Pope recruits Naomi Klein to fight Climate Change and Capitalism

pope-francis-environment-encyclical[1]

Naomi Klein has been invited to attend a top level conference at the Vatican, to advise leaders how to fight climate change and dismantle capitalism.

According to The Guardian;

Naomi Klein and Cardinal Peter Turkson are to lead a high-level conference on the environment, bringing together churchmen, scientists and activists to debate climate change action. Klein, who campaigns for an overhaul of the global financial system to tackle climate change, told the Observer she was surprised but delighted to receive the invitation from Turkson’s office.

“The fact that they invited me indicates they’re not backing down from the fight. A lot of people have patted the pope on the head, but said he’s wrong on the economics. I think he’s right on the economics,” she said, referring to Pope Francis’s recent publication of an encyclical on the environment.

Release of the document earlier this month thrust the pontiff to the centre of the global debate on climate change, as he berated politicians for creating a system that serves wealthy countries at the expense of the poorest.

Activists and religious leaders will gather in Rome on Sunday, marching through the Eternal City before the Vatican welcomes campaigners to the conference, which will focus on the UN’s impending climate change summit.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/28/pope-climate-change-naomi-klein

The madness of this latest development, is Capitalism is the single most important factor which has made the wealth of rich countries possible. Dismantling Capitalism would not make poor countries rich, it would make rich countries poor.

As for non capitalist societies being better stewards of the environment, what a busted myth that is – if you want to see truly horrific levels environmental destruction, you need look no further than the old anti-capitalist Soviet Union, which is now practically a byword for pollution, inefficient use of resources, and environmental degradation.

Advertisements

303 thoughts on “Pope recruits Naomi Klein to fight Climate Change and Capitalism

  1. Yes…. everyone knows poor countries have better environments. Just look at the mess Norway, Canada, the USA etc have made of theirs. And look at the lovely environments of India, China, Indonesia, Eastern Europe etc etc.
    Its a no brainer. Capitalism has to go.

    • Their objectives are aligned – poorer countries see greater subscribership to the church. I am reminded of this classic line in Dogma:

      • & You forgot the most successful low carbon, anti-capitalist economy of all….North Korea

    • Here she is predictably falling in the trap of complaining about the Three Gorges Dam.
      They want a shift to renewables, but protest against the single largest generator of renewable energy on planet earth (100 TeraWattHours per year). Currently generating power for the people of China. Wikipedia claims that the dam will pay for itself in 10 years.
      But Naomi Klein doesn’t like it. I suspect that she doesn’t even know why she doesn’t like it.
      She has this to say, “Last week, Nelson Mandela presented a report assessing the global impact of mega-dams, projects traditionally seen by the World Bank as necessary pre-conditions to joining the global economy. The report, published by the World Commission on Dams, found that the projects were dramatically increasing migration flows—1.2-million people will be displaced by China’s Three Gorges Dam alone.”
      Oh, Mandela, is he another engineering and economics expert like Ms Klein?
      So, she is in favour of destroying big oil and big coal and big gas. But also big hydro.
      Basically big anything. And anything that creates (evil) profit.
      Which basically means that only boondoggle subisidy eating bullcrap is allowed.
      They don’t even know why they hate the western industrial infrastructure.
      Let’s run the world on incense sticks and hopi ear candles.

      • Her problem is that she can’t even understand that if you make rich people poor, they can’t afford things like electricity, or taxes from which subsidies are sourced. No rich = no subsidies, or has she discovered magic pixie dust that creates money or of thin air, in which case the Greeks and EU could use her services.

      • The problem with environmental nuts on the left is that they will oppose any source of energy that actually works and is cheap. That’s the main reason they oppose hydroelectric and nuclear. If solar or wind became economical, they would oppose them too. That’s because cheap sources of energy allows the population to increase, which is the worst sin possible against Gaia.

        You can accurately judge the viability of a potential energy source by the attitude of green activists to it. If they attack it, it is viable. If they defend it, it is non-viable.
        — John Brignell, a pioneer in scientific measurement.

      • err as much as I loathe Klien
        there were some serious issues with landslides n quakes from the massive amount of water held in that dam I believe? they scaled it down.
        and then the people displaced might also feel miffed?
        where did they get shoved to? filthy cities n poverty?

    • Let’s see now, Pachauri, Al Gore, and Naomi Oreskes OUT!!! And IN!!! with the Pope and Naomi Klein (huh? Who’s she?) , whose instant, hive-heroine, super-star status has nothing–ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! HEAR THAT YOU DENIER-SCUM “MERCHANTS OF DOUBT”?!!! (look Naomi! (I’m talkin’ to Oreskes-not you Naomi), you don’t own that phrase so buzz off, you’re just a has-been non-person now!–deal with it!)–with Naomi’s (talkin’ about Klein now) FOX-NEWS, hot-babe good-looks or her in-your-face, Pol-Pot weltanshauung, as the new, Papal side-kick, occupying the same ecological niche, in the landscape of the Holy See, as Huma Abedin occupies in Hillary-land.
      And I’m sure this Pope-and-Naomi, “Communications Strategy”, Hi5-magnet brainstorm must have seemed a real agit-prop masterstroke, to the hive’s shot-callers, when their useful-tool Gruber-clones hyped it up in the inner-sanctum of the hive-bubble, and everything. And so one can only take a delicious, schadenfreude pleasure in our betters’ inevitable chagrin now that their haymaker, flim-flam “best-shot” is blowing up in their faces, as the whole world recoils in amused astonishment at the spectacle of the Pope’s Kardashian-grade zany-weirdness, in this matter.
      So can’t someone just spritz a little holy-water on these slithering, pit-spawn Beelzebubs, who have gotten their hooks into the Pope, and rid us, once and for all, of this whole grinning, death’s-head “HORROR!!!”, already?

    • I had such high hopes for this Pope, only to be so disappointed.
      Same for our current President.
      The squandered opportunities are heartbreaking.
      What a waste.

  2. It’s a sad day when the Pope needs to enlist advertising to get his message across. It is also telling.

    • When the Pope sells Christianity, he has no need of anyone’s help to get his message out.
      When the Pope dumps Christianity in order to sell warmed over socialism/communism then no amount of help will get people to pay attention.

      • I wonder if this pope would have supported Lech Walesa’s Solidarity Movement in Poland like Pope John Paul II did?

      • “I wonder if this pope would have supported Lech Walesa’s Solidarity Movement in Poland like Pope John Paul II did?”
        I don’t think so. With this step, Pope Francis has shown his true colors finally. He is really a stronger supporter of marxism and the new green eco-religion than of the Catholic Faith.

    • This is getting beyond embarrassing for Catholics. Who is advising Francis because it sure ain’t the Holy Spirit.

    • @ gentle tramp ( love the moniker), He has no true “colors”. Look at Klein’s statement: about the “pat on the head”. If I would have said that about a Pope 35 years ago I would have been ex communicated! He is , sadly, a puppet just like Obama. Just read who truly wrote this horrible Popal statement. The fact that cheap energy would elevate the poor to higher standards of living, health and education etc and his denial (oops) of that simple fact is the saddest thing I have ever seen. I am glad I left the RC behind many years ago.

      • In a addition to being a puppet, the pope may also aspire to be a puppeteer among the powerful who lust for more power in their push for globalism. Isn’t the lust for power one of the seven deadly sins?

    • I look forward to their friendly debate about abortion. Naomi is a hard core feminist as well as communist. But I suppose that is redundant.

    • Naomi Klein has a solution to climate change and it goes like this: punitive taxation; massive wealth re-distribution; the abolition of free trade and free markets; a state-enforced end to to the “cult of shopping”; the whole to be supervised by a New World Order of selfless illuminati (who presumably resemble Naomi Klein).
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100117165/only-a-totalitarian-new-world-order-can-save-us-now-says-naomi-klein/

  3. Why not Al Gore? He already travels the lands with a “christian version” of his talks – whatever that means… do christians need some special language, like a retarded kid or something?!

  4. Global Warming aka Climate Change has always been a political cult to depopulate the planet and take money from the wealthy to spin it out to the poor. It is an act of doing ostensible good, but in fact it is doing deep and disturbing evil to the poor. What an incomprehensible and toxic mix this is… What an evil, awful mess. I feel like I am suffering the Cassandra paradox.
    It is so evil, unscientific and overwhelming I just do not know what to say. I just don’t.

    • This is one of the similarities between socialism and global warming.
      Those behind both only care about feeling good about themselves. The fact that they are causing misery for billions and death for millions just isn’t important.

      • “The fact that they are causing misery for billions and death for millions just isn’t important.” I disagree; these are essential.

  5. From Club of Rome, and Ehrlich, and Earth Day to the IPCC, Gore, and all the rest of the AGWBS, this has been Watermelon Politics. The Marxists never quit, they just change tactics and disguises.

    • You forgot to trace back to an earlier doomsdayer – Rev. Thomas Malthus, the original dismal economist.

    • Unfortunately you are very right. This really has nothing to do with the saving the earth or clean environments. This has to do with power, and wealth re-distribution. It always has been. So there is no point trying to win the academic argument. Just to keep exposing this ideology for what it is.

      • “This really has nothing to do with the saving the earth or clean environments. This has to do with power, and wealth re-distribution. It always has been. ” CoR and UNFCCC published these facts several decades ago – they’re referred to as conspiracy theories by the majority, whose vocabulary is restricted to disinformation memes. They have no meaning in the delusional paradigm of a benevolent government that exists for the welfare of its citizens.

    • The problem is that they are also succeeding. A global socialist tyranny is rapidly approaching, in my view.

  6. One doesn’t have to look further than the economic travesty in the Pontiff’s homeland, that leftist paradise where I understand they’re critically short of toilet paper, in spite of price freezes. It is astonishing that the real substantive threats to religious freedom, economic prosperity and health do not appear to be a leading Vatican focus in contrast to the modeled threat from the UN IPCC, Figueres et al. There is sea of black to attend to, and it isn’t fossil fuels.

    • “I understand they’re critically short of toilet paper, in spite of price freezes.”
      They are critically short of toilet paper because of, not in spite of, price freezes.
      No surer way to reduce supply, than fix the price of something below the market.

      • Absolutely Menicholas. I was really considering the excessive demand imposed by the ideological propagation of bow locks.

    • The toilet paper shortage is a feature in Venezuela. The Pope is from Argentina. Let’s hope he’ll travel to Venezuela and check out how marvelous Marxist equality of outcome works in a formerly developed nation. All the capitalists in Venezuela will soon be living in Miami. The oil industry is crashing there, because there is no motivation to maintain equipment and corporate infrastructure, leaving the Venezuelan government unable to subsidize it’s own people or to support that other Communist paradise, Cuba. Crime is becoming rampant, refugees are leaving. Another great example of a “people’s paradise.”

  7. Is this a joke? The Church, Catholic or Protestant needs to stay away from the “climate debate” as it is a pack of lies. The Church deals in “truth”, correct? Shame on the Pope.

  8. Well, he is prophesized to be the last Pope, isn’t he? He seems to be doing his best to bring that about, by pushing all sane people away from the Vatican.

  9. Yes, madness is upon us. The Pope cannot apparently see that this is the most antihuman push since Eugenics. The result of this policy is not universal wealth it’s universal poverty, and universal welfare dependence – the end result is a communist state. Pope Francis, have a look back, see how well that’s worked in the past! Catholics are good at the past.
    I would like to remind Pope Francis of an old saying.
    Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
    Stop then preaching welfarism, when what is really needed is work, and work is created by ….you guessed it, wealth. Have a look next door to Greece and see where the take from the rich, give to the poor welfare society gets you.

  10. Maybe the church should start at home and divest itself of all of its monies and property.

  11. A Case of Conscience is a science fiction novel by James Blish, first published in 1958.
    Blish respected Popes and Jesuits.
    Franciskus is a decent man. But off of save ground.
    Hans

    • I’m a little off topic, but Johann reminded me of a scifi book dealing with religion and science:
      “A Canticle for Leibowitz” by Walter M. Miller, Jr
      Great read, intelligent and inventive.

    • Catholics are supposed to integrate reason, not sacrifice it to the ideological Zeitgeist. For some catholics this papal hotch-potch of platitudes will be another heavy burden, another treason of their church.

    • That book is one that has stuck with me for 40 years. It is what got me interested in epistemology. I had been thinking about it recently with all of this nonsense from the Holy See. One would think that the heresies embedded within Marxist thought, would be apparent to any theologian. And then there is that “error in equation 16” …

  12. It’s all in line with Technocracy. Use science to control the world. Of course, guess who decides what science is or what science is denial. Hmmmm … It began decades ago. While you all argue amongst yourselves over minutia, the technocrats are winning the game.

  13. We need to be a little careful in the reflex defence of capitalism.
    It is wonderful how far capitalism has brought us.
    But it is worrying to see where capitalism is taking us. Fewer and larger multinational corporations are aggregating and accumulating businesses and economic sectors at an alarming rate.
    Combined with ‘Free Trade Agreements’ and their dispute resolution tribunals we are fast approaching a point where a few corporations will control the world.
    If you were worried about your ‘one world order’, there it is.

    • Your screen nic’s a little obvious. Your ignorance of what capitalism is (and isn’t) is just as obvious.

    • markx commented: “…We need to be a little careful in the reflex defence of capitalism…. is worrying to see where capitalism is taking us. Fewer and larger multinational corporations are aggregating and accumulating businesses and economic sectors at an alarming rate….”
      That’s where anti monopoly laws come in. Unfortunately it seems even the courts are controlled so that may not be a saving grace. The fact remains that Capitalism (in various forms) in economy and standard of living is the most successful “ism” today. Free market rules and the only reason anyone would want to do away with it is to gain control of people.

      • Since it’s impossible for a monopoly to form without the help of govt, anti-monopoly laws are unnecessary. What’s needed instead is to get govt out of the business of helping selected companies and industries.

      • Yes, anti-trust ant-monopoly laws are a must. In fact, the whole edifice only works because of a myriad of laws an regulations, starting with the most basic rights of property and regulations of currency, and going through to the more complex laws of debt, banking, transactions and employment.
        ”Monopoly cannot form without government help’
        Good in theory, fails in fact and logic.
        Someone is always better managed, smarter, better connected than the next guy. His business grows (and gets more efficient!) and out competes all. New ideas are copied and bettered, new competitors undersold. Suppliers are locked in … etc..
        Eventually this one entity controls most of its own niche, then expands into other areas.
        Everyone is happy, because prices of good are cheap…. except for the fact there is only one place to look for work (in any particular field), and worse, most of the profits move offshore, not into the community where they were generated.
        Re ‘markx’, nope, not a statement of politics, just a differentiator: there seem to be a surfeit of Marks around here. 🙂

      • Good in theory, perfect in practice.
        Even if a company is better managed, the bigger it gets, the more managers it needs and hench the average quality of those managers goes down. Beyond that there are the inefficiencies of scale which prevent large companies from competing with smaller companies on either quality or service.
        As to connections, they are meaningless unless they are with the govt, in which case it is govt that is the problem, not capitalism.
        As to niches, you ignore the ability of customers to substitute one product for another if one company starts charging too much for it’s product.
        If the company gains market share by keeping customers happy, there is no problem for govt to solve.
        Once the company starts raising prices, competitors show up to take away market share.

    • Agree – CONgress works to enrich the Int’l Corps (especially to limit/stop competition with regulations) and the Int’l Corps, who own most of the media, support the gov’t via propaganda to the willing ignorant.
      TPP is a perfect example that will screw citizens and reward Int’l Corps.

    • Capitalism is organic. It comes into being on its own. It was not invented by anyone and is not imposed on anyone. Try to suppress it and it just continues underground. It can’t be abolished any more than human nature can be abolished.
      All other economic systems are artificial and authoritarian.

      • Tyranny is organic too in social animals, the human societies that are relatively free of it are fortunate, but few and always under threat.

      • Tyranny isn’t an economic system. But economic systems other than free market capitalism are inherently tyrannical.
        Give people freedom, and free markets happen.

    • markx
      I hate to tell you this (well, not really) but corporations come and go. The innovative process inherent in capitalism ensures that corporation survive only as long as they provide “best” service.to the public.
      It is when government begins to “support” certain corporations that they become a drain and a bane on the people. It is not corporations that are leading us into the dismal future you foresee but big government that must control everything — ruining everything.
      I always find it amusing to remember that what was once one of the biggest corporations in America made — buggy whips.
      Go back just a few years and review what happened to some high tech corporations that looked like they were on their way to ruling the world.
      Eugene WR Gallun

      • US Steel, Alcoa, IBM, RCA, Zenith, Bethlehem Steel, Reynolds Aluminum, NCR, GM, …..

    • It’s not capitalism that is creating fewer and bigger corporations. That is 100% the work of govt.
      Under a capitalistic economy, most of those big companies would quickly die a well deserved death.

      • How come Microsoft survived Windows 8?
        Some corporations are too big to be accountable to the market.
        The costs of switching away from them means they have a built in resistance to competition.

      • “How come Microsoft survived Windows 8?
        Some corporations are too big to be accountable to the market.”

        Microsoft does not exist in a laissez faire free market, but rather in a corporatist environment. (Mussolini’s favorite term for “fascism”) Even though Microsoft reached a dominate position in operating systems, they still are losing market share now. Apple, Linux Flavors, Chrome, and of course Android on devices are all eating into Microsoft’s market. Why even version 10 is going to be free they say. Imagine a free Microsoft OS version 10 years ago.
        Next you will see Open Office or other office software knock out the cash cow of Microsoft. That will take some time also as we humans hate change.

      • You’re free to walk away from any corporation. You don’t have to work for ’em, you don’t have to buy their products.
        The same can’t be said about government.

      • You have to wonder what value there is in buying an OS (even the $60 I paid for a full license of Win 7 Pro) when you can get Linux (and others) for free?
        MS survived Win 8, because Win 7 existed, and they’ve done a lot to make Win 10 better, including giving it away.
        But what few realize is how much Windows helped Intel pay to develop the advanced process and very powerful processors, Intel needed volume to do that, and a common hardware and software platform provided that volume. And how many software business made million and billionaires because that same volume existed.
        BTW, if you want other, Oracle will give you their version of RedHat for free, supports extra
        https://edelivery.oracle.com/EPD/LinuxWelcome/get_form
        you need to sign in, but those accounts are free as well. You can even download their Virtual Machine platform for free (Xen), same deal, then you can run lots of machines all at the same time.

      • MCourtney;
        In your limited view, does a single bad product always doom a company? If so, how did Ford survive the Edsel?

      • Eugene WR Gallun,
        I do agree that in the long term imbalances work themselves out and unsustainable businesses, corporations, and even systems of government will fall. Hell, even something as big as Soviet Communism (whatever it really was) fell, and that only took 50 years.
        My problem is that most of us have not got 50 years to wait while the imbalances magically right themselves. By the time they do, a few generations have borne the brunt and suffered.
        It is just possible there may be a middle way, the right balance of regulation, antitrust control, and freedom, and the devout don’t realize that is currently going on and is the magic mix which really makes their ‘wonderful free market system’ work.

      • MarkW June 29, 2015 at 8:52 am said: In your limited view, does a single bad product always doom a company? If so, how did Ford survive the Edsel?
        Because they were big enough, had enough cash reserves, could get more favorable financial terms, were too big for their financiers to let fail, could afford more and better lawyers, could pressure their creditors to wait…..etc
        Exactly the point being made. Get big enough, and the natural laws of ‘free competition’ no longer apply.
        Sure, big corporations do make wrong moves, don’t make right moves, don’t always see paradigm changes coming …… but the bigger they are, the more chance they have to survive and recover.
        And the big ones ARE surviving.
        The world’s top 200 corporations account for over a quarter of economic activity on the globe while employing less than one percent of its workforce.
        http://www.ips-dc.org/top_200_the_rise_of_corporate_global_power/
        You may think this is a good thing, and perhaps occasionally wonder why all these ‘corporation favouring’ Free Trade Agreements are deemed so important.
        I’m not too sure it is a good thing, and I know who those FTAs are really for.

    • It is some kind of strange mania that causes people to blame the private sector when governments create protection rackets, exchange favors for money, create regulatory boondoggles that drive investment into larger blocs of more influential lobbying power, and create international rules that favor partners.
      Which is wearing the leash and which is holding it are not so obscure. Start by counting the numbers of soldiers, police, judges and jails on each side.

    • You are confusing Corporatism with Free Market Capitalism. The former relies on the Power of State to manipulate the market. The oft decried Monopoly can not exist in a free market, but is the expected result of a manipulated market. Marxists always use the results of market intervention as justification for market intervention.

      • @DesertYote:
        I’m sorry, but that is just not correct. In an absolutely “free” market, monopoly is nearly inevitable. This isn’t speculation, it is the observed fact of economic history.
        There is a huge body of economics devoted to exactly that point, BTW, from as early as Adam Smith in The Wealth Of Nations.
        The basic error of your position is using “expected result of a manipulated market” as any kind of evidence for why it would not happen. Monopolists work very hard to assure THEY manipulate the market. Most all of the anti-trust laws are aimed particularly at preventing them from doing just that manipulation of markets that lead to such monopolies as Standard Oil and, more recently, Microsoft (they were found to have behaved as a monopoly in court…).
        You are quite correct that Corporatism comes about when Free Markets are dead. It is the end game of a type of Socialism where attempts to manage the markets leads to the Corporations “buying the laws they want” in exchange for doing some things the Governments want. (There is also the Fascist example where The Government directly tells the corporations what to do, in exchange for monopoly or oligopoly positions in the “managed markets” – and yes, Fascism and National State Socialism are both kinds of Socialism – Lange Type Third Way Socialism in modern terms).
        So yes, worse than a free market is the Socialism or Socialism Lite of Managed Markets as they always force a few megacorps to run things under government ‘guidance’. What works best is what the USA had from about 1950 to 1980: The Mixed Economy with minimal regulation. That is what folks usually call a ‘free market’, but it isn’t. It is a lightly regulated market with anti-trust laws.
        In short: There is a long list of ‘horribles’ in forms of economies that starts with Communism and runs through Fascism and other Socialisms. A little better is the Laissez Faire Market Economy (what is really ‘free markets’ but it is subject to the failure of competition via trusts, monopolies, and cartels / collusion). When lightly regulated to prevent the “ruin of the commons” and forbid monopoly practices, cartels, trusts, and collusion, you get an optimum. Unfortunately, that optimum is prone to breakdown into a “3rd Way Socialism” (or Progressive Third Way) with too much regulation and with government picking winners and allowing oligopolies to dominate. (Where we are now, both in the USA and EU; and with the “corporatism” you rightly pointed out is a worse situation…)
        FWIW, I spent a few years getting a degree in all this stuff… I can dig out my text books (still have them!) and cite chapter and verse if needed.

      • E.M.Smith
        I bet when you dig out your old textbooks there will be none in there by von Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, or Block.
        The Austrian School of Economics has shown that in a laissez faire free market totally devoid of governmental interference that monopolies are nearly impossible. The case most often made by Keynesians is that there are certain “natural monopolies”. Even those are government grants.
        The Myth of Natural Monopoly
        https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

      • E.M.Smith June 29, 2015 at 12:48 am

        You are quite correct that Corporatism comes about when Free Markets are dead. It is the end game of a type of Socialism where attempts to manage the markets leads to the Corporations “buying the laws they want” in exchange for doing some things the Governments want.

        Like the U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement (TTIP) perhaps which favors only the big Corporations who have successfully lobbied (bought) the Administration and Congress and the European Commission?

      • Sorry E.M, but the myth that free markets always lead to monopolies has been disproven in so many ways that only those who prefer myth to reality still believe it.
        All companies try to manipulate the market, as do all workers. Manipulating their environment to their own advantage is what humans do.
        The secret is that everybody is manipulating, which prevents any one manipulator from taking over.
        Sure, some companies can gain an advantage by becoming more efficient than their competitors, but this advantage is always temporary. The competitors are also seeking ways to become more efficient, additionally, as a company grows, inefficiencies of scale begin to dominate. As a company grows it increases it’s workforce, thus by the law of large numbers, the average skill of it’s employees will approach average. Additionally there are more layers of management between the decision makers and the workers.

      • E.M.Smith– You’d be much better educated in economics if you: dug out your old Keynesian Econ books, put them in your BBQ grill, poured 1/4 cup of gasoline on them, set them on fire and then roasted marshmallows to make S’mores. At least that way, you’d get some utility from those worthless Econ books you apparently read.
        After eating your S’mores, go to your computer and download Ludwig Von Mises “Human Action”:
        http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/pdf/humanaction.pdf
        Cheers!

      • markstoval June 29, 2015 at 3:44 am
        The Myth of Natural Monopoly
        https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

        That is an surprisingly poor article to use as a reference in this argument.
        It is simply an article about the failure of the misguided idea that governments/authorities granting monopolistic franchise rights to utility companies for up to 25 years, while the said government extracted a hefty fee for that right. Donald Duck could tell you that ain’t gonna create efficiency or cheaper utilities for anyone.
        And the first example of a ‘large monopolizing corporation” is the Gas Light Company of Baltimore in the era when electric lights were coming on the scene?
        That ain’t big, and it was not a matter of out-competing others, it out-politicked them. In the manner of going in with a gun and robbing people actually.
        So, I guess we are in some agreement that the government granting of monopolies to utility companies is not such a bright idea. I would argue that no-one ever thought it was, and the ‘theorizing’ was just a simple matter of excusing a robbery and the disguising future planned ones.
        No-one will dispute that new technologies and competition have often resulted in the demise of a technology or a business. It has probably happened hundreds of thousands of times. That does not mean large corporations can never dominate a market or a business segment.
        And, you don’t necessarily need a monopoly to dominate a market, and stifle the chances of competition arising. Two or three big companies dominating the market is likely just as bad. Unspoken agreements to maintain the status quo, great pressure on suppliers to accept poor payment terms, and the constant squeezing out of any little competitor and the soaking up of other market segments. Goods are not necessarily cheaper to consumers, and even if they are, the ‘great gains in efficiency of scale ‘ must mean someone is out of a job somewhere in that community that was previously had a bigger mix of suppliers amongst it (for they too are consumers).
        By the way, there are some lovely bits of ‘hand-waving’ in there too:

        …without large-scale production, according to Seligman, “the world would revert to a more primitive state of well being, and would virtually renounce the inestimable benefits of the best utilization of capital.”[7]

        .
        Big is always better, eh? And best utilization of capital is the yardstick? Perhaps depends how much benefit flows back to the community, and how much profit goes offshore.
        And this following tells us not only that big is inevitable (hey, that’s MY argument, right?) but it is also better for us! (BTW, I’m a bit doubtful about that last bit)… and everyone gets a job in the new system?!! That’s odd, where went the economy of scale?

        …concentration of capital does not drive small capitalists out of business, but simply integrates them into larger and more complex systems of production, in which they are enabled to produce … more cheaply for the community and obtain a larger income for themselves. … Instead of concentration of capital tending to destroy competition the reverse is true. … By the use of large capital, improved machinery and better facilities the trust can and does undersell the corporation…

        And this sums up the article:

        …a “dominant” firm that underprices all its rivals at any one point in time has not suppressed competition, for competition is “a permanent economic process.”

        .
        Well, there ya go. It is all OK after all. It just may take a few lifetimes to level out.
        Those 200 firms now dominating the world economy must have just been lucky (and, I theorize, many of them will continue to be ‘lucky’).
        EM Smith and his textbooks are, (IMHO) undoubtedly correct in this matter. It is a simple matter of logic.
        In an absolutely “free” market, monopoly is nearly inevitable.
        You probably need to ask yourself who is pushing so hard on the idea that ‘free market capitalism’ is the answer to all problems. (Well, it is if you are already big enough).

        • …a “dominant” firm that underprices all its rivals at any one point in time has not suppressed competition, for competition is “a permanent economic process.”
          You probably need to ask yourself who is pushing so hard on the idea that ‘free market capitalism’ is the answer to all problems.

          Your grocery store every week (well our local stores do) have sale papers where they sell some items near zero profit, and other items in the store have a profit margin, so the store can make a profit on your total order, yet the competing stores sell those same “loss leaders” with a profit, is that unfair?
          Now, I live in NE Ohio, use to be full of steel mills, most are gone now, except specialty steels, The ones that went out of business were put out because foreign steels were sold below cost, and were subsidized by the government (I think), with the intention of running US mills out of business, that’s dumping, and I believe the government did get involved, and added a tariff as penalty.
          Microsoft included a free browser (once browsers became a required app) in their OS (which wasn’t free), this was viewed as anti-competitive by Monzilla because they charged for a browser. If you want to be picky, MS did the same thing with the GUI, FTP stack, any number of things, some they got by buying a company that specialized in that area, some by developing it inhouse. Being in the software business, that’s normal, you add functionality to your product, sometimes you charge more for it, sometimes you don’t, and sometimes you do at first and then later on include it for free. IMO there’s nothing wrong with this, MS sells more OS’s when they provide the latest functionality, even if a different company sold it as an add on to previous versions of the OS that did not include it. Plus in the case of OS’s you didn’t have to use Internet Explorer.
          Most of the minicomputer manufacturers are gone, as a side note I interviewed with DEC and got a ride back to the airport in one of their helicopters, which was pretty cool. I didn’t get the job, I made too much without a degree compared to their degreed engineers, they decided it would cause internal strife. But anyways, most of the workstation manufactures are out of business, they were out competed by PC makers, who are being pressured by gaming systems, and smartphones, the lesson IMO is compete or die, this is capitalism.
          Now it has it’s warts, again IMO this is where the government, to keep the game fair, keep the cheats out. Fair is somewhat subjective, cheating not so much. An none of the other options has done so much for so many, including a guy with working class parents who didn’t go to college who didn’t have any connections to power.

    • “We need to be a little careful in the reflex defence of capitalism.”
      No we don’t. it’s the most underappreciated cause of prosperity in our modern world. It is constantly critiqued and under attack. it’s also mis-represented, such as what you are doing. “capitalism” has nothing to do with statist attempts to invoke some supra-national world order. Try again, but first read up on economics.
      And now we have a Pope who believes in the economic ignorance that turned Argentina from a first-rate country to a second-rate one. We need to be a little careful in the reflex defence of anti-capitalism.

    • Public Choice theory (the economics of politics) handles that quite nicely. Wherever there is consolidation in an industry you will find the heavy hand of regulation. Just look at Obamacare and the consolidation of both the health insurers and hospital groups. Businesses will enlist the help of government to crush their competition. Look at taxi cartels around the globe trying to crush Uber using government thugs to make criminals of ordinary citizens. And if that is not enough government itself will criminalize the most benign of behaviors, like smoking a weed or carrying a bit too much cash.
      Capitalism is about cooperation not competition. How else does the panoply of items in your home get there but if people did not cooperate with each other on a massive scale every minute of every day. If they were locked exclusively in fierce competition as in a battle nothing would be created. So, the meme of ruthless competition is a myth and should be replaced with “competing to cooperate” which is the process of entrepreneurship and management skill.
      Think also for a moment about the Church and other institutions, are they also competing to cooperate? Well of course they are. They are not exempt from the laws of economics but at the same time they can be woefully ignorant of them as well. Uninformed people of goodwill are usually called fools.

    • Huge, monopolistic corporations = bad.
      Huge, monopolistic government = good
      Irony meter = pegged

      • I’ve always been fascinated by those who claim that in order to fight monopolies, we have to turn control of everything over to the biggest monopoly of all, government.

        • I’ve always been fascinated by those who claim that in order to fight monopolies, we have to turn control of everything over to the biggest monopoly of all, government.

          Worse still is they do it with Laws, that while hard to get put on the books, they’ve next to impossible to get removed!

      • I’ve lost track of the number of people I’ve talked to who actually believe that govt is more responsive than big business.
        In reality, since businesses are greedy, they want as many customers as they can get. This means they will do what they can to cater to as many as possible.
        Govt on the other hand only cares about 50%+1. Any votes above that level are superfluous.
        And then there is govt bureaucracy, that can’t be fired and has an unlimited supply of other people’s money to spend, so it can’t ever go bankrupt.

      • When you have a run-in with a monopolistic corporation, you can complain to government. Governments have acted against abusive monopolies in the past. But when you are mistreated by a monopolistic government, who can you go to for help?

      • Eustace Cranch
        June 29, 2015 at 4:04 am
        Huge, monopolistic corporations = bad.
        Huge, monopolistic government = good
        Irony meter = pegged

        You left out Huge, monopolistic labor unions.

      • Louis, why would a govt do anything against a monopolistic company?
        It was govt that created that monopolistic company in the first place.

      • Eustace Cranch June 29, 2015 at 4:04 am:
        EC (Eustace Cranch) Practicality/logic Module = non functioning.
        A bit more like this, perhaps:
        Huge, monopolistic corporations = very bad.
        Huge, monopolistic government = also bad, probably worse, but very much depending on the government., and how it deals with providing a functioning economy to all levels of society.

      • Louis Hunt June 29, 2015 at 10:05 am
        When you have a run-in with a monopolistic corporation, you can complain to government. Governments have acted against abusive monopolies in the past. But when you are mistreated by a monopolistic government, who can you go to for help?
        Exactly, Louis.
        We need someone to control those corporations, and so government does do that now. But more and more they are moving beyond national laws.
        On your latter point, try to maintain or improve upon the semblance of (corporate funded) democracy we now have. 😉

    • That is not the result of capitalism. Capitalism means free, competitive markets. Government interference in, and over-regulation of, markets has produced the situation that you speak of. Large multi-nationals are always the primary benificiaries of government action.

    • Capitalism is great when played by established rules. It’s problem is that the refs are bought off. When was the last time a monopoly was broken up in the USA. Bribes to govt are the way businesses operate in many countries.
      Max

      • “When was the last time a monopoly was broken up in the USA”
        The FTC shouldn’t allow them to be created through the purchase of another business. But if you are successful and become the standard, I don’t think they should be broken up, accept for the most agregious violations.
        For instance the Microsoft browser wars, they deserved fined and some sanctions, but was petty jealousy for the most part.

      • What did Microsoft do that was bad?
        Do you believe that automakers should be forced to sell cars without radios?

  14. The only Pope Mao can do to improve the human condition is promote contraception and leave science to scientists.

  15. my favourite excerpt from Rosie Scammell’s Guardian piece is “The ***imminent arrival of Klein within the Vatican walls has raised some eyebrows”. “imminent” makes Naomi sound so important, doesn’t it?
    anyway, as for the “Activists and religious leaders will gather in Rome on Sunday, marching through the Eternal City”, the organisers involved all the usual suspects under a “One Earth, One Family” umbrella – WWF, Greenpeace, 350.org which i read somewhere sent two islander “climate warriors”, etc. & they claim to have assembled 5,000 in St. Peter’s Square, says Rosie Scammel in a follow-up Guardian article.
    google has no pics of any numbers remotely in the thousands, and the only pic in the One Earth, One Family second photo gallery on their website with any sizeable numbers is clearly the regular Sunday crowd in St. Peter’s Square waiting to be blessed by the Pope. in fact, it has the tag ““I finally saw the Pope”. the first photo gallery on the page has no crowds, just small numbers with the WWF, Greenpeace, Solar, Migrants Lives Matter banners & the like:
    OneEarthOneFamily.org – Photo Galleries
    http://oneearthonefamily.org/
    29 June: Guardian: Pope Francis’s environmental message brings thousands on to streets in Rome
    Vatican officials to discuss climate change and environment with scientists and activists including Naomi Klein
    by Rosie Scammell in Rome
    Alongside Klein and Turkson, the conservation group WWF has been invited to this week’s Vatican conference and had a strong presence at the rally on Sunday, described as a “historic event” by Samantha Smith, leader of the organisation’s global climate and energy initiative…
    Activists at the One Earth, One Family event broke through the silence enveloping early-morning Rome with singing and chanting, waving paper birds high over the central Piazza Farnese before marching to the Vatican…
    While a few hundred people began the multifaith march, holding banners and sheltering from the sun under giant paper leaves, organisers said about 5,000 were present at the end of the march in St Peter’s Square…
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/28/pope-francis-environment-rome-naomi-klein-climate-change

  16. Amazing. They just keep returning to Karl Marx like moths to a flame. With the same results every time.

  17. The driver in every company is to generate a monopoly, it is only possible for a monopoly to flourish under the shelter of regulation.
    Big monolithic corporation that use lobby are no better than the Communist equivalents.
    This is the tension in any capitalistic system and the drive from the left is to add regulation which concentrates economic activity, code for monopoly and the right should have the desire to disassemble regulation to allow the blowtorch of competition to disassemble the inefficient forming monopolies.

  18. My new hobby is asking progressives why they consider the pope to be an authority on the subject of climate change, but not on the subjects of gay marriage, contraception, or abortion.

    • That’s a pretty valid point, I wonder how the Holy See will view eco-evangelism after the EPA requires them to upgrade their churches and cathedrals to Energy-Star standards.

  19. Climate Change and anti-free-market economic philosophies share the same metaphysical premise that polical elites have both the right and the ability to effectively control economies and climate through the initiation of force.
    Morally, ethically and empirically this premise is fallacious.
    The CAGW hypothesis has, for all intents and purposes, already been disconfirmed, as the physics and empirical evidence show CO2 forcing will likely only generate around 0.75C (+-0.25C) of warming by 2100, plus or minus whatever the sun and other natural variables decide to do between now and then.
    Such a minuscule amount of CO2 induced warming is far from catastrophic and almost an order of magnitude less than CAGW hypothetical projections.
    Moreover, it’s morally reprehensible to restrict fossil fuel use in developing countries as it will perpetuate and exacerbate poverty, and greatly inhibit infrastructure and economic development.
    Economically, empirical evidence is irrefutable that societies with the freest markets and the highest level of individual freedom do the best.
    For the Catholic Church to embrace centrally controlled economies and Climate Change is morally and ethically reprehensible and will ultimately have a very negative impact on the Church and society.

    • “Moreover, it’s morally reprehensible to restrict fossil fuel use in developing countries as it will perpetuate and exacerbate poverty, and greatly inhibit infrastructure and economic development. ”
      I agree. There are 50 million Americans living at or near subsistence. 75% of Us are living pay check to pay check.
      So I ask Francis: how will cutting consumption help most of us, especially those on the absolute margin?

      • Sarastro– There are roughly 1.2 BILLION people in the world that still don’t have access to electricity…
        What economic effect do Statist CAGW acolytes think their fossil fuel restrictions will have on these 1.2 billion people?
        Because of: US’ movement away from a free-market economy, $18.3 trillion national debt, monetary inflation, $2 trillion/yr in compliance costs, fiat US$, a gigantic bureaucracy, and roughly 43% of GDP being spent by the federal/state/local governments, US living standards are tanking.
        At the start of the 20th century, total federal/state/local government spending only accounted for 7% of GDP….
        Had $100+(?) trillion (who knows what the actual number is) not been squandered by the US government and left in the private sector over the past 100+ years, imagine what the US standard of living would look like; it boggles the mind…
        And so it goes… until it doesn’t.

  20. Klein is one of McGibbon’s 350.org cultists.
    To you, Klein , I say……. “TOWARDS 700ppm !!”
    CO2, greening the planet, and feeding the world.

    • Yes, this a million times over. Thank you for concisely positing the problem so many American Catholics have with the Church.
      I’m about ready to officially renounce my Catholisism.

    • Who would have thought that the Papacy would become a useful idiot position? Editors of Nature and Science, although strange, you can see how that happened.
      I’m developing a notion that maybe it’s a false flag operation and the most clever capitalists are using the useful idiot strategy, coupled with useless idiots, to waste their time on this great big pile of nothing while they get on with being capitalists, i.e, dangerous though the idiots are, they’re less dangerous than they could be while they’re totally occupied with pretending to fight against carbon dioxide (and they still buy fuel too). We’ll see after Paris.

      • philincalifornia: “….I’m developing a notion that maybe it’s a false flag operation …”
        I wish that were true but it’s more sinister than that. Quote from page 75 of the Club of Rome’s 1990 publication entitled The First Global Revolution……
        “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea
        that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit
        the bill…”
        The COR is a group of VERY wealthy and influential people that believe man isn’t capable of self government, Capitalism is the scourge of world economy, and a world government led by appointed bureaucrats (UN) is the only savior. They have control of the media, universities, most governments, and the money to pull it off. Look how far they’ve come already. The EU is a start. The only thing in the way of their plan now in the US is the Constitution and they’ve already sidestepped most of it. Most people claim “conspiracy theory” when confronted with these facts but they have been completely open with their plans. Most people just think it’s too preposterous to be real. It is real.

  21. METRO UK, June 2, 2015
    “We’ve got six months to save the world or we’re all doomed”, according to Jeffrey Sachs
    Three upcoming events to put this over according to Sachs are:
    Funding for Development meeting in Addis Adaba, July 2015
    Adoption of new Sustainable Development Goals, New York, Sept., 2015
    UN Climate Change Conference, Paris, November, 2015
    http://www.metro.co.uk/2015/06/02/weve-got-six-months-to-save-the-world-or-were-all-doomed-5227137/#item-attachment_5025449
    This situation just keeps getting worse!

    • We all knew that the runup to Paris was going to be big. Get the popcorn ready, we haven’t seen anything yet!

  22. Strikes me the recruitment of the Pope and the theatre he is now providing, is a pretty clear indication of how poorly the “Cause’ is selling.
    The desperation of our paid “helpers” is becoming immense.
    For having wasted billions and after attempting to savage what few freedoms we still have, they are going to have to admit there is no catastrophe. Never was a human fingerprint on climate, measured anywhere.
    When you heap scorn,derision upon people who are simply asking for their due, in this case an explanation of the CAGW panic, it is unlikely the scorned are going to be polite and forgiving when you are exposed as charlatans.
    The wine has turned to vinegar the roses are dead in the vase..cold is seeping in..
    Followed by angry citizens looking for our promised Global Warming.

    • It seems to be going better for them than in 2009, when the world had bigger fish to fry.
      The slightly warmer 2014/2015 has them erasing the ‘pause’, and they redoubled the heavy-hitter panic talk – ‘we must act now’ with not hint of irony that we didn’t act in 2009 and the world didnt end.
      It still wont.
      Also, they’ve wheeled out bogus health ‘science’ on the harm of heat, apparently heat waves will hit us and the next generation will be too dumb to get out of the hot sun. They are now layering junk science on top of junk models to make junk health predictions. And nobody in the media save for a few maligned ‘skeptics’ calls out the BullStones.
      Alarmists wont admit they were wrong, not for decades.

  23. One quibble with terminology:
    “Capitalism” is the term Karl Marx used for his strawman parody of the free market.

    • Excellent quote in there from the boy Friedman:

      “Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler, somehow, than economic self-interest? You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted.”

      • Phil Donahue’s question of the disparity between the “haves” and the “have-nots” is better framed by which countries “have” economic and individual freedoms vs those that “have not”…
        People who live in countries that “have” economic and personal freedoms do much better than those that “have not” these objective virtues.
        The economic empirical evidence showing this reality is unequivocal.

    • What they are really objecting to is the Pareto Principal or the 80-20 rule; It’s like objecting to E=mc^2. Mankind has always accumulated wealth and 80% of that wealth has always been held by 20% of the population and it follows that .2^3 is .008, .8 ^3 is .51 and you have the famous 1%er’s..

      • What they are really objecting to is the Pareto Principal or the 80-20 rule; It’s like objecting to E=mc^2. Mankind has always accumulated wealth and 80% of that wealth has always been held by 20% of the population and it follows that .2^3 is .008, .8 ^3 is .51 and you have the famous 1%er’s..

        What’s wrong with the 99%’s is that there isn’t one pie, there’s as many pies as people can think of and get people to want to buy, want to make more money, be more valuable.
        The problem is some don’t want to (or can’t) do that, and complain about people who are making more money than they do.

  24. The real scandal is that the Papacy would align with Schellenhuber who calls for a global population reduction to a “carrying capacity” of one billion people or less. Furthermore, “Merkel’s Holdren” proposes a series of unelected global tyrannies to supervise the mega-genocide he proposes.
    http://tarpley.net/

  25. in a followup, Rosie Scammel has organisers of the rally mentioned in the Guardian link Eric Worrall has posted, claiming attendance of 5,000. i don’t think so:
    29 June: Guardian: Pope Francis’s environmental message brings thousands on to streets in Rome
    Vatican officials to discuss climate change and environment with scientists and activists including Naomi Klein
    by Rosie Scammell in Rome
    Alongside Klein and Turkson, the conservation group WWF has been invited to this week’s Vatican conference and had a strong presence at the rally on Sunday, described as a “historic event” by Samantha Smith, leader of the organisation’s global climate and energy initiative…
    Activists at the ***One Earth, One Family event broke through the silence enveloping early-morning Rome with singing and chanting, waving paper birds high over the central Piazza Farnese before marching to the Vatican…
    While a few hundred people began the multifaith march, holding banners and sheltering from the sun under giant paper leaves, organisers said about 5,000 were present at the end of the march in St Peter’s Square…
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/28/pope-francis-environment-rome-naomi-klein-climate-change
    ***nowhere in google images of the One Earth, One Family rally have i seen any sizeable crowd whatsoever. greenpeace also involved, it seems, & elsewhere i read that 350.org sent a couple of islander “climate warriors”.
    in the first photo gallery on One Earth, One Family’s own website, there are no crowds whatsoever, just some WWF, Greenpace, Solar, Migrant Lives Matter banners & the like.
    in the second photo gallery, there is one photo of a crowd, with a caption “I finally saw the Pope” but it is evident that is the regular Sunday crowd that congregates in St. Peter’s Square for the Pope’s blessing, & has nothing to do with the rally.
    OneEarthOneFamily.org – Photo Galleries
    http://oneearthonefamily.org/

  26. So this latest talk-feast will “debate climate change action” well maybe but one thing we can be sure about, it won’t include a free and open debate about what appears to be the current Pope’s alarmist obsession with the quasi-religious man-made warming orthodoxy. Pierre Gosselin recently identified some of the flawed reasoning underpinning the Popes Encyclical:

    Increasingly it is growing clearer with each passing day that Pope Francis has made a fatal miscalculation in allowing certain alarmist, extremist scientists to dictate the Encyclical’s tone. They have rendered it a grotesquely flawed document.
    The FAZ’s Grossarth cannot understand why the Pope is coming down so hard on modern society and its many virtues:

    For many, and not by a long shot only those in the Northern World, capitalism is a paradise: Hunger is receding, more and more people are going to school, are getting older, and don’t have to work as long or as hard.”

    In a nutshell, most things that earlier popes and Catholics requested in former times have been expediently delivered by free market systems. Much misery, squalor and suffering have been alleviated. Ehrlichian visions of doom from just 40 years ago never came to pass – due to modern industrial progress.
    Grossarth thinks the Pope is overly “pessimistic” – someone who is way out of bounds in equating “capitalism to greed”. He characterizes Pope Francis as a person who has an incurable, chronic habit of presenting only the very ugly side of things. He writes:

    In the Encyclical there are so many examples of one-sided negative perceptions that in summary a distorted depiction of civilization is the result.”

    This should not be a surprise as the lead contributor to the Encyclical was German alarmist scientist Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. It’s truly a pity the Pope did not have the wisdom to recognize the document for what it was: a power-grabbing instrument by extreme environmental activists masquerading as scientists. Under John Paul II or Benedict such a polarizing and distorted encyclical would have never seen the light of day.
    Grossarth also makes the point that Francis is extremely adversarial to free-market systems, that he is someone who defines them as the world’s evil.

    Instead, all the abstract talk is about ‘refraining’, and the ‘common good’, or of ‘irrational trust in progress’. For the Pope, man’s intervention in nature leads to a vicious circle.

    In another article a few days ago Gosselin explained how:

    Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber recently boasted before journalists of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) how he got Pope Francis to swing over to climate alarmism in His most recent encyclical “Laudato Si”. It wasn’t through open debate.

    When it comes to how a debate is supposed to be conducted, we now know quite precisely what Schellnhuber’s idea of this is, especially once his Great Transformation becomes successful one day.”

    Schellnhuber is convinced he should have the last and final word. Pope Francis likely views him as a prophet of some sort.

    Sadly with each passing day Francis is identifying himself as a menace to mankind’s efforts to create a more prosperous world in which all people, including the desperately poor, can enjoy the health and well being that freely available, affordable energy brings.

  27. So now Francis now supports anti Israel policies?
    “In summer 2009, on the occasion of the publication of the Hebrew translation of her book The Shock Doctrine, Klein visited Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, combining the promotion of her book and the BDS campaign. In an interview to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz she emphasized that it is important to her “not to boycott Israelis but rather to boycott the normalization of Israel and the conflict.”[37] In a speech in Ramallah on 27 June, she apologized to the Palestinians for not joining the BDS campaign earlier.[38] Her remarks, particularly that “[Some Jews] even think we get one get-away-with-genocide-free-card” were characterized by an op-ed columnist in the Jerusalem Post as “violent” and “unethical”, and as the “most perverse of aspersions on Jews, an age-old stereotype of Jews as intrinsically evil and malicious.”[39]”

  28. I am not a fan of religion, be it old school or new. I trust the world to survive well without a lot of help.

  29. All the theorizing about free market and capitalism and the invisible hand is nonsense if you don’t make the distinction between an entrepreneur and a pirate and that governments are rightly formed to protect their citizens, property, territory and industry from the pirates. Pirates often sail under false flags which explains why so many conflate corporatism with capitalism. National Treasury’s and Central Banks have allowed three card monty games to be passed as “financial instruments” in banking for so long that it may require a return to the gold standard to sort it all out in the long run.

      • Simon you are being no less a Utopian than the Communists of whom you complain. We citizens who wish to not be molested by pirates will band together in political agreement to pay by some formula for the nuclear aircraft carrier to protect our right to be free of pirates. Pirates beware! We would be stupid to ban together, pay for the carrier, and hand control of it to unelected friends of the pirate!

    • Free markets don’t mean political anarchy.
      Since individuals have a right to self defense, they have a right to band together and hire someone else to provide that protection for them.

      • Yeah, They form political and territorial connections to “provide for the common defense”. It’s called a sovereign state. The state derives it’s “just powers from the consent of the governed” It all rings pretty familiar and there were no invisible hands writing it.

    • Fossil sage makes perfect sense (to me, at least) .
      ‘The whole thing works because of sets of rules, and systems to regulate them’ (Hey, isn’t that called a government?).
      So any dispute is simply over to what degree does the government really need to be involved.
      Those who say “not at all” are more deluded than those who say “completely”. At least we have seen examples of the latter system function for 50 years or so before collapsing in a sorry mess.
      (Many in here seem happy with that timeline, it is probably about how long a gigantic corporation would take to get out-competed or out-moded…. but only through the righteous forces of competition, of course!)

  30. Don’t ever worry about all that anti-capitalism stuff. You cannot fool the market in the long run. The truth will out in the end. There is no magic about money or credit. Markets will crash eventually if too many investments are built on sand. You can theorise till the cows come home – cold money facts will eventually prove or disprove your theories.. Just read a book which I can recommend : “Why We Bite the Invisible Hand” by Peter Foster.
    I find it interesting (and encouraging), though, that it looks as if the so-called “quantitative easing”, if applied intelligently and moderately, can somehow prevent a real global depression (like the 1930’s). Is it applied “Social Credit??”

    • While what you say is true, the problem is that the eventual ‘win’ of the market comes sometime after the complete collapse of the society into ruin after all the wealth is squandered, capital stock worn out or destroyed or moved to China, and the money as store of value has turned to dust. I’d rather avoid that process…
      There is a very long history of “bubble and crash” and an almost as long history of “Socialism to Poverty”. (See USSR, Fascist Italy, National State Socialist Germany, Khmer Rouge, Maoist Red China pre-market economy, Argentina, Brazil during Socialist runs – yet Brazil as market economy grows fast, and so many more…)
      And that is why I’d really really rather not have to wait for the natural end game… it comes in about 50 years and I don’t have that long…

      • You won’t have to wait 50 years : I’ll hazard the guess that all the billions of dollars of bad investments in alternative energy over the last 15 years will cause a stock market crash very soon. They were expecting oil prices to keep going up to begin making the investments profitable about now – but, alas (or hallelujah), look at oil prices now.

      • AndyE June 29, 2015 at 2:59 am
        The downturn has already begun. The market crash I expect will be seen in September.
        The proximate cause in the US? Insurance companies (ObamaCare) are gobbling up all the excess cash produced by the decline in oil prices.

      • Keep an eye on Greece. If it defaults, it could easily start a world wide banking collapse.

    • Andy, I have no doubt whatsoever that the market will sort itself out in the long run.
      The only problem I have is such natural cycles may take 20, 40, or 50 years … enough to c ruin generations.
      It’d be nice if we could balance it out a bit better in the meantime.
      Right now we are seeing more wealth than ever accumulate into fewer hands.

      • Right now we are seeing more wealth than ever accumulate into fewer hands.

        So what? Wealth isn’t limited, money is a proxy for human labor in a barter system, and the population keeps growing, I’d be surprised if total wealth has risen as fast as population has.

      • Why haven’t we seen anyhing like the 1930’s depression since then (i.e. for over 80 years)? I had uncles then desperate for work, but unable to find any for years. I believe capitalism has evolved since then – governments somehow manage to short-circuit the “natural cycles” you talk about. How do they do it? We can point to various actions which served to create the credit necessary for economic growth. I really think no economist is able to pinpoint exactly how it happens. Credit equals money, right? Or is that wrong?Economic orthodoxy will not accept what is happening – but happen it does. Quantitative easing? Funny money? Social credit? Adequate, generous unemployment benefits?

  31. Virtually all the money sent to Vatican comes from the surplus available from capitalism. How could he not understand that?

    • Sad to say that a lot of it comes from little old ladies/widows/elderly Social Security income. They were always sending letters to my elderly widowed neighbor wanting more.

  32. Get rid of capitalism? Perhaps this Pope could lead off with a garage sale of all the treasures in the Vatican.

    • And ALL material treasure came out of the ground from the stone to the gold. Apparently Gaia is not offended if you dig stuff out of “her” as long as it does not burn.

  33. Hmm Naomi has an interesting biography. Interesting family history. That’s all I can say about that. If the writing isn’t on the wall with this one then.. What a circus performance this is going to be. i don’t think anybody important could take this seriously though thank God. No pun intended.

  34. From Wiki – “Klein’s fourth book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate was published in September 2014 The book puts forth the argument that the hegemony of neoliberal market fundamentalism is blocking any serious reforms to halt climate change and protect the environment.”
    Perhaps her efforts might be better discussing female bishops (or lack of) with the Pope?

    • “neoliberal market fundamentalism” is just the Chicago school of economics. If she thinks it’s capitalism, she has another thing coming.

  35. just watched the film ‘KIngsman’. Bwa haha! The evil climate change activists trying to depopulate the planet. Does that sound likely ? I’d say yes!

  36. It seems to me that Pope Francis is probably a very poor judge of character and talent when it comes to serious secular issues.

  37. I thought this response might help balance the ledger. Sorry I can’t do the click on bit.
    Miranda Devine
    –, Sunday, June, 21, 2015, (1:35am)
    CLIMATE alarmists are cock-a-whoop over Pope Francis’s much-anticipated call to action on global warming.
    Yes, the leader of the world’s 1.8 billion Catholics, agrees with Kevin Rudd. The planet is in crisis, and climate change is one of the greatest moral challenges, the Pope has written in his first solo encyclical. Man is to blame and fossil fuels are bad.
    It couldn’t be a more political document, designed to ¬influence the upcoming UN ¬climate summit in Paris later this year. Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate change head, has called it a “clarion call to guide the world”.
    Looks like everyone’s a papist now.
    Alarmists are revelling in what they hope is the discomfort of the climate sceptic, or agnostic faithful, especially the Prime Minister.
    “Hopefully this is Tony Abbott’s come to Jesus moment on climate change,” Greens leader Richard Di Natale said
    “If Tony Abbott won’t listen to the science, I only hope he will listen to the leader of his church and see the light on climate change,” said independent MP Andrew Wilkie.
    The same people who have flayed Abbott for taking orders from Rome, supposedly, when it comes to women’s ovaries or same-sex marriage are now ¬demanding he obey the Pope and start spraying windmills across the landscape.
    Sensibly, the PM ducked questions last week. After all, no disrespect to the Pope, but he has no authority on these matters. His is just another opinion.
    And at a time when Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East, you have to wonder at the use of this significant statement of papal teaching for what surely is a less pressing concern.
    How could a refugee fleeing the medieval brutality of Islamic State in Syria or Iraq feel anything but abandoned by the Pope’s preoccupation with mythical “climate refugees”.
    “There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation,” he writes.
    “Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering.”
    Yes, the Pope prays every week for an end to the war in Syria, and on Friday, he met the head of the Syrian Orthodox Church to lament the “terrible trials” of Christians in the Middle East. But none of that gets the global media attention of an encyclical written in the language of the green Left, that criticises market economics, and sounds the doomsday alarm.
    “The Earth, our home, is ¬beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth,” is one of the more peculiar claims.
    Yet a quick scan of the 10 most-polluted places on Earth finds that not one is in the ¬developed world. Instead we see Ghana, Indonesia, Ukraine, Zambia, Russia, Nigeria and Argentina. The fact is that prosperity and progress leads to less pollution and more care for the environment. It’s in rich Western countries that people have the luxury of clean waterways, recycling bins, and catalytic converters.
    What’s more, the Pope’s concern for the poor in developing countries is at odds with the UN’s climate demands.
    It is the poor who are hit hardest by the electricity price rises that result from cuts in ¬energy consumption.
    Pro-life advocates are aghast that many of the climate alarmists who are claiming the Pope as their own are Malthusians and misanthropes — to them, people are the problem and the solution is population control, which of course is the antithesis of Catholic teaching.
    Two of the Pope’s environmental advisers for the encyclical, for instance, were Jeffrey Sachs and Hans Schellnhuber, known for advocating abortion, contraception and sterilisation.
    But, as a Catholic and an ¬optimist, I suspect the Pope is engaging in Jesuitical trickery.
    When you read the encyclical, you see that climate change is a minor player, despite the media hype.
    In 44,000 words, the word “climate” appears just 18 times. This is illustrated in a word cloud by the Catholic News Service, in which the size of a word correlates with the frequency of its use: “climate” is not visible. “Human” is the largest word, followed by “God”.
    That is the cleverness of this popular, enigmatic Pope He has used climate change as the “bait” to lure the chattering classes, the godless and the Gaia worshippers.
    He gives them a bit of climate sustenance, then whacks them with a full-frontal attack on moral relativism.
    “We have had enough of ¬immorality and the mockery of ethics, goodness, faith and honesty … There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself,” the Pope writes.
    He is down on abortion, contraception, embryonic research, sex changes and digital media, which gives “rise to a new type of contrived emotion which has more to do with devices and displays than with other people and with nature”.
    He is all for the family, which he calls “the heart of the culture of life”.
    So now that the Pope has the ears of the world, he’s relentlessly hammering us with ¬unabashed Catholic teaching, sugar-coated with populist ¬environmentalism.
    Genius bait and switch.

  38. Look who queues up to bury the most successful system ever, wanting to replace it with their own failed models? Back to being told what to think and when to think it. Back to superstition. These are momentous times. I don’t think they will win, as I think people will smell the rat, but this is a particularly revealing moment. I expect next to see strong attacks on democracy, as those who know best seek their own ascendancy.

  39. as for the rally mentioned in your Guardian link, here is Rosie’s followup with the organisers (WWF & Co) claiming 5,000 attended. i don’t think so:
    29 June: Guardian: Pope Francis’s environmental message brings thousands on to streets in Rome
    Vatican officials to discuss climate change and environment with scientists and activists including Naomi Klein
    by Rosie Scammell in Rome
    Alongside Klein and Turkson, the conservation group WWF has been invited to this week’s Vatican conference and had a strong presence at the rally on Sunday, described as a “historic event” by Samantha Smith, leader of the organisation’s global climate and energy initiative…
    Activists at the ***One Earth, One Family event broke through the silence enveloping early-morning Rome with singing and chanting, waving paper birds high over the central Piazza Farnese before marching to the Vatican…
    While a few hundred people began the multifaith march, holding banners and sheltering from the sun under giant paper leaves, organisers said about 5,000 were present at the end of the march in St Peter’s Square…
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/28/pope-francis-environment-rome-naomi-klein-climate-change
    nowhere in google images of the rally have i seen any sizeable crowd whatsoever. greenpeace also involved, it seems, & elsewhere i read that 350.org sent a couple of islander “climate warriors”.
    in the first photo gallery at the One Earth, One Family website, there are no crowds whatsoever, just some WWF banners, Solar banners, Migrant Lives Matter banners & the like.
    in the second photo gallery, there is one photo of a crowd, with a tag “I finally saw the Pope”. it is evident that it is the regular Sunday crowd who congregate in St. Peter’s Square for the Pope’s blessing, & has nothing to do with the rally.
    OneEarthOneFamily.org – Photo Galleries
    http://oneearthonefamily.org/

  40. So…she who doesn’t like advertisers is now going to be in the position to use advertising tactics on us that she despises when it’s coming from corporations. *SMH*

    • She’s the anti-capitalist capitalist. Her religious superpower is annoying people into submission.

  41. If you want to see what effect unrestricted capitalism has on the environment take a visit to Beijing and breathe in nice and deep. Government controls eg the clean air act by far the most efficient way of reigning in the excesses of the free market.

      • Sunnuva gun, Eustace! Never noticed that one and I’ve worked for 2 aerospace companies and one aircraft manufacturer where I got paid to wander around the hangars. Near as I can recall, that’s the first time I’ve ever had cause to write the word and I got busted right out of the gate. Thank you sir! :o)

  42. Klein is an economic idiot. She has no clue what capitalism is. It’s pretty simple. Income drives spending. Spending creates sales. Sales create jobs. Jobs create income. Repeat. That’s it. Capitalism.
    And “sales” are anything that a person (or business) produces for sale, from books to tree trimming, from steel to scallop fishing. Nursing. Bridges. Engineering. Whatever it is you do. “Goods and services” in macroeconomic parlance. The output of a nation.
    What Klein is woefully unaware of is that 70% of the spending in this country is by households, ordinary people who want jobs, and need them to sustain themselves and their dignity. But they need income before they can spend.
    And what she doesn’t understand is that the process I describe in the first paragraph is “pro-cyclical.” It goes in one direction only. The federal government, on the other hand, can act counter-cyclically during a downturn, which our federal government has failed to do since 2009. Only the federal government can act counter-cyclically and increase spending by congressional appropriation (without any debt to children and grandchildren). And without requiring an income*.
    Look at the process I describe in the first paragraph. If households don’t have any income, or are saving their income to pay off debt (“deleveraging”), then the only entity in this capitalist country of ours that can spend to increase sales which create jobs is the federal government.
    But we’ve elected idiots in Congress who don’t know that, who think that the “national debt” is something we have to pay back (or pay down), and who think that federal government deficits are actually harmful! When they’re not. (The European countries that gave up their sovereign currency for the Euro are not so lucky.)
    ===========================
    * Anyone who thinks that the US federal government needs income before it can spend (that it needs tax dollars), I invite you to look at the US Treasury’s consolidated bank statement for the end of fiscal year 2014, which is September 30th. This is the federal government’s (US Treasury) bank statement for the year. I’m not making this up. It’s two pages.
    Look at “TABLE IV – Federal tax Deposits.” Total taxes received were $2,599,739 million, or $2.6 trillion. (We’ll ignore “TABLE VI – Income Tax Refunds Issued,” which would make the number even smaller) That’s it. A measly $2.6 trillion. If you think that pays for the government, you’ve got bats in the belfry.
    Now look at “TABLE III-A – Public Debt Transactions.” The federal government–NOT the Federal Reserve–issued $69,813,829 million, or $69.8 trillion in new US dollar instruments. The accountant’s term for it is “public debt” because they record it on the right side of the ledger sheet under “Liabilities.” It also redeemed $68,727,941 million, or $68.7 trillion. What they bought with it goes on the left side of their ledger sheet under “Assets.” The difference, btw, is what the federal government allows us to keep. It’s called the National Debt, or “Public Debt Outstanding.” It’s in our bank accounts. Yours and mine.
    So do not, under any circumstances, think that federal taxes pay for anything. They don’t. Their purpose is to regulate the economy in a fiat system like a thermostat. Economy ice cold? Cut taxes, increase spending. Economy red hot? Increase taxes, cut spending. The US federal government can never go broke.
    This is why Naomi Klein’s assertions are insane. She has zero understanding of how things work. And now she’s over in Italy, which gave up the Lira for the Euro, talking to people who do not understand the American system of capitalism, and is going to regulate ours from afar? The Climate Change people running the UN know about TABLE III-A – Public Debt Transactions. They’re after the US federal government’s money-making machine.

      • But the money CAN become worthless.

        Assuming you’re talking about USD, only if USD are not longer required to pay taxes. Then, why would anyone need them and, therefore, work to get them?

      • Ain’t gonna’ happen, M Simon, unless idiotic and foolish congressmen and senators default the US currency (like the Russians did in 1997 or 1998 when they didn’t have to). We are a sovereign nation with a sovereign currency. Too bad Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, and all the idiotic Democratic and Republican candidates, don’t know this.
        GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports

  43. About now I remember the description of fox hunting as “The unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable”.
    While it seems to be missing from the encyclical I leave this comment open to adaptation.

  44. The Catholic Church, like the Church Of England, are heavily invested in ‘Carbon’.
    Since the value of ‘Carbon’ is now much lower than when they originally invested their money, they will be relentless with the AGW propaganda.
    However, you only have to look at the paedophile scandal inside the Catholic Church and the criminal conspiracy to protect those embedded deviants to understand what you are dealing with here. The criminally insane.
    The Catholic Church has a very well documented history of comfortably aligning itself with the worlds most destructive, criminally insane powers.

  45. How can one be surprised. A neutral observer might call this The Age of the Oligarchs. Even Wikipedia has it right: “… power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control.”
    Western democracies, after a long a winding path, have rejected rule by the people. The Church merely reflects this 200-300 year process(es) of rejecting self-rule. The Church is simply wanting to be part of the ruling oligarchy instead of an outsider. Remember, the Pope was elected by a super-majority of the Church Cardinals meaning the Pope is just a member of a group that includes Baghdad Bob, Josh Earnest and all the rest of the press secretaries. I.E., he’s the public spokesperson reflection of the organization he represents.
    The most likely outcome, for the US, is a form of government similar to China’s bureaucratic capitalism or whether they’ll simply skip on to a variation of he Nazi’s “statism”. However, the effect on the non-oligarch class will still mean having to learn to live under totalitarian rule.
    It will play out on it’s own time scale but this will not end well.

  46. It is the irony motherlode: the side that claims to be helping the poor, that claims to be helping the environment, that claims to be good for the economy, and that claims to have science and truth on its side is in fact the polar opposite of all those things. And finally, we have the Church, which is supposed to stand for all things which are good weighing in on the side of evil instead. How this will all play out is anyone’s guess.

  47. “When the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him”
    The heat and noise surrounding the Pope’s letter and subsequent campaigns is making it increasingly clearly that the discussion is a political and economic (rather than scientific) one. This is good for us. It will make it clear to the middle-ground that the supposedly lunatic conspiracy-theorists weren’t quite so lunatic. There WAS a form of political end-game hidden behind the science, and this WAS about establishing some form of centrally planned / controlled global economic model.
    The clearer this becomes, the less tolerant electorates will become of being asked to acquiesce, the more questions they will start asking – and the more likely it is that a reappraisal of the scientific basis for these extreme political demands will kick off.
    Which will probably bring us back to where most of us sit. Yes there have been temperature increases – but not as much as the manipulated data suggests. Yes, some of it is caused by human activities, but probably not as much as claimed. Yes, there may be more to come, but probably not too much and certainly not catastrophic. Neutral to lukewarm.
    Australia and Canada are a little ahead on this political journey. There seems little wavering in UK cabinet, but there is scepticism on the back-benches which could start to play in the run up to the EU referendum – given the EU’s gung-ho attitude and inherent belief in regulation and control. GOP control of both houses is moving the US in the direction of a more questioning stance – something which will inevitably be escalated by the current papal bull.
    In short, let the left make as much noise as possible about rebuilding the world economy and dismantling capitalism. Really, let them get on with it. The more extreme the better. That’s where the political “consensus” will start to fall apart – and the apparent scientific one will follow.

    • thomam,
      ” the discussion is a political and economic (rather than scientific) one. This is good for us. It will make it clear to the middle-ground that the supposedly lunatic conspiracy-theorists weren’t quite so lunatic.”
      I agree with with your analysis. I have a caution for you to consider: Do not underestimate the power of popularism amongst the stupid. This exactly why the USA was set up as a republic and not a democracy. Mob rule by a brainless mob is the inevitable outcome.

  48. To markx I would like to say that there appears to be trend to concentration of financial wealth but I think there is a dynamic that is being ignored. When some company makes a new innovation, it will control a larger portion (miniscule as it may be) of the world’s financial wealth. When lots of companies are making lots of innovations, financial wealth is being concentrated. But not all wealth is financial. The real gain to society is from the innovations. In order for these companies to accumulate a larger portion of financial wealth, they must sell more innovation to society as a whole. At least that’s the way it seems to me that it should work in theory. I think the biggest problem is that it is easier for companies to get a bigger portion of the world’s wealth by influencing government rather than by innovating.

  49. Dismantling capitalism is going swimmingly in Venezuela. Can’t even get toilet paper. Is this what Naomi has in mind?

  50. “Who should we call in as an independent and unbiased adviser”
    “How about a political activist?”
    “Get her in.”

  51. Yes, the Catholic Church used to be much more successful and powerful as well when most people lived in poverty, infant and child mortality was two out of three, disease and hunger were rampant and the average lifespan was below 30. Is this what the Pope and Naomi Klein want to bring back?

    • The Catholic Church operates more hospitals than anyone Gus. You can hate the Church, that is up to you but to say something so absurd in a dialogue about legitimate policies of finance and economics puts your comment on the hate fringe.

      • Okay, how about a straight up hospital tax instead. It is far better to be direct and truthful than to join the end around campaign of lies and attack of even the notion of fact checking.

  52. What Klein and the Pope find objectionable is the notion that good can be spontaneous, without the need for a guiding hand from above.
    Neither Klein nor the Pope can fathom how billions of people acting out of their own self-interest can create something that benefits all.
    Yet this is precisely why we have billions of humans. A society of individuals is greater than the sum of its parts.
    The great danger to society comes from those that would seek to subvert the rights of individuals in the name of “the common good”. In this society becomes a slave to noble purpose; a New Crusade is the result.

  53. Disturbingly, the Pope has gone thoroughly whack-a-doodle and leaped into the pit of political snakes.
    Portland Mayor Hales has zero to offer but his shady political position atop a city so foolishly far left it has it’s own lampooning TV show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RriKEK09SVo
    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/06/pope_francis_invited_charlie_h.html
    “Portland Mayor Charlie Hales is one of 16 mayors from around the world invited to meet with Pope Francis next month as part of a global summit to discuss climate change and human trafficking.
    The July 21 event at the Vatican is sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Science, according to a press release.”………………

  54. The church is free to lead by example. May I suggest every Sunday morning the Vatican Swiss Guard be posted in every church to confiscate wealth from every one who attends and pass it back out as every one leaves according to the pope’s decree.
    Let them not air condition or heat their churches, let the clergy walk, bike or take public transit where ever they go.

  55. The world is headed for climate crisis alright–a crisis of climate science driven by government and advocacy science in the complete absence of fact checking and science process for model evaluation. It’s fast approach runaway advocacy science.

  56. I wonder how long it’ll take before Naomi Klein chafes against the Catholic Church’s gender inequality in management roles, stance against abortion, stance against contraception, stance against gay marriage?
    Or will she hold her nose and help enable that organization to continue its socially Conservative agenda by providing them the new tools of fear and guilt (oh, Lord, forgive us our Carbon Sins), and inspire yet another new generation of guilt-driven Catholics.
    I find it hilarious.

  57. What’s five thousand people in St Peter’s square anyway? Most of them were tourists?
    There is plenty of money being spread around to sponsor these kinds of events and who is furnishing this money?

  58. I am Roman Catholic. Mostly non-practicing, but Roman Catholic nonetheless. One of the last remaining reasons why I still considered myself an RC, is that I respected how the church always stood its ground. It considered issues long and hard, then made its carefully considered statements on the given topic then stood its ground.
    Now, it made a couple of mistakes, but have eventually admitted to one, the Galileo incident. I can live with that. Then there is their stand on woman in the Church, which makes sense in the context of societal norms 2015 years ago, but makes no sense today. But, I can live with that, with the expectation that someday the Church will get it right.
    What I can’t live with, is the Church making statements that skirt the truth like the encyclical does. When they make statements that are technically correct, such as (paraphrased) “many scientists believe that CO2 causes CAGW”, which then implies and supports the obviously completely incorrect conclusion that CO2 does actually cause CAGW, then I have a problem. This is willful ignorance.
    The Church should have examined all the sides of the issue thoroughly. There is no reason why they could not do that and have seriously done their homework. But I believe that they know both sides of the issue, and chose to go with what they know to be a lie. To me this is willful ignorance. The Church has willfully chosen to join in a major and obvious lie.
    That I cannot live with. Regardless what they expect to gain in terms of supposed “social justice”. A lie is a lie. And that lie has harmed and will continue to do harm to people, the rich and poor alike.
    I have to say, that I will never return to the Roman Catholic Church.

    • Terry,
      The political import is enormous. The theological significance is miniscule. The Church is made of of flawed people, like every other institution, family, and organization. There are a collection of highly flawed people steering the CO2=evil bandwagon and since this is such an obvious lie, the truth will come out, eventually. There are MANY within the Church who have,are and will continue to speak out on this central issue. You ought to contribute to the pressure to ensure that the CO2 = growth ideas prevails.
      WRT to theological side, this letter is just an encyclical, and theologically is carries no special weight that will stand the test of time in terms of it teaching.
      So you are battling with your political desires and your desire that the bishops, priests, and the Pope will align with your thinking on an array of issues. They never will. There will always be a gap between the what some in the church hierarchy think and what you think. Desiring thousands of people to abide by your opinion ( mine too ) is a waste of your good will and precious time.
      The church, as a whole, is not particularly blameworthy. Neither is Francis for that matter. He is just listening to the dominant world view. I don’t and you don’t believe it to be true. But most scientific organizations have come out to support the view that CO2 is the boogyman.
      The problem is that the Church is popular and influential and when it goes against your desires you are ticked off. So your natural response is try to diminish its influence by leaving in protest and making a public statement to that effect. You are not hurting it. You are just angry and rightfully so. They just became very popular amongst an alien crowd. I suggest you write thoughtful and polite letters to your priest, your bishop and the Pope, your friends etc and explain where the error is most visible.
      You obviously understand the issue. It seems to me that you need to take the most potent action. That is by you undermining the CO2 = evil concept. I suspect you could be very effective if you chose to do so.
      Do not fight windmills, or run from them. Walk in the front door, and carefully jab a crowbar into the gears.

      • ‘The church, as a whole, is not particularly blameworthy. Neither is Francis for that matter. He is just listening to the dominant world view.”
        The problem is the lack of critical intelligence operating at the highest level and, more important, the lack of awareness that the conditions for critical intelligence within the Pope’s advisers have not been met. The Pope and his advisers should know that throwing in with Naomi Klein shows that they are operating beyond their ability to understand the situation.

      • I am not an advocate of the Pontifical Academy for Science, but the PAS is constituted by Nobel Laureates and thought leaders in science and climate science. Their credentials are beyond reproach. The problem is not their intelligence, or credentials. They are smart and scholarly. The problem is that they are also humans with axes to grind. They are willing to subvert their own credentials to achieve a social objective. How is the Pope to know when the PAS is perverting the underlying science, especially when the PAS is in agreement with the Royal Society and the American Physical Society?
        Despite all that street cred, here we are, you AND me both, shouting at windmills.

  59. Hello, this is not Tom J writing this. This is God writing this. I have merely entered Tom J’s body because I need a physical form in which to write this.
    Now, I know what your all thinking. You’re wondering why, in God’s name (I use that phrase too), out of all the human bodies a supreme cosmic being could choose to enter, why that being would make such a pathetic choice as to enter Tom J’s body? Well, I’m wondering that too. But, I’ll let all of you in on a little known (and probably shocking to you) secret. You see, even Gods can make big mistakes too.
    And speaking of mistakes, one day I’m going to have to apologize to Tom J for the body I gave him. I mean erectile dysfunction, impotency, irritable bowel syndrome, acid reflux, jock itch, warts, athlete’s foot, sinusitis, periodontal disease, and vertigo were a bit much. I’ll try not to make so many mistakes next time.
    Oh, and I’d also like to apologize to Tom J for having given him that older sister. I’m truly sorry, but in my defense I have to say that there really was no other way to get rid of Mephistopheles.
    But I did not descend from the heavens to apologize to Tom J. No, I came down to apologize to all of you. Like I said, I can make mistakes from time to time. And I just made a whopper. A real big time, mega whopper. A mistake big enough for me to enter a human body (I’ll make a better choice next time) so as to assume physical form in which to communicate this mother of all mistakes to you.
    I sent you an absolute dufus as a pope.
    I am truly sorry. But what can I say? I truly f’d up.

    • Well ok then. But be more careful next time. You are supposed to be a Supreme Being after all.

  60. They will need a lot of wealth transfers to save Italy in the wake of Greek collapse and financial contagion.

    • You know…. you may be more correct than anyone here on this…I can see the coming financial crisis burying this issue. The Greeks are hoarding food! That is going to spread world wide. Then? All of our CAGW worries will melt away. Like prohibition in the 1920s prior to the crash. And the collapse of the German-Anglo monarchies/families post WWII. We are often overtaken by circumstances.

      • A snap shot of European markets today….note the percentage losers.
        Europe
        Europe Dow 1814.05 -54.41 -2.91%
        Stoxx Europe 600 386.17 -10.68 -2.69%
        France: CAC 40 4869.82 -189.35 -3.74%
        Germany: DAX 11083.20 -409.23 -3.56%
        Italy: FTSE MIB 22569.95 -1230.52 -5.17%
        Spain: IBEX 35 10853.90 -518.40 -4.56%
        UK: FTSE 100 6620.48 -133.22 -1.97%

  61. If popey-boy wants to be a Communist, why didn’t the Church join with the USSR? Ah, yes, because Commies in general hate the Catholic Church. Same goes for Greens. They may be spiritual dudes, but in my experience they are more likely to be Pagan than Catholic.
    These three disparate cults are simply made for each other – but my prediction is that their marriage will be short.
    R

  62. Pope recruits Naomi Klein to fight Climate Change and Capitalism
    fight climate change
    ” Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness “( Exodus 23:1)
    fight capitalism
    “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house…..nor anything that is thy neighbours “(Exodus 20-17)
    Good Advice here even for the leader of the flock.

  63. Malthusians
    I’d like to die a Catholic
    With a life of no compunction,
    But with all these closet Marxists
    Who will give me extreme unction;
    I deny there’s global warming
    The real thermometers don’t lie,
    Let’s see the readings of the great
    Meteorologist in the sky.
    The atheistic Schellnhuber
    Wrote the Green Encyclical,
    Made sure no climate realists
    Showed his science was farcical;
    He would stop the masses breeding
    The lower classes he would bilk,
    Like his Nazi hero Malthus
    He would not wish it on his ilk.
    For years it has been obvious
    The Roman Church is in decline,
    To stop the rot His Holiness
    Has now turned to Naomi Klein;
    A well known Jewish Communist
    Who spouts the parables of Marx,
    This Pope should be preaching gospels
    Known as John, Matthew Luke and Marks’
    The Master Plan is completed
    With all the major players on board,
    ‘we must make the whole world equal’
    With energy we can’t afford;
    We must stop the world evolving
    Lets kick away the lowest rung,
    Make sure the poor of Africa
    Continue cooking with dried dung.
    Patrick
    Healy

    • Reading Climate Change: The Facts” would do for a start.
      And not banning the one skeptical voice, a bigshot French scientist, from a big Vatican get-together a month or two ago would also have been nice.
      The pope isn’t misled. He is a headstrong biz-basher who sees, in the climate change issue, a chance to score a point against his
      bete noir. He is very imprudent, which will devalue the authority of his office, in time.

      • rogerknights commented

        The pope isn’t misled. He is a headstrong biz-basher who sees, in the climate change issue, a chance to score a point against his bete noir. He is very imprudent, which will devalue the authority of his office, in time.

        He’ll fit right in with those 99% Wall St basher’s, the Lib’s and the Green’s, oh except for their rabid anti-Religious streak. What strange bedfellows, hey I wonder if the recent SCOTUS decision makes all of that all legal and stuff?

  64. The pope’s visit to his soul-buddy Castro (prior to his visit to the US) will reveal his true colors to many who don’t realize his essential unsoundness.

  65. I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but Naomi Klein uses the ethnicity, gender and latitude of subjects as a method for evaluating the legitimacy of their views. To put it bluntly, she plays the race card. In 2011, in The Nation, she wrote “conservative white men” denied climate change because of who they are. In this article on the Observer/Guardian website, she says that they can’t accept a challenge from the “south” (a Pope from Argentina, and a cardinal from Ghana). I hope Joanne Nova writes about this, because she should get extra points for being female, and from even further south than Argentina.

  66. Rogerknight
    You are describing more the Popes ‘character’ as you see him rather than his ” learnings .” I thought you were referring more to his Papal wisdom as a pope .

  67. I have heard more than one person say, “if climate change were real then politicians and the pope wouldn’t have to promote it”. I think the more warmists push climate change more people doubt it.

    • I have heard more than one person say, “if climate change were real then politicians and the pope wouldn’t have to promote it”. I think the more warmists push climate change more people doubt it.

      Ralph, didn’t you know that Climate Change is a complicated topic, you at least need a degree out of a cracker jacks box to understand it, everyone else should just take the “specialists” word on it.

  68. Ralph Kramden
    I think the reason for all this recent global warming alarmism is that their zero hour in Paris is fast approaching where immense dollar( $100 billion dollars plus) commitments are being claimed from the developing countries . They all want to get a share of all this free money. If the free world just caves in and gives all this free money , look for loss of national freedoms and personal freedoms next. Greece is just the start.

  69. Robin Hood Governance
    But it was the Sheriff of Nottingham who went around collecting the Taxes

  70. Unfortunately the Pope’s latest encyclical on climate change reflects the same unproven alarmism that has already been shown on this blog to be quite flawed. The use of words like SOLID SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS , DISTURBING WARMING, INCREASE IN EXTREME WEATHER, CONCENTRATION OF GREENHOUSE GASES …RELASED MAINLY AS A RESULT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY , VICIOUS CARBON CYCLE , CARBON DIOXIDE POLLUTION, , EXTRA ORDINARY CLIMATE CHANGE , MELTING OF POLAR ICE CAPS , UN PRECEDENTED DESRUCTION OF ECOSYSTEMS , RISE IN SEA LEVELS indicates that the selected words seem to be identical to the ones used by the alarmist rather than a balanced analysis by the Vatican..
    Even more troublesome is that limiting the use of fossil fuels to the poor countries has exactly the opposite effect that that he wants . It keeps the poor nations from having less expensive fuel for energy and cooking and they are forced to continue to burn and destroy their forest just to survive.
    By throwing his lot in with the alarmists he just exasperates the situation and failed to present a more balanced picture of the climate problem and the many uncertainties that still exist There is an equal if not greater possibility that the next 30 years could see global cooling as already experienced in North America since 2005
    He claims that the climate is a common good but he clearly throws his lot in not with the poor and destitute who lack cheap energy

  71. rogerknights
    I used and meant ” exasperates “, meaning to aggravate.. Exacerbate is just another synonym.

  72. Pope Francis is coming out of the closet as a card-carrying socialist. He buys into the now discredited “liberation theology” that sees all capitalism as bad. He’s a bad pope and a worse shepherd…he should be spending his time preaching the Gospel and stop wasting his time on issues of which he hasn’t a clue.

  73. It has been said that a person takes on a large part of the era ,influence and area they grow up in .
    Considering the antics in Argentina for last 60 years should answers many thoughts about the pope .

  74. Kim Kardashian would be a better choice. That would get Il Papa into all the women’s magazines alongside the shock/horror celebrity mob.

  75. The Popes encyclical on climate change states,
    “For poor countries, the priority should be the eradication of poverty and social development of their inhabitants;”
    This sounds great on the surface, but by endorsing the alarmist agenda to fight global warming , the Pope may be endorsing policies that may have the opposite effect;
    • By denying cheaper fossil fuel energy to poor countries ,it may ensure their continued poverty because they will be unable to afford the expensive renewable energies
    • By forcing over stringent emission standards and high price for fossil fuels, it will encourage many nations to turn to ethanol and thus limit the corn available to feed the poor
    • By promoting carbon taxes or, cap and trade taxes , this will have the greatest effect on poor families as they will be least able to afford yet more taxes on their energies and goods
    • By promoting renewables energies only ,this more expensive and subsidized energy will drive up the cost of electricity for all including the poor
    • By forcing the poor to remain in poverty , they will be unable to raise their standard of living and will continue to experience the health, disease and social problems that they now have
    For someone claiming to be interested in helping the poor of the world Pope seems to be ill advised. I wonder if he understands what he is doing by endorsing the quite flawed alarmists ideas ?

  76. So now we already have the actual agenda unmasked by the now clearly untrustworthy deceiver with an ulterior motive. Didn’t take long for the deception to show.

  77. Sorry… Reference to the Old-anti- capitalist Soviet Union (Akka Putin demonising) just blew the credibility of this author out the window .. I’m getting that fundamentalist puerile conservative bigotry ‘creep behind my ears’ feeling!!! Not withstanding my new hero, Naomi Klein!!!! (Ok the Pope as well!!)

    • You know, jasonmakeig, the short-circut, cluless-diode incoherence of your last comment has left me very concerned that you just might be a lost-memory victim of some unsavoury bunch (aren’t they always) of privileged-white-dork youth-masters, who typically seek out vulnerable, zits-and-booger-phase, can’t-get-a-date socially-incompetent “dumb-kids” and brainwash them so that they emerge from their hive pupa-hood as a lefty-cant-spewing hive-bot. So if your adolescent years fit the above profile, jasonmakeig, then I’d say that you definitely need help, big-time, ol’ buddy. But it’s your call, guy.
      And I know this is a delicate matter, jasonmakeig, but your last, useless-idiot comment would indicate that you’re still very much at a buggy, beta-test hive-tool state of development, that’s frankly not ready for prime-time–and especially unsuited for the cutting-edge scene of a world-opinion shaping, universally-admired, prestigious blog like WUWT. So, it’s probably best if you confine your further comments, in the forseeable future, to a blog more suited to your “limitations” where you can work out the “kinks” in your lefty, mouth-off schtick–and, yes, I’m talkin’ about some nerd-pit, weirdo-flophouse, wanker-friendly blog-dive, like HotWhopper, where you’ll blend right in with the other creep-outs there and spare yourself a lot of embarrassment since practically no one reads that pathetic, loser blog, anyway.

  78. Vatican rebuffs critics who say Francis isn’t a scientist
    Cardinal Peter Turkson points out the pontiff can develop policy on climate. The U.S. conservative climate doubters aren’t scientists, either
    Speaking at the launch of the encyclical, John Schellnhuber said everything in it “is in line with the scientific evidence. This is very gratifying.”
    In his presentation, Schellnhuber illustrated how the earth has warmed over the course of history. He discounted as a “myth” claims that a growing population in the developing world is responsible for destroying the environment.
    Addressing an issue that is particularly dear to the Vatican, since it gets into questions of birth control, he said: “This utterly wrong, actually. It’s not poverty that destroys the environment. It’s wealth, consumption and waste. And this is reflected in the encyclical.”
    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/06/18/vatican-rebuffs-critics-who-say-francis-isnt-a-scientist.html
    Expert calls the science behind the papal encyclical ‘watertight
    “The science of Laudato Si is watertight,” said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
    http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/06/18/expert-calls-the-science-behind-the-papal-encyclical-watertight/

  79. Encyclical Ghostwriter: Pope Francis ‘Did Not Intend to Canonize’ Scientific Theories
    In a recent interview, Bishop Mario Toso, who co-wrote the first draft of the papal encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’, denied that Pope Francis had any intention of “canonizing” scientific theories regarding climate change, but only wished to assert his authority on the moral level.
    Toso, who was secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace at the time of the drafting of the encyclical, said that in the encyclical letter the Pope sought to offer “reflections on the anthropological and ethical issues” related to the care of creation, but that he did not wish to “impose” the results of scientific studies on anyone or to confer his moral authority on scientific opinions.
    “Everyone knows that many opinions today considered ‘scientific’ are not irrefutable or incontrovertible,” he said.
    “The Church has no competence on the technical and scientific level,” he said, “but rather on the anthropological and ethical levels that relate to scientific phenomenology.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/30/encyclical-ghostwriter-pope-francis-did-not-intend-to-canonize-scientific-theories/

  80. I don’t see anything in the quotation from the Guardian which justifies the headline to this post.

  81. This Pope should remember history. When the Communists took over in eastern Europe, they immediately persecuted the church – nad did nothing for the poor.
    Naomi Klein and friends will use the Pope for what they want and then when they are in power they will persecute the church – and do nothing for the poor.

  82. Why blame capitalism? Is the pope also suggesting we just do away with commerce itself? The publicly traded equity of capitalism is a boon to small scale investors and those who wish to save for a future date. Without capital markets, matters are totally in the hands of an upper class or tycoons. This is all coming from an institution that once endorsed and enforced divine right. Thank goodness for the reformation. The pope is a simpleton. The church has no answers. The political processes of democracies do.

Comments are closed.