crime spree repeated. Perhaps you don’t find child rape offensive? I certainly do.
My first thoughts were that the undeterminedness on certain issues, namely science, climate change, the economy and technical matters is due to biased advisors. But he obviously cares for the poor with remarkable impetus. I suppose that man has the right attitude in taking care of the well-being and the contentedness. That means to me a down-to-earth pastoral care. Not too bad, actually. And a lot better than the weird attitude of certain politicians.
For a more negative view of this encyclical you can look at the Catholic Herald.
Although they also point out that the encyclical is orthodox and not Communist propaganda.
Pope Commie the First calls the economic system of liberty, where all exchanges and arrangements are voluntary, “a vision of ‘might is right’.”
Just like Marx, who called liberty slavery: “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains,” because of that bad bad thing called free enterprise.
This pope is an EVIL man. He looks at the world and calls it “an immense pile of filth.” And what is he talking about? Atmospheric CO2! The beginning of the food chain for all life on earth, which is at close to the lowest level in the history of the planet and hovers near the minimum necessary for life to exist.
A vile and ignorant COMMUNIST, a liberty-hating piece of moral trash. At a time when Christians are facing genocide throughout the Islamic world this pathetic far-left moron goes all in for thoroughly falsified phony-science because it offers him a chance to express his inner Fidel Castro and hate on liberty!
A talking mole.
Alec: The quote “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” is from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, perhaps the most despicable philosopher of all time.
And pray tell, how do we achieve the Pope’s goals without creating a totalitarian world government with certain elites in charge other people’s freedoms?
Elites who decide which economic activities are “morally good” and which are not. Who decide how wealth is “distributed”.
Elites who presumably possess infinite wisdom and impeccable morality. Who are motivated only by pure altruism.
Good luck with that.
All you fellows are very saintly. The Pope is good, he cares, he moralizes. Oh the planet, oh the poor, oh the evironment. Too many words.
But more importantly who is going to run the show of redemption. The UN? The church?The Chinese?The Arabs? The Jews. The Africans. Who?
For the show has to be run. Otherwise it is just saintly hot air which it is now.
In addition it has been tried before. Unbeknown to many of you. Most recently the fascists and communists. Didn’t work too well.
Isn’t it his boss’s prerogative to save the world?
Indeed, I’m wondering if he’s been listening to the wrong boss altogether. One that offers an easy way, that offers popularity, that allows him to divert from addressing issues such as the persecution of Christians and the failings of his own organization, one that whispers in his ear that this will bring money and political power. Indeed, if there is a greater God then He will very likely not be very pleased at all. Bad forecasts ahead I’m afraid?
Our chief religious idiot, the Archburke of Canterbury, is no better. As a friend wrote:-
Hilarious, that here we have two men who wear dresses, spend their time talking to their imaginary friend for a living, suddenly have the knowledge and authority to pronounce on …
I know, but come on, don’t you find the whole thing really funny? I genuinely do! All dressed up in their frocks, swinging a smoking kettle about, mumbling Latin, and talking complete and utter bollocks as though it’s true! I wouldn’t say it’s Python funny, but it is genuinely amusing. Shame about the kids though, eh?
Fantastic comment. And it is valid !
He believes in a man called God who is watching down on us, why did you expect any scientific sources about his claims on climate change?
Well… maybe because God is intelligent.
And there’s the basic problem of people: they can’t tell fact from fiction: they think their beliefs are truths – so they lie, thoughtlessly and without compunction or hesitation.
There is no evidence for any “god”. You could do as Frodo suggests, and read everything written by Catholics in the last 1,000 years, or you could try thinking and looking for yourself. Either way, there is no evidence for any “god”.
Realistically, folks? This Encyclical will be reported on the news tonight as a 15-second sound-bite. Which will be processed by “the public” as, “Oh, the Pope says we should stop Global Warming.” Since practically no one knows anything about “global warming,” and it’s currently running about #37 in the polls listing Americans’ political concerns, I guarantee you by the time John Q. Public pops his 2nd beer this will be completely forgotten. Lady GaGa’s buns, not so much!
I hope and beg you are right, but I am not fully sure.
I see that the Pope has issued an encyclical on gerbil warming. It seems that gerbils are very popular in Argentina and he was under the impression that the world was not adequately informed on gerbil barbecuing techniques. It seems that he really does know a lot about cooking gerbils. Unfortunately, due to some errors in translation, his advice to use smokeless charcoal when barbecuing in warm weather has somehow been misreported to be something about a low carbon climate reduces overheating! It just goes to show that Spanish and Italian are really quite different languages after all!
\sarc off
Caught between a rock and hot place.
H/t, not from Julia Child or James Beard.
========================
Bernard, are you channeling Emily Litella? 🙂
“He looks at a number of ways in which the poor more than most suffer from environmental damage that man has control over.”
BS – The poor in Africa suffer from lack of electricity, clean water, sewage remediation, hot and cold running water, and indoor plumbing. The Pope is screwing the poor by not advocating for cheap energy via fossil fuels.
What about population? If the human population were approaching 2 billion rather than 9 billion there wouldn’t be a problem. Rather than proscribing birth control the Catholic Church should be promoting birth control.
Perhaps there are a few good points from the Pope and his advisers , but we must remember Goklany’s work plus Lomborg and the OXford Union on extreme events or natural disasters. Over the last century the death toll per 100,000 from these events have dropped at least 97% around the planet.
When will WUWT update a post showing the difference in all the CAGW ICONS since 1950? Just about everything has improved or shown zip change.
Like SLR, Polar bears, extreme events, droughts, floods, coral reefs, polar ice, Greenland, big rise in staple crops, etc.
Why does the encyclical remind me of this old joke?
After watching sales falling off for three straight months at Kentucky Fried
Chicken, the Colonel calls up the Pope and asks for a favor.
The Pope says, “What can I do? “The Colonel says, “I need you to change the
daily prayer from, ‘Give us this day our daily bread’ to ‘Give us this day
our daily chicken’. If you do it, I’ll donate 10 Million Dollars to the
Vatican.”
The Pope replies, “I am sorry. That is the Lord’s prayer and I can not change
the words.” So the Colonel hangs up.
After another month of dismal sales, the Colonel panics, and calls again.
“Listen Holy Father. I really need your help. I’ll donate $50 million dollars
if you change the words of the daily prayer from ‘Give us this day our daily
bread’ to ‘Give us this day our daily chicken.’”
And the Pope responds, “It is very tempting, Colonel Sanders. The church
could do a lot of good with that much money. It would help us to support many
charities. But, again, I must decline. It is the Lord’s prayer, and I can’t
change the words.”
So the Colonel gives up again. After two more months of terrible sales, the
Colonel gets desperate. “This is my final offer, your Holiness. If you change
the words of the daily prayer from, ‘Give us our daily bread to ‘Give us this
day our daily chicken’ I will donate $100 million to the Vatican.”
The Pope replies, “Let me get back to you .”
So the next day, the Pope calls together all of his bishops and he says, “I
have some good news and I have some bad news. The good news is that KFC is
going to donate $100 million to the Vatican.”
The bishops rejoice at the news.Then one asks about the bad news. The Pope
replies, “The bad news is that we lost the Wonder Bread account.”
Rush Limbaugh quotes Nancy Pelosi today:
Pelosi says“This planet is God’s creation and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it.”
Now the left is saying that 1 ) there is a God and 2) the earth is his creation. Maybe the Pope is a genious. He is taking out the American left and the UN in one feld swoop, nave to chops. The tower of Babel commeth.
Paul,
Wish he were a conservative genius, but he’s neither. He is the American Left, in its even more communistic Latin version. The only fell swoop I see is a leftwing palace coup in the Holy See, with the ouster/abdication of a more moderate pope. Hope I’m wrong.
He harks back to the bad old days of Liberation Theology and “dialogue” between Marxists and Christians (not just Catholics).
Two of the few good uses to which the Vatican’s Banco Ambrosiano slush fund was put were funding Solidarity and the Contras. The Argentine military dictatorship, not so much.
The “left” has been telling lies for so long, even they don’t know what to believe anymore.
It seems to me that Nancy Pelosi only cares about God when it’s convenient. I recall in June, 2013, in response to Michele Bachmann’s reaction to the DOMA ruling that “Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.”, Nancy Pelosi responded, with an air of cold indifference… “Who cares?”.
A rabbi, a priest and a Mullah go into a bar. The bartender says,”What is this, a joke?”
Just two friends and the designated driver.
I could have added above that the two instrumental warming periods before 1950 show a similar rate to 1975 to 1998. That’s according to Phil Jones’s BBC interview in 2010. So where is this impact from increased co2 emissions?????
in my garden out back, thanks, and the trees out front and …
Regardless of your point of view on this issue, isn’t it ironic that the leader of a Church that routinely certifies miracles in the cause of sainthood uses science to espouse a particular side of a controversy. Perhaps someday when this Pope is up for canonization we can pray for him to go big and reduce greenhouse gases instead of a small medical miracle.
His Holiness can call it his Encyclical if he wants to, but it’ll always be the Popemobile to me.
he he
We need a new Pope. When’s the next election? Who can vote?
I think he should take a step back…and practice what he preaches
I have a problem with a guy in a robe who lives in a castle telling me to be pious. Maybe its the 2,000 years of poverty club-beaten into my ancestors heads. Or maybe its just the false sincerity of religious leaders who can’t seem to practice what they preach.