Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Breitbart reports that Pope Francis’ Christmas address, which traditionally touches on the gravest issues facing the world, completely omitted mention of the environment and climate change.
In the Pope’s annual Christmas message to the world that traditionally highlights the gravest problems facing humanity, Francis repeatedly underscored the evils of terrorism, especially in areas dominated by the Islamic State, and completely skipped over environmental concerns that have often figured prominently in his discourses.
This year’s papal message delivered at noon on Christmas day, called “urbi et orbi”—to the city (of Rome) and to the world—focused on the people hardest hit by wars and terrorism, in particular the Middle East.
Precisely “where the incarnate Son of God came into the world,” Francis said, “tensions and violence persist, and peace remains a gift to be implored and built.”
In his prayer for peace, Pope Francis explicitly referred to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ongoing war in Syria, and the atrocities wrought by Islamic terrorists in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and sub-Saharan Africa.
…
Conspicuous by its absence was any reference to climate change or environmental concerns, despite the fact that less than a month ago the Pope said that humanity was “on the brink of suicide” because of global warming and that the COP21 climate meetings in Paris might be the last chance for mankind to avert environmental destruction.
…
Obviously its a little early to draw any conclusions – one data point doesn’t make a trend. But as WUWT recently reported, the climate issue continues to divide the Catholic Church at the highest levels. We can but hope that Pope Francis has indeed decided to listen to other points of view.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Latin Pope and his Vatican needs the blessings of the terrorists to drive the flock into his loving, taxing and dictator arms. That’s why the Vatican Bank funds ISIS using Erdogan in Turkey as the emissary of the Latin Pope to ISIS.
Please provide proof of your claim.
The Catholic Church nullified the Magna Carta, and blamed climate change on witchcraft in the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church should stick with that it knows, and stay out of politics and science.
When people have burned all available fuel, in order to survive the cold, it seems the next preferred fuel is women. At least, it is what history seems to indicate. GK
I don’t know where you got the idea that the Catholic Church nullified the Magna Carta. The Archbishop of Canterbury probably had a hand in writing it. Eight hundred years ago there were no Protestant archbishops.
magnacarta800th.com/schools/biographies/magna-carta-bishops-stephen-langton
The parable of the Talents is a good one, but the best one is the Anti-Labor Union, Pro-Free Market Parable of the Vineyard Workers.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20%3A1-16
BTW, the Pope teaming up with the Godless Communists and Marxists is just plane counter productive. They will use their looted resources to undermine the Church. No one can be above the power of a totalitarian leader, not even God. The first thing Castro did was drive the Catholic Church out of Cuba.
co2islife,
“No one can be above the power of a totalitarian leader, not even God.”
Such a statement is so utterly rediculous, that you (I feel) destroy your credibility if you resort to it in some sort of attempt to elevate your atheism to a given. By definition, such an Entity is vastly above any such leader, if one exists.
And Christ did not promise worldly success to those who followed him, but just the opposite; persecution. The Catholic (or any ostensibly Christian) church being driven out of Cuba is fulfillment of Prophecy (if anything), not an indication it’s invalid.
Christians don’t win the worldly battle, according to the Book, they lose big time . . over and over again, just as Jesus did. Rumors of Christianity being some sort of escape from harsh realities, are greatly exaggerated, it seems to me, as the Romans once learned first hand, so to speak. You hold a gun to my head and say you will fire if I don’t deny Him, and will I say fire away, big shot, you cannot harm me but for a moment with such a pin prick.
(Quit learning about what it means to Follow Christ, from those who take it as a given that he was just a man, if that, I advise.)
Elevate Atheism? Where did that come from? That comment was regarding the nature of “Godless” communism, and has nothing to do with me or my views at all. Totalitarians/Communists almost always outlaw religion. They do that because you can’t have any power above the state. People are to own their faith to the Government. Anyway, you clearly misunderstood my comment.
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/12/17/us-cuba-breakthrough-is-a-victory-for-the-vaticans-line-of-detente/
CO2,
“Elevate Atheism? Where did that come from? ”
The sentence I quoted . .
“No one can be above the power of a totalitarian leader, not even God.”
That is nonsensical if God exists. Only on atheism (in logic lingo) does the sentence have any truth value. I’m not disputing what you’re saying overall . . I really am concerned about your credibility, since I consider you a valuable ally in this matter.
PS ~ To put it simply, totalitarian leaders can put God above themselves if they feel like it, and in a sense we may be seeing the development of a synthetic religion. “We” actually speak of it often around here, and I highly suspect if the totalitarians have their way completely, there will be a God of sorts placed above the ruling elite.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Totalitarian leaders [want] to have absolute power, that is why they are called totalitarians. They usually outlaw religion so that they are viewed as the most powerful being. A totalitarian outlawing religion and declaring himself the most powerful being doesn’t make it so however, and I didn’t intend it to make it sound as if it does. Sorry about the confusion. Historical examples are the Pharoses of Egypt, and some of the Roman Emperors declaring themselves divine.
I appreciate your recognition of what to me is part of the “elevation” I was cautioning against, on what might be called the ultimate level. I also caution against assuming that totalitarians, even if they don’t believe in that sort of God actually above them, might not see placing a God above them on what might be called the public relations level, as advantageous.
It is difficult for me to speak of this aspect in an environment wherein people presume that a leader that claims to be under a God, actually believes they are. To me, the leadership in Saudi Arabia for instance, is possibly atheistic, pretending they believe they are under a God, because the alternative leaves them without a significant source of authority/legitimacy.
The same with a Pope, to my mind . . and the Pharoses of Egypt, and some of the Roman Emperors declaring themselves divine. I don’t assume they really believe what they claim, just because we’re talking about religion. Talk is cheap, so to speak, and while someone who believes in a God (that “demands” believers acknowledge their belief) would naturally be motivated to do so, the non-believer in any such God, is under no such natural motivation to acknowledge their unbelief.
Therefor I caution against speaking as though atheist totalitarians would necessarily be averse to pretending they believe in a God of some sort above them, for the “opiate of the masses” value they might see in covering their “naked” dictatorship with some priestly robes, so to speak.
(Think Wizard of Oz ; )
It may be of interest to see what specific problem Pope Francis has referred to in his four Christmas messages. In none of them had he mentioned climate change so in so far as he did not mention the issue this year there is no trend. What he has focused on in his Christmas messages tends to be areas of the world where there is conflict. So, in 2012 he referred to Syria, certain countries in Africa and China. In 2013 he referred to Syria, certain countries in Africa and the issue of human trafficking. In 2014 he referred to the Middle East, Ukraine, certain countries in Africa and problems affecting children around the world, both born and unborn. In 2015 her referred to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, other areas of the Middle East, certain countries in Africa, Ukraine and Colombia. So his Christmas message of 2015 fits very strongly into the pattern of the previous Christmas messages.
Alba on December 27, 2015 at 8:53 am
– – – – – –
Alba,
Appreciate your research.
John
Dragging the Pope into Climatology is a no brainer, another”authority” that can be argued.
Thats Climatology.
Appeals to authority from ignorance.
Does the Catholic church still subscribe to the notion that the pope is infallible? Or did that go out the window with Pope Urban VIII?
It took the church a couple hundred years before they finally admitted GALILEO was right and the Pope was wrong.
I hope that Catholics will implore the Pope to figure this out and get on the side of science this time.
Papal infallibility only comes into play when he speaks on matters of Church dogma. Most the the rules and rituals of the RCC are not dogma. Dogmatic issues would include Jesus as the Son of God, the Holy Trinity, etc. See the Apostles Creed for a good example of dogma. Climate change, not so much. Much of what most people and most Catholics for that matter, consider dogma, is not. When he does speak on dogma he uses the plural “We”, that being him and the Holy Ghost are speaking.
Pope + Schellnhuber …
At least he’s transparent about it.
Supposedly he and his top advisors including
Schellie worked on his address to the UN for a year.
Short and well worth the read. Calls out US Congress for partisanship at the end and promotes UN world government in the beginning as part of the setup for the call out.
http://m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150925_onu-visita.html
Cajones
The fallibility of the pope is restricted to a VERY narrow set of circumstances. Popes had mistress, and many scandals. Even a Papal BULL or say a restricted reading list does NOT fall under or imply any mark of infallibly. Only when a statement is made and clearly made that it is binding and does fall under infallibly and the authority of the seat of Peter is THEN such to be considered infallible.
So general statements like don’t eat beans on Tuesdays or fish on some other day NEVER did fall under the definition of infallibly. Don’t eat beans on Tuesday or fish on some other day is not doctrine and it not something that falls under infallibility – in most cases it is a simple appeal to discipline.
The idea that all actions and statements of the Pope are infallible is not only laughable but something never claimed or taught by the universal church.
As for the church being wrong on Galileo? Actually, they up held the scientific process very well.
First up, the church has no doctrine teaching on the earth being the center of the universe, or planets revolve around the earth.
The “general” consensus of the day (the science community) certainly taught the earth was the center.
However, since the church did not have a doctrine and teaching on the earth being the center, then they COULD NOT and DID NOT convent Galileo of hearsay. This also explains why Galileo received such a light sentence of house arrest. House arrest mean you have New Year’s parties, Christmas parties and people over to drink your booze (people are free to come and go). It not like he was sent to prison or locked up in some dungeon. Such a sentence amounts to a slap on the wrist.
Of course the problem was Galileo was wrong and his math and science FAILED under scrutiny of the church.
First, even today grade school children know that the planets don’t revolve in circles. In fact even grade school children by at least 3rd grade know the difference between a circle and an ellipse. The claim of planets revolving around in around in perfect circles was dead wrong.
Next up Galileo claimed the sun was the center of the universe. Once again, grade school children know this to be DEAD wrong. Are you actually standing here and stating the church should have agreed to such nonsense?
And today we all well know that the sun and our solar system is moving – Galileo was not only wrong on the sun being the center, but also stated that the sun is immovable (is stationary). The sun and our planets are Cleary moving through space – hence Galileo was wrong again.
For the church to accept such nonsense could have held back science for a very long time.
And in fact the BIG problem was looking at Galileo’s math, it simply did not add up. The math FAILED big time to explain why the planets speed up and then slowdown in their orbits. Such math was wrong, and only until the invention of calculus did math arrive that could explain this behavior. So under science scrutiny of the church, Galileo’s BASIC math did not add up and was WRONG!
I mean, they are sitting in a court with Galileo’s manuscript and it would be a SIMPLE matter to quote that church doctrine of where the contradiction or hearsay existed. The BIG problem is the church did not (and does not) have such a doctrine and teaching on this matter! Hence ONLY the conviction of being “suspect” of teaching something against the church!
You also note that today we OFTEN today call the system of planets the Copernican motion system. Funny how the fact of Copernicus being a catholic priest is left out!
So Copernicus lectured and wrote with endorsement of clergy and
Cardinals a considerable time BEFORE Galileo ever came along, and yet did not have any scandal? Why?
So why a devout Christian and catholic priest Copernicus would go off and supposedly toss out all his faith and all of sudden Propose and proclaim a system of motion that goes against his very faith?
And DURING the time of Copernicus a presentation to the pope on this Copernican motion system resulted in the pope not only being impressed, but giving the presenter a sizable gift.
It was common for the Pope to give gifts for such presentations, but NOT if there is public scandal or something that goes against church doctrine.
You have about 1500 years of one of the highest quality documented institutions called the universal church, and in all those 1000 plus years, you’ll not find one doctrine of proclamation that Christians are to believe the earth is a center of the universe as a tenant of their faith.
I mean after 1000 years or so, you should be to find at least ONE document that states this church teaching! I should point out also that the church because of the lack of doctrine was NEVER able to convict Galileo of heresy.
In the scientific inquisition, Cardinal Bellamy simply stated that you don’t have a mathematical proof and your silly circle idea which we know is false today does not stand up to our mathematical scrutiny. Cardinal Bellamy goes on to say therefore I’m not willing to accept your science UNTIL such time that its passes scrutiny. The most important point here is in PUBLIC Cardinal Bellamy was most open to the idea of accepting planets going around the sun, but would only do so with some proper math and science that supported this theory of which Galileo’s math and science claims did not show.
As I pointed out children today by grade 3 know the difference Between an ellipse and a circle but apparently Galileo did not.
This simply means the church was upholding very good scientific processes and scrutiny by rejecting something since the math did not add up correctly. To accept crazy ideas such as plants going around in circles when they don’t, or things like the sun is the center of the universe, which it is not, and that of the sun being a movable were all silly and incorrect scientific concepts.
In other words you’re asking that the church should have made an act of faith to accept Galileo’s teaching, when in fact they used math, science and upheld the scientific process to reject Galileo’s flawed and incorrect theory.
I should point out that the fact that I tell you the sky is blue does not mean I am endorsing the color blue, or in this case endorsing some institution – but we have to at least get our facts correct.
Regards,
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Albert, I think it is also worth mentioning that the doctrines of infallibility, the Immaculacy of Mary and the College of Cardinals not being able to remove a Pope once selected are all quite recent RCC positions (1800’s).
It is changes in long standing traditions and teachings which are causing confusion within and without the RCC. Climate change teachings will also create casualties.
The seeking of a Concordat with Hitler allowing the Pope to appoint all bishops in Germany (instead of electing them as per tradition) was crucial to the Pope’s decision to dismantle the German Catholic Worker’s Party – by far the largest in the country – and its many social institutions in the 1930’s. This paved the way for the rise of the National Socialist Party which was otherwise a third rate player. It was just such a Concordat with Croatia that provoked the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, precipitating WWI. Everyone remembers who the assassin killed, but not why. Sometimes it pay to investigate independently.
Your point about the limitations of the Doctrine on Infallibility are welcome, because so many have overstated the claim. But it is also noteworthy that this is in the historical sense, recent. Theists may also note the infallibility claim was immediately followed by the Pope’s loss of all temporal authority save the tiny country of the Vatican State, and claim correlation means causation.
Albert from Alberta: your post seems to be quite critical of Galileo for not knowing things a child 400 YEARS later would find common knowledge. Should we also reject Plato for not knowing E=MC2? And what about that fraud, Newton? All his rambling about gravity and things falling at the same speed but no mention of the curvature of space or quantum theory. Clearly they were wrong.
Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, science is a process that gradually gets closer and closer to the truth by making better theories then those before them. And Galileo’s theory, while flawed, was still better then the theory before it, Which ALSO used circles. It wasn’t until Kepler worked out the mathematics or elliptical orbits that they had a true fit with observations. Even then, there were small errors that came up that would be centuries in explaining.
Mr. Kallal,
Your statement “First up, the church has no doctrine teaching on the earth being the center of the universe, or planets revolve around the earth.”
I disagree. “..in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.[3] ” (From Wikipedia.
and
“On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”; while the Earth’s movement “receives the same judgement in philosophy and … in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.”[39] The original report document was made widely available in 2014.[40]”
Copernican books banned
Following the Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo, the papal Master of the Sacred Palace ordered that Foscarini’s Letter be banned, and Copernicus’ De revolutionibus suspended until corrected [meaning remove the concept of heliocentrism]. The papal Congregation of the Index preferred a stricter prohibition, and so with the Pope’s approval, on March 5 the Congregation banned all books advocating the Copernican system, which it called “the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture.”[3]
Galileo’s works advocating Copernicanism were therefore banned, and his sentence prohibited him from “teaching, defending… or discussing” Copernicanism. In Germany, Kepler’s works were also banned by the papal order.[43]
So Galileo was tried AND convicted for heresy.
I’ve often wondered if those who believe in a spirit that creates and maintains life on earth, or even just the Gaia hypothesis, have considered the possibility that mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is the earth’s way of replenishing a severely depleted natural resource that all life on earth desperately needs.
After all, CO2 levels on earth have been at dangerously low levels for a long time. During the recent ice ages, atmospheric CO2 has dropped to 190 ppm or less, which is within range of mass extinction levels. Plant life on earth requires CO2 levels of 160 ppm, below which they die off, and with them, most of life on earth starts to die as well, since almost all higher life forms require plants as food. The long history of the earth is one in which carbon has been increasingly sequestered underground, trapped inside the earth, taken out of the ecosystem, where it is desperately needed to sustain life. Somehow, that carbon needs to be returned to the ecosystem, and mankind may just be nature’s mechanism for doing that. By digging and drilling and burning fossil fuels, we are returning that carbon to the life cycle of the earth, possibly saving the planet from extinction in the process.
It’s bizarre that some people see carbon as the enemy of life on earth, when it is the primary component of all life, and without a plentiful supply of it in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, life on earth will literally die out. CO2 is the primary nutrient of life, not a poison of some kind.
It’s bizarre to you because you (like me) refuse to accept that the science can and is irrelevant. CO2 is simply a means to an end. Climate science is a means to an end. Scientists in general are a means to an end concerning this initiative. Many useful idiots involved in this whole affair.
Read the Pope’s address to the UN. I was surprised how transparent he is being.
http://m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150925_onu-visita.html
Knutesea –
I read the link you provided…
The pope’s reference to: “technological power, in the hands of nationalistic or falsely universalist ideologies, is capable of perpetrating tremendous atrocities” is the key.
I find it suspicious that the UN came into being in 1945 – just after Soviet International Socialism (a universalist ideology) defeated German National Socialism (a nationalistic ideology). AGW came into being in 1988 just as the Soviet Empire began collapsing.
Al Gore Sr & his son ” the prophet” Albert A. Gore Jr were intimate with Armand Hammer – a communist sympathizer of the first order and son of Julius Hammer who was the founder of CPUSA.
(I suspect that Junior’s middle initial “A.” is for “Armand”.)
Junior’s daughter married the great grandson of Jacob Henry Schiff – the billionaire banker who financed the downfall of the czar, collaborated with Trotsky, and financed the Bolshevics.
Sabotaging America’s impending hegemony as the Soviet empire was unraveling is the only rational explanation for why this fraud happened, when it happened, and why Al Gore is in the center of it all.
The Pope referenced “falsely universalist ideologies” – was he prescient or oblivious to what this is all about.
Wonderfully laid out post.
The uber elites.
Thanks
Good point! I guess that sometimes is better to back up from some controversial subjects and subjects you don’t master well. As for COP21, I stay with my idea: it was, at least partially, a waste of money, since it didn’t covered upone of the most important subject in climate change: the oceans….
Just as a thought, I would love to hear this Pope comment on the socialism of Venezuela.
Eugene WR Gallun
Tangentially he does in his UN speech. They are part of the excluded peoples and being excluded is YOUR fault if you are reasonably well off.
He wants you to get with the program.
knutesea December 27, 2015 at 1:12 pm
He wants you to get with the program.
True, but what is the Program. Too many there think that the Pope is taking sides.
Light a candle, burn some incense, and pray to whatever broken stones you worship. You do not want the Pope, this one or another on your side. The church has existed since .. the crucifixion or the moment when the watch maker said “let there be light.” .
His Holiness is playing his own game. Its good many of you read and know scripture, but Machiavelli? Remember “who you are dealing with”. Rodrigo Borgia ring a bell.
Oh, do note despite his personal shortcomings, he was a champion and defender of Western Civilization. Actually, he did quite well. Perhaps Francis is following some of his play book.
Remember, if you seek the papacy’s blessing of your cause, you give the Papacy the moral authority over it, and you.
Francis has the power of Excommunication, if the Alarmists do not in the future defer to Rome guess what?
Sometimes we are all angels sometimes we are all…… as needed.
There is a reason for the proverb “When you sup with the Devil bring a long spoon.”
Oh and for the record, I am Byzantine Catholic, though we acknowledge the Pope.
michael
Belated Merry Xmas to you and yours.
I think the odds are very low that PF and his cadre gives too hoots about CAGW. They have bigger fish to fry as their frame of reference is a multi century struggle with competing religions namely Islam. One of the ways for the Papacy to remain relevant is to engraciate themselves to the UN. I see it as allies. Islam is an up en coming threat to the RRC. Islam will not waste the time of day with the UN. By validating his allegiance with the UN, the Papacy is thinking ahead and picking an easy fruit. The best way for the Papacy to further cement that allegiance is to support its pet cause.
Sure money (carbon dollars) and popularity with the disenfranchised are nice, but I think he did it for the allegiance.
This is wholly my opinion and I have no special insider track so rinse it out of your brain if necessary.
knutesea,
are you also Knute?
either way merry Xmas.
Most of what you say I tend to agree with. Accept, up and coming for Islam. Their apex was the late 1600s to early 1700s.
michael
Yes Knute.
I sometimes have to log in as Knutesea in the wordpress. I don’t undertand it so I just go with it.
I think Islam is back on the rise.
Current POTUS really destabilized the Middle East balance and the Papacy is worried. Also doesn’t help to see organized crime resurfacing in his backdoor to thwart ISIS plants in Italy. The world is underestimating what’s happenning but the Pope is not.
Again, only my opinion as I connect observed puzzle pieces.
I have read a lot of comments decrying the Laudato Si encyclical and implying that somehow the pontiff had been duped etc. I fear such comments completely miss what Francis is up to. From his and the Vatican’s perspective the important issue is how the christian churches have become sidelined in moral debates in the western world.
The SJW secularists have an argument that goes something as follows. The church believes in non- science, which we can prove. Therefore if they are wrong about this then they are also wrong on matters of morality such a same sex relations, abortion etc. Added to this various scandals in the various churches (which of course were highlighted and repeated ad nausem by same SJWs) and the new secularists have now reached a point of power and influence where any dissent from their orthodoxy can be guaranteed to produce howls of rage from the twitteratti. They of course overlook the point that their own morality is based on their own prejudices and is no more rooted in science than any of the world religions. True science by its very nature does not define good or evil, just what is or isn’t .
Francis has very cleverly ( he is a Jesuit after all) turned this back on itself with his encyclical, by taking something which is dear to the SJWs and claiming it as the Church’s own, he puts himself and the church back in the centre of the debate. He is aware that in the fullness of time when the science turns out not to be so apocalyptical then no harm done (whether the same can be said for western economies is another question ) as nothing he has said so far is in contradiction with dogma ( see Jim G1s comment for explanation of dogma).
“Pope Francis’ Christmas address, which traditionally touches on the gravest issues facing the world, completely omitted mention of the environment and climate change.” Great! Way to go Popey! Perhaps Cardinal Pell has drawn his attention to the failed basis of CAGW, and the need to stand clear of the collapsing structure..
I did a post a week or so back and screwed up my beautiful new metaphor. Here I correct it and apply it to Francis and the likelihood of him repealing his opinions on Global Warming.
A chipmunk can’t change its stripes.
Eugene WR Gallun
99.9 % of the nations that attended CopOut 21 were only there because they thought they were getting FREE money !! I guess the Pope had his hand out too !!
Marcus
Perhaps a tad rougher than needed ?
Most were there for networking business opportunities. Many of the CAGW movement are well entrenched in the vision of a new energy frontier. Many likely arent sold on CAGW but dont want to get passed up in whatever new business arises. I personally have a friend who regularly bids upgrading substations for industry who are looking to be self sufficient. Google some of the energy corporations and you’ll see many attended as they would a biz conference.
knutesea, I was talking about representatives of countries ( 195 ), not the 39,805 leeches that tagged along !!
Pontiff Pilot should do as Jesus did. Tie his ass to a tree and walk 2 miles.
What, you expect him to leave his fossil fuel guzzling ” Pope-mobile ” behind ? That’s blasphemy !!
I believe The Pope’s attraction to AGW is founded not on confidence in science but rather on a predilection for wealth redistribution and the unique opportunity AGW mitigation and climate reparations present.
Maybe Pope Francis has realized, that he made himself, his church and his followers victim to the
biggest #Ponzi scheme, #CO2 #finance #bubble!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/10/co2-finance-bubble.html
#water #theft!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/p/water-deliver-with-srm.html
Designed like a #religion, #dangerous like the #mafia!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/10/climatology-mafia-church.html
BBC is cowardly admitting #geoengineering #SRM #HAARP pollution!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/12/bbc-cowardly-admitting-geoengineering.html
Open Yr mind for the truth about #CO2!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/06/open-your-eyes-mind-connect-dots-see.html
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/07/gegenteil-der-luge-opposite-of-lie.html
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/07/legalizing-illegal-crime.html
WAKEUP, LOOKUP and LEARN about #Geoengineering! #COP21
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/09/dieser-blog-soll-das-teilen-von.html
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/11/no-ccagw-only-criminal-ipcc-agenda.html
Real scientists say NO ACCGW!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/10/31487-scientists-say-no.html
#IPCC is for #Geoengineering not science.
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/11/no-ccagw-only-criminal-ipcc-agenda.html
Don’t be fooled!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/10/die-katze-ist-aus-dem-sack.html
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/11/neuro-linguistic-programming-and.html
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/11/conditioning-for-chemtrails.html
Protect Yourself, Your family & country by protecting Your language by Counter-NLP!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/2015/12/protect-language-by-counter-nlp.html
#Geoengineering: Promise of Swindler!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/11/promise-of-swindler-veheiung-des.html
Who cares? I don’t even understand why a pope exists! The Vatican would still be functioning without a failed celebrity. Or are there people out there who still believe kissing his hand will cure their cancer?
The pope always has the option of calling on St Jude – an option that is not open to all climate alarmists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Jude#Patron_Saint_of_Lost_Causes
What we needed over the past few years was a media messaging meter that likely would have shown a massive effort leading up to Paris followed by a quiet era leading up to the U.S. presidential election. Unpopular over reach topics do not make a good environment for election messaging campaign strategies, eh Hillary. It makes the working class suspicious of the other messages. Dear leaders can claim a major mandate on this or that later as they see fit. So at this point it is just a new quiet era taking hold for scare tactics. Silence is sometime just as egregious as alarm messaging for its callousness and it takes a lot of agencies and biased media outlets to play along. Shush……….
Eric, I hope you won’t mind if I share my Papal Poem again (please distribute to clergy and friends)
My hope is that many church leaders read it.
An Ode to the Church On Fighting Climate Change
Bureaucrats and ‘global planners’
Speak in agitated manners,
Predicating great disaster:
“Climate change we now must master!”
Human guilt and blame beseeching:
“Children, shame we should be teaching!
Man has sinned, by overreaching
Fragile Gaia’s limit!”
Beware their new apostasy,
Its prophesies are vanity.
The firmaments will never be
Controlled by mortal hands.
So, make this world green as you can,
But first, care for your fellow man!
And leave Earth’s destiny to God’s great plan.
All creation is God’s and He alone
Commands the elements He owns,
Perplexes any man’s control,
Yet still, provides for every soul!
The problem I have with this is that the most anti-life groups out there are Environmentalists. Some of their leaders describe humans species as a virus. Many support population control. The Pope should really read some of the writings of the Club of Rome. These people are really scary. China considered applying for carbon credits for their one child policy.
Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die”
Jacques Costeau: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”
Mikhail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
These people sound like NAZIs, and they are widely supported by many in the society. I seriously doubt people really understand how dark environmentalism truly is.
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Rio20-Im-sure-youve-got-humans.jpg
This is who the Pope has teamed up with. Like Hitler, they don’t even try to hide their objectives.
https://youtu.be/17vuKcupgOQ
This is who the Pope is siding with? If his intent is to undermine the Church by teaming up with godless anti-life liberal atheists, then he is on the right path. These people have a great antipathy towards Catholic teaching.
Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.”
Nina Fedoroff, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”
Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
Nice grouping of the infamous. Thanks.
The pope will say whatever keeps him followers. He’s a salesman for the church. Perhaps climate alarmism was hitting the coffers.
+1
Perhaps the Papal Policy Painters saw. The presentation given to Vladimir Putin in 2004 for the Kyoto meeting on Global Warming that so clearly exposes the high cost of attempts to change the weather on the poor of the world, and also clearly exposes the impossibility of Human caused Climate Change: http://iccfglobal.org/ppt/Illarionov-013004.html.ppt More at paullitely.com