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.”
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.
========
@ 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.
@ 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.
@ John Peter,@ 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.
@ 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. 🙂
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+$$$$$$$$$
See: YouTube Gielgud The Grand Inquisitor. Dostoevsky was a seer.
‘Economically illiterate, futile and worst of all immoral’
OT
when You look up Obamas buddy Merkel’s carriere.
She, an ex DDR physicist.
As chancelor Kohl’s environment Minister did a study on Leukämie – of course the studie showed enhanced child death’s near nuclar plants.
some above statistic noise.
Not mentioning that nuclear plants are settled near big citys for direct energy supply – where Leukämie is heading statistic noise.
Her defense Minister K.T.zu Guttenberg with a copy/paste Doctor found asylum in the US.
And her Minister of education Anette von Schavan with her political reached academic status was made diplomat to the Vatican.
A few weeks ago I suggested a cartoon for Josh. This pope holding a copy of Das Kapital to his heart and the caption — The New Useful Idiot.
Eugene WR Gallun
I like it.
must be me gone crazy.
Thinking against a sane world of 7 bl.
Regards – Hans
Drudge is running a story from https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/ claiming “Pope’s key science advisor is atheist who believes in ‘Gaia, not God’ ”
The site is currently overwhelmed
@ Mike M. @ 9:26am, Got through but I am not surprised at all by his “believe”, it takes all kinds!
mod – we can bide time.
Best Regards – Hans
mod:
next step Sigmar Gabriel, Merkels 1st environment minister, announced he will do away with the nuclear plants CO2 emissions.
me gone crazy.
or the internet still holds trace.
Hans
It is discouraging to see the lack of insight to the strings controlling the AGW scam and most bad things happening on this planet today. Consider the timing of the Catholic church scandals hitting the mainstream news wires, including Canada’s Steven Harper requesting an apology from Pope Francis weeks before the aboriginal residential school atrocities committed by the Catholic church. Now that the encyclical follows the genecidal line of Prince Philips WWF expect the Catholic Church scandals to disappear from the headlines. British Knight-Commander John Schellnhuber’s contribution to the writing of the encyclical should also be noted. I can go on and on but the fact remains that we are following an agenda clearly etched on the not so mysterious Georgia Guide Stones.
Galeleo is rolling over in his grave.
BobW and littlepeaks and especially any active or ‘retired’ Catholics above, should have a look at
http://planetshifter.com/node/1724
It is a rather lengthy expose of the complete corruption of the Catholic and other churches and their soul-selling to the pagan faith of Gaia.
I too was puzzled for a time by this encyclical but when you read the article above, most of the pieces fall into place.
The following piece of doggerel was written prior to the encyclical.
PAPAL BULL
God does not control the weather anymore
It’s the Pagans Club of Rome and Albert Gore,
Will our Head Honcho in a poncho see fit
To declare Global Warming Holy Writ;
Is he about to demonise CO2
By ending black smoke emissions from his flue,
Must we now pray to the pagan goddess Gaia
Ignore Christmas – feast with Saturnalia.
I once learned the Ten Commandments at the knee
Of a Mother who explained the Didache,
Prior to the miracle of electric light
She could not teach her brood reading in the night;
So if this Pontiff says Africans must stay
In fuel poverty- it’s their Auto-da-fe,
All those fossil fuels are theirs and bountiful
Not to exploit them – is just more Papal Bull.
His Holiness should stick to promoting God
Instead of embracing scientific fraud,
How can the poor gain a title to this earth
When denied the means by energetic dearth;
Since Global Warming stopped in ninety seven
Voodoo climate scientists appeal to heaven,
Their unending swill of of money in the trough
Should not the shorn sheep finally switch off?
Will Pope Francis instruct every Catholic
To believe the new Creed of the Hockey Stick,
Reprinting our Bibles in a shade of green
Ignoring the teachings of the Nazarene;
Deifying Mother Earth and the occult
For our sins of Emissions and the Indult,
I’ll stick to my faith in the God of Passion
Ignoring the UNsustainable fashion.
We are told – ignore the warming of the sun,
George Orwell foresaw Agenda Twenty One,
The Master Plan – control the population
For Climate Realists – excommunication;
Papal dabbling in this science of ill repute
Will turn Mother Church into a prostitute,
So as we await the next Encyclical
Ignore junk – be it Ecclesiastical.
Sorry but Soon’s Galileo analogy is completely backwards. Pope Francis is using the best science along with his moral authority to encourage his flock to wean themselves off fossil fuels. Four hundred years ago the Catholic Church condemned one of the most recognized scientists of the time because his views conflicted with the bible. Galileo would be proud of Pope Francis’s encyclical.
Sorry, but your opinion is completely backwards. Pope Francis did not use the best science available, having completely forbade participation by voices critical of the science. If the Pontiff is so concerned with the well being of his flock, then why would he ask them to make their lives more difficult by forsaking cheap, plentiful, reliable power from fossil fuels?
Your presumption to speak for Galileo, further diminishes the worth of your opinion.
I posted a question above on why did the Pope endorse (somewhat) AGW, i.e., what incentive. What I didn’t state is that he has to know the endorsement causes misery/death for the poor.
I guess Luke has that “special” science that the rest of us can’t obtain. Either that or we are all shills.
@ Charley +1
He’s correct. This is very similar to what happened to Galileo.
Atheists teach a rewritten history of what happened 400 years ago, claiming that the Catholic Church attacked science in favor of a false religious belief. And they use this lie to “prove” that the Bible is false.
What actually happened was that they affirmed science, as it had been passed down by Aristotle. While empirical evidence obviously had its place, it was subservient to *logic* in Aristotelian science, i.e., to the whims of powerful people. And those powerful people within the Catholic Church government controlled higher education, publishing and money.
Galileo was right, and he had the empirical evidence to prove it, but the “97% concensus” of those in power was that Galileo was wrong. And to secure their powerful positions, they disallowed dissent and so labeled Galileo a criminal “denier”.
This is obviously parallel to today, only instead of a Catholic (“universal”) Church government, science is controlled by United Nations governance in concert with federal governments. Today powerful people in governments and the academy secure their power by disallowing dissent. And here we thought that science had progressed since the Middle Ages.
Mark Twain was right that history doesn’t repeat, but it does sometimes rhyme.
Galileo’s heliocentric model was no more correct than the geocentric one he disagreed with. The sun is not the centre of the universe, so Galileo could not have had empirical evidence to prove that it did.
And if he hadn’t embarrassed the Pope (his friend and supporter) by making him look like an idiot, things might very well have turned out very differently.
THis is complete overkill… I live in South America. No one here takes Kirchner seriously (Current President of Argentina) no one has and never will. Same applies to an Argentine pope. Look at it as a joke. That’s the way most Argentines would. He’s a joker and so is Kircnner and most politicians. LOL
can’t be helped. but even ignoring those people leaves you guilty.
thx for patience. Hans
The day (any) religion actually embraces real science is the day that it will all fall down as a pack of false cards. With respect to those who maintain a religious stance, that is your prerogative and all credit for maintaining a faith when such faith is difficult to demonstrate (scientifically). Some people need to believe, just the same as lottery players who believe they will win the lottery! (despite the fact that the winning odds are well explained and documented!). I have no beef with them, only the turmoil that all religion seems to create amongst different peoples and faiths!
Papal involvement in the AGW meme is probably partly political and partly to do with maintaining an ‘authoritative’ stance i.e. papal missives, etc…
Those religious types that ‘believe’ may also be persuaded by Papal ‘instruction’ – but I would find it hard (as a scientist) to accept any instruction on ‘what to believe’! – so I am curious as to how the real scientists (especially the AGW skeptic ones) who may be (catholic) religious, feel about this Papal direction? Do they change their views? Do they now question their religion?
“The day (any) religion actually embraces real science is the day that it will all fall down as a pack of false cards …”
Only the “religion” that you think you know. The Roman Catholic Church began as a very different thing than what it is now. The beginning was dominated by the Gnostic beliefs. They believed that one must know God and not just believe. They looked for experiential proof. Today we might call these kind of folks “mystics”.
There is a question that mankind has always had. How did anything come to be in this universe? Where did matter and energy come from? How did life start? These questions are outside of the realm of science as it is practiced today. (hell, science claims that universes just happen by random chance!)
Some believe that everything you see around you is just the Tao/God/Intelligence/Whatever acting out a great drama in which he/she/it plays all parts. Everything is therefor God. (ok, that is greatly over-simplified by I don’t intend to type a book here)
My point is that “religion” property understood has nothing to fear from science.
@markstoval
quote’ (hell, science claims that universes just happen by random chance!)’. Yep, and that is by far more believable than some omnipotent creator! – especially given the things we know have or do happen ‘by random chance’, such as genetic mutations for a simple example, asteroids, etc – just my view, you understand. The philosophical and spiritual side of religion is good (my opinion) in teaching respect, tolerance, etc – and that surely has a valuable place in society. I have no problem with religion from that aspect.
The grey area comes when those that believe in religion can never truly accept real science (such as the random life formation) imho – and vice versa, those that believe in science can hardly accept blind faith religion, and either are ‘forced’ to make compromises . I personally don’t hold up science as having all the answers (yet!) but I do believe that we can find those answers in time – hence, I myself do not accept religion as anything more than spiritual ‘comfort’ for those that require it (and many folk do!). Many scientists are supposedly religious – that’s no problem until it comes to the crunch when, one day, they have to compare and contrast evidence for/against what they believe on either side. I don’t envy those folks as it must be hard to discard or ‘minoritise’ one or the other especially after many years of ‘belief’? Personally, I would like for religion to be reduced to sociological type guidance and drop all the blind faith aspect in some ‘written’ teachings or other (such as Papal directives!).
John Dalton was a Quaker. Arthur Eddington was a Quaker. Jocelyn Burnell (discoverer of quasars) is a Quaker. Your religious education seems to be somewhat limited.
Kev-in-UK
The point of the argument is that God, or whatever you want to refer to, is not part of the universe we can know. God is in some sense “outside” the universe, so we cannot understand God, that is a mystery beyond our understanding. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is and example of how we can state problems in a system of thinking that cannot be proved or decided. He dealt with natural numbers but it has been extended into many other areas. Mathematics is the ultimate logical language. Of course most spoken languages aren’t nearly as precise so we can express a multitude of lies, contradictions, and impossibilities that can’t even be analyzed, much less proven. For instance: “What I am saying is a lie” or “global warming in almost certainly caused by human actions”.
This isn’t spirituality or even religion. This is using religion or spirituality for appeal to authority. I wonder if this ever happened before in history and how it worked out? Mixing science, religion and politics. This is a mess. I don’t think many people are taking it seriously though.
So true. Power, money, politics. Science is with skeptics, but global warming is a political fight.
Modern empirical science was begun by Christians who were seeking to understand the Creator better. They allowed dissenters like Darwin to research and make his case against established knowledge, unlike today where the atheistic humanists attack dissenters and seek to criminalize open inquiry.
The pope said that most of the greenhouse gases are the result of human activity. B.S. A long ago article in Scientific American pegged the co2 flux at about 200 billion tons per year with about half from the oceans and the rest from land. There might be more refined numbers out now but the human contribution was said to be about 8 billion tons (probably closer to 10 billion today).
Question , what is the actual science behind the notion of ‘social justice ‘
Answer , there is none
So wherever you see ‘social justice ‘ tapped unto what are supposed to be scientific claims you know it is not science in the first place.
You can be moral person without science and it is possible for science to be used for amoral purposes. but science itself cannot met the requirements of having a moral basis. That only comes from that wish to use or misuse it.
@knr, + a bunch, thanks.
Social justice is an anti Christian teaching if it takes from the productive and gives to the non productive. Jesus was clear in his teaching that being non productive was not aceptable. But if social justice you prevention of the abuse of power and wealth then that’s good. The accumulation of wealth and power once brought out the anti trust actions but now govt is a partner in crime and the Church partners with govt.
Max
Sigmar Gabriel was Merkels first POP Minister:
her first Minister on duty of juvenile ‘pop’ culture.
must be me going crazy.
as with computer games:
Next world, please.
The visionary wisdom of the attendees of the First Council of Nicaea is astounding. Over 1600 years of coherent consensus. Now it starts sounding like Trinity is under amendment. Promises a helluva show in our lifetime.
Thanks, Anthony. You do good work.
From http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/19/gas-of-life-pope-encyclical-on-climate-change-ignores-science-on-carbon-dioxide/
“Scientific analysis proves that the biology and chemistry of the ocean is and never was controlled by the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
Should be:
“Scientific analysis proves that the biology and chemistry of the ocean is not and never was controlled by the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
The missing “not” is a typo I often do. I hope someone fro Breitbart sees this.
Does this make the case for sainthood for Al Gore? He did work some miracles with video and invented the internet.
Santo Corpulento
Another reason to admire Willie Soon. His comment: “I fear that this encyclical is driven not by science, but by social motivations and political yearnings” captures in one sentence the risk of having a religious leader ignorantly wade into the realm of what belongs to Caesar. But that’s also what I expect of a Pope that’s committed to political Marxism and it’s “social justice” agenda, a view shared with those pro-big government leftists who push for wider acceptance of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming belief not because they’re really worried about warming, but because they know what a politically powerful club it is. These are people whom, if proved wrong, thereby implying less risk to human civilization, would feel bad, who would feel cheated out of their “righteous” power.
Any sort of muscular Christianity is dead. One by one, all the isolated holdout outposts of principle have been abandoned in favour of a touchy feely religious experience. The soldiers of Christ who manned those solitary keeps for centuries have walked away into the wilderness to die of despair.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/the-sickening-encyclical/
Pointman
mod, AAA+++
hard times to go.
appeasment never made it.
as the US say: popcorn!
great blog. Hans
The Vatican’s science advisor is an atheist who believes in Gaia?
https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/
Thanks, Steve. The article by William M. Briggs is very good.
Yes, it appears like Schellnhuber believes in Gaia, actually, more like a principal in that cult.
Who can argue with a consensus of the global warming religion and one Pope?
I was wondering the same thing, 97% consensus and a Pope? , would that not make it 99% (only one more guy needed and it ain’t Gore although the first 2 letters are close).
The Catholic Church has considerable wealth in the Vatican bank, property, and art. Perhaps they could liquidate their holdings and donate the proceeds to the cause of stopping the rise of the seas. That would be a great example for the countries around the world that are being asked to sacrifice. It wouldn’t stop the rise of the seas, of course…
What the Catholic Church needs is a good RICO prosecution. They have no moral or scientific credibility to lecture anyone on global warming or anything else.
Some of that wealth was gained from collaboration with the Nazis during WWII (stolen from Jews shipped to Auschwitz and other death camps to be killed in the gas chambers). And then payment to catholic priests for facilitating the escape of Nazi fugitives via the rat-line to South America after the war.
And the Catholic Church actually provided shelter/sanctuary to Kurt Werner Lischka as late as 1980 in churches/convents in France. He was arrested living in a Catholic convent! How many other Nazis did the Catholic Church protect? Lischka was responsible for the largest mass deportation of Jews to Auschwitz – 80,000+.
What about Catholic Priests’ depraved, sick sex crimes against children? Pedophilia enablers. The ex Catholic Bishop of Boston is on the lamp in Vatican City. He covered for those sick priests and was promoted at the Vatican.
My coffee mug suggestion:
http://www.fidelitybooks.com.au/Hugh/GalileoMug.jpg
You better get a copyright on that one!
Some how I think this is the churches attempt to appeal to people who generally dislike religion in hopes to gain more members and make more money themselves.
camel … straw … the alarmists must be having a field day when “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change” lets the white sheet show
over and out
It’s nice of the Pope to allow us to use fossil fuels, “the lesser of two evils,” until greater progress is made in developing renewable energy. But has it ever occurred to him that fossil fuels are a gift from God and put here for us to use? Where does the Pope come off calling a gift from God evil? Does he think fossil fuels are a curse from God?
Even if you believe, like the Pope, that fossil fuels should only be used to transition to renewables, how could that transition ever take place without them? Where would we be without the industrial age, the manufacturing, and the science and education that were made possible by the use of fossil fuels? We should be ever grateful for them. The Pope implores us to recognize that “the world is God’s loving gift.” Aren’t fossil fuels part of the world and therefore part of that loving gift? Why not then express thankfulness to God for his gift of fossil fuels instead of treating them like a bane or a curse on humanity?
The poor pope de jour is a puppet for:
1. The application of scientific methods to social and political modeling
2. Science is the absolute and only access to truth and reality about man and the universe
3. Scientism is specifically opposed to the Holy Bible as truth
4. Scientism upholds Atheism – there is no God
5. Scientism purports to be predictive, able to foretell the future
6. Scientism rejects any opposing inquiry
7. Scientism demands acceptance by non-scientists
and the new order is:
1. The Technetronic Era
2. A controlled society in which the Elite rule
3. Primary actors and planners of economic life will be global banks and multi-national corporations.
4. A continuous surveillance of every citizen
5. Files containing all information about every citizen will be instantaneously available to authorities
There’s a hilarious blog post today by Colby Cosh, showing how the Pope’s and the Unabomber’s rants are pretty much indistinguishable.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/colby-cosh-popes-encyclical-on-climate-change-reads-like-the-unabomber-manifesto
Colby writes that once the Pope strays from the topic of Climate Change, he becomes unscientific. In other words, no make that in his words :
“Non-Catholics responded positively to the Pope’s tweetstorm because he seemed to be taking a firm position on climate change, and the letter certainly does that.”
also
“…and, yes, we are wandering pretty far now from atmosphere physics. ” , meaning Colby thinks that the Popes view on Climate Change is highly accurate and scientific, but all the rest of the stuff the Pope wrote about is unscientific junk science.
I posted this on Facebook yesterday. Willie seems to have missed the other parallel- that of model fiddling to fit reality of the Ptolemy music of the spheres and today’s model/data fiddling to fit reality. Neither were correct.
The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved – Psalms 104:5.
That was the verse used by the Roman Catholic Church as evidence against Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) who believed in Copernicus’ heliocentric theory. Galileo reluctantly recanted the theory on 22 June 1633 under the threat of torture.
Well… Psalms 104:5 was certainly wrong, and Galileo’s belief in Copernicus’ heliocentric theory, later confirmed by the great Sir Isaac Newton in 1687, was certainly right.
In 1992, 350 years after Galileo^s death, the Roman Catholic Church finally repealed the ruling of the Inquisition against Galileo and admitted that the heliocentric theory was correct. That’s right . . . in 1992!!!!!!
This Pope has failed to learn its lesson. It’s a ghastly error of judgement by the Pope to get himself and the Church embroiled in such a highly controversial political issue as catastrophic man-made global warming, and to dabble with the arrogant, ambitious, unscrupulous and dangerous ideology of environmentalism.
Both cases rooted in the negative view of humans that underlies the religion defined by Saint Augustine circa 400AD, the “born sinner” one..
johnmarshal, you are exactly right, fiddling with the data and models does parallel the Ptolemaic use of epicycles upon epicycles to increase accuracy of observation and preserve geocentrism. I also think a common trait is to minimize free will, leaders want to make other people’s decisions, Galileo was forced to recant and Global Warming is being used to force people to change the way they live.
The understanding of the events surrounding the Galileo affair is so poor that it is far worse than the actual position of the Pope at the time when the reasoning for the Earth’s motion and position in space emerged at the time of Copernicus. The objection of the Pope was whether the astronomical facility which predicts astronomical events such as eclipses ,transits, ect could also be used to prove the Earth turns and moves through space. The short answer is that the predictive side of astronomy which uses the 365/366 day calendar framework cannot be used to prove the Earth moves hence the Pop was correct in positing objections as they were understood in that era .
The 21st century is even worse that the 16th and 17th centuries as there is nobody around to restrain those who hijacked the predictive side of astronomy and turned it into a speculative free-for-all including these meaning dire predictions based on planetary temperatures.
There are only brief glimpses of the technical issue which surround the Galileo affair and nothing whatsoever regarding the resolution which could only be achieved using modern imaging and techniques . All that exists is a bunch of uninteresting charlatans trying desperately to sound different from each other which so much productive and creative work is being drowned out.
The following description is close enough without subscribing in a majority way with its views –
“Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini, while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But ‘hypothesis’ meant two very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view that is often called ‘instrumentalism’. On the other hand, a hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a ‘realist’ position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They thought that Copernicus’ system was a purely instrumental device, and Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair.”
http://www.unav.es/cryf/english/newlightistanbul.html
The issue needs men of common sense and integrity.
It is best to call the products of the IPCC’s global warming computer models “projections” rather than “predictions” as they lack truth-values; thus they lack falsifiability. Predictions differ from projections in having truth-values; thus they have falsifiability.
Of course, though it is undeniable that The Pope is at heart a socialist, and some say communist, it is more significant that he is a member of The Society of Jesus (Jesuits). Whilst he was a mere Cardinal, before being elevated to his current exalted position, it is notable that he hardly ever, if at all mentioned “climate change” or blaming CO2 for the vagaries of climate. His main concern has always been for the Poor.
How then did he become an advocate for the shenanigans of the controlling bureaucrats of the EU, UN, and proponents of the hated and despised “Agenda 21” ? This is really no mystery, and the blame may be laid at the door of a group of subverters, who have infiltrated the Pontifical Academy of Science.
Chiefly Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute, is the principal disinformation agent, though there are others involved. For more than ten years Schellnhuber, has tried to inveigle his way into the Vatican, though he didn’t succeed under Benedict XVI. When Bergoglio was elected, he couldn’t wait to book his flight to Rome to make representations. Recently Schellnhuber has now been inducted into the PAS itself, and was the principal author of the recent Encyclical, so far as the Climate change issue is concerned.
I do not believe that The Pope, despite all his failings when dealing with the content this document, is actually as corrupt as some people imagine. Let’s look at his track record, in recent years before he was exalted to the highest office in The Catholic Church.
In this blog, dedicated to the to the speeches and writings of prominent Jesuits, we find an entry related to a report on the Catechesis of “His Eminence Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio, SJ”, at the 49th International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec. This is striking because of the lack of ANY reference to the issue of climate change at all.
See the report at the “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam” Blogspot :
http://jmgarciaiii.blogspot.co.uk/2008_09_01_archive.html
Of even more significance perhaps is the fact that during this 49th International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec, a number of Cardinals present did compose a letter to “World Leaders”, urging action on “Climate Change”, but neither Cardinal Bergoglio, nor Pope Benedict XVI signed, or approved of this missive, The letter is more significant because of who did sign it, and how are they now involved in this shoddy process of corrupting the Office of Pope Francis,
See a copy of this craven epistle for yourselves. Though this copy was received by Stephen Harper, the Canadian Premier, other “World Leaders” received essentially the same document. At least one of the Cardinals who did sign the letter has now resigned in disgrace it would appear.
http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/harper_g8-eng_june_08.pdf
Can we lay the blame for this episode where it truly lies, and can we expect Pope Francis to realize and understand that the results of supporting the Agenda 21, and depopulation strategy of The Malthusian Potsdam Institute, and it’s Atheist, Communist figurehead, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, has no business interfering in the PAS, and indeed ought to be expelled from the PAS, and permanently debarred from entering the Vatican.
We look to Pope Francis to return to the principles of his ministry when he was Archbishop, and later Cardinal, of Buenos Aires, and to care for the Poor, and not put moneys into the coffers of the UN & EU Bureaucratic Elites, World Bank, and scientifically ignorant Billionaires, like Bill Gates, Maurice Strong, and George Soros. Will he over-rule his own Encyclical in that respect, and make a case for dismantling the cursed CO2 house of cards, in Paris or before. We urge all of you, Cathoiic or not, to write to The Vatican, and beseech The Pope to change his view.
Pope Francis does not have a public email address.
If you wish to write to the Pope, you may do so at the
following address :
His Holiness, Pope Francis
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City
Do include your telephone number, because he might just call you back. Pope Francis has already charmed the masses with his informal style, and a handful of strangers have gotten the treatment up close, receiving papal phone calls out of the blue after writing him.