Pope and Patriarch, hear the cry of the poor! (because of climate change)

Open letter on behalf of the worldwide Catholic and Orthodox lay faithful in response to Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew on climate change

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

A FALSE BALANCE is abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight (Prov. XI:1).

Your Holinesses’ recent admonition to your flocks about climate and the environment, though it was at one level a practical attempt at rapprochement between two faiths whose religious beliefs are in essence identical, demonstrated a naïve, unbalanced, scientifically ill-informed, disfiguringly totalitarian and, therefore, environmentally destructive political partisanship that it was and remains Your Holinesses’ bounden duty to eschew.

clip_image002

Unrighteous write-off: signing away the rights of the poor

“Hear the cry of the Earth!”, you say. But the Earth is inanimate. Hear instead the cry of the poor, who were once denied the wealth-giving, health-giving benefits of electrical power because it was costly. Then, at the very point when advances in exploration and in technology were making electricity affordable to all, the nasty, totalitarian faction that your recent statement on the climate shows you espouse malevolently intervened so that, though the raw-material cost of coal, oil and gas has halved in 30 years, the cost of the electricity they generate has tripled in a generation. Whom does that unreasonable increase in the cost of power harm, first and foremost, but the poor? Do they not spend a greater fraction of what little they have on energy than the rest?

That savage cost increase is near-exclusively attributable to your fellow environmental socialists’ multiplicity of incompetent interferences in the energy markets, arising from their delusion (to put it charitably) that slightly warmer weather and fertilization of crops by our returning to the atmosphere some small fraction of the CO2 that once resided there would be harmful rather than of overwhelming net benefit, particularly to the poor.

clip_image004

Food, glorious food: As CO2 and temperature have risen, so have crop yields.

There are many real environmental problems, but “global warming” is not among them. Hear the cry of the poor of Africa, who must heat their homes by burning timber or cattle-dung. Millions die every year of particulate pollution in their homes because you would deny them electrical power to heat their homes by night and cool them by day. Why will you not speak up for them and against those who, on the fictitious ground of Saving The Planet from the imagined (and imaginary) harms they pretend will arise from “global warming”, would deny them affordable, reliable, continuous, base-load electricity generated by coal, oil and gas?

clip_image006

Unholy smoke: millions die annually from particulate pollution in smoke-filled huts

Shamefully, you sneer at the private enterprises whose willingness to take risks has given to most of us the overwhelming net benefits of electrical power, condemning what you reprehensibly describe as their “insatiable desire to manipulate and control the planet’s limited resources” and their “greed for limitless profit in markets”.

Hear the cry of the quarter of a billion people who have died in the past 100 years at the hands of those cruel, totalitarian tyrants who, in interfering with free markets, inflicted not only near-universal poverty but also total war and extreme environmental degradation on their suffering populations. In condemning free markets, you condemn the very system that has made environmental protection affordable, and has put it into successful practice.

clip_image008

By Their fruits ye shall know Them: the Katyn massacre

Hear the cry of those who suffered, and still suffer, under the Communism with which you explicitly and culpably align yourselves when you smear your political opponents by saying they regard nature “as a private possession”.

Hear the cry of those who know full well that replacing a multitude of private owners with a handful of totalitarian central planners acting for the private benefit of your narrow faction has done and will ever do far more harm than good.

Hear the cry of the 7000 people who, in a single cold December some years ago when the entire British land-mass was snow-covered for the first time since records began, died before their time not so much because the weather was cold as because their homes were cold. They could no longer afford to heat them, because the governing elite had artificially tripled the cost of electrical power to subsidize so-called “renewable” energy, which, owing to its exceptionally low energy densities, causes more environmental harm per Megawatt-hour generated than any other form of power generation.

clip_image010

Global what? The entire British land-mass under snow for the first time in the satellite era.

Hear the cry of the birds and bats batted from the sky by monstrous windmills (14th-century technology to solve a 21st-century non-problem) or fried by solar collectors.

clip_image012

Getting the bird: in Scotland, windmills now threaten many rate species with extinction

Hear the cry of the lithium miners, slaving in inhuman conditions in Tibet and the Congo to provide environmental socialists with feel-good batteries for their costly and wasteful electric automobiles.

clip_image014

You say global warming affects the poor first and foremost. Yet it is not global warming that harms the poor: it is misguided policies piously intended to prevent it that harm and even kill the poor.

Hear the cry of the billions of victims of needless and harmful climate mitigation policies. You explicitly make the totalitarian approach your own when you demand “solidarity” and “sustainable and integral development” and a “concerted and collective, shared and accountable” response to climate change, even as that response kills people.

In short, like so many callous and coldly indifferent totalitarians before you, you demand the Nanny-knows-best disposition of the world’s resources by a pietistic, profiteering few central planners in the governing elite with which you seek to align yourselves rather than by the energies and industries of the many through the cheerful chaos of the free market.

clip_image016

Climate Communism: flags of tyranny at the Copenhagen climate conference, 2009

Hear the cry of the victims of the totalitarianism you disgracefully advocate, a system of governance that was and is and ever shall be, first and foremost, harmful to the poor, as the gruesome and murderous history of Fascist, Communist and, now, environmentalist Socialism amply, repeatedly and terribly demonstrates.

Finally, you demand that the global governing elite should “support the consensus of the world” to prevent global warming. There was once a consensus that the world was flat. Yet, as Galileo Galilei reminded one of your predecessors, science is not done by consensus, which is merely a canting euphemism for some grim, totalitarian Party Line or another.

clip_image018

The Earth is flat … and “global warming is real, manmade and dangerous”

As you will shortly discover to your profound embarrassment, your ill-judged attempt to extend your remit from the realm of faith into that of science and politics is about to be proven as hilariously misconceived as the decision of the commission of Cardinals who condemned Galileo for his assertion – correct, as it turned out – that the Earth, far from being flat, is, like your untutored belief in rapid and dangerous global warming, pear-shaped.

clip_image020

Eppur si muove: Galileo faces the flat-earth Cardinals’ judgment

We, the people of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths, call upon Your Holinesses to set aside your personal political prejudices, to reconsider and then to recall your joint statement on climate change, and to confine your public pronouncements in future to matters of faith and of morals, which fall within your competence and your commission from the Lord of Life, and not to matters of science, which, with respect, do not.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

184 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mariano Marini
September 4, 2017 1:29 am

Religion == Science
Theology == Paradigm
Churches == Research Institutes
Priest == Scientist
etcetera.
You can find good and bad in any of the above. And in both it’s better to inquire than to criticize!

Pete W.
September 4, 2017 3:06 am

Please forgive me for seeming to change the subject:
Please can/will someone define for me ‘free trade’?
I thought Willis’ recent writing on the subject (e.g. https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/work-americans-wont-do/ ) was fairly convincing that ‘free trade’ isn’t always a good thing.

Gloateus
Reply to  Pete W.
September 4, 2017 10:39 am

Free trade needs also to be fair trade, but seldom if ever is.

Andrew
September 4, 2017 4:15 am

The discussion about “windmills as 14th-century technology” is quite interesting from the following point of view: this solution to energy needs (like others such as water-race operated mills) were directly mechanically coupled to the work they were designed to perform. I occurs to me that in the last 100 years may have a blind spot in regard to the possibilities of this kind of power production, since we always (particularly with respect to wind) think in terms of generation via an electric turbine, followed by transport of the electricity to where it will be used. Part of this blindness is that we have come to equate efficiency with rapidity. The electric motor has possibly taught us to overlook the occasions in which slow, continuous mechanical work can get the job done just as efficiently as a short period of high-powered work. The quintessential Dutch ‘windmills’ did not in fact ‘mill’ anything but usually pumped water (by direct mechanical transmission from the rotating vanes to the pumps) from the landward to the seaward side of dykes that were protecting land near or even below sea level. One advantage of the system is that the wettest periods of the year (at least in western Europe) are also the windiest periods, so that the “windmills” were doing the work both where, and when, they were needed. I know a farmer who availed of grant money to install a 18-meter wind turbine in the farmyard, in order to sell electricity into the national grid, in exchange for an allowance from the same grid (around a third, I believe, of the electricity he puts in) for his own needs. Whenever I see the turbine I ask myself the same question: is there anything on the farm using energy (either electrical or fuel powered) for which that same wind could with a bit of ingenuity be used instead ?
As a post-script I’d add that I’ve never heard of (nor can I really imagine) that the slow old Dutch “windmills” killed any of the seabirds which abound in that part of the world. Maybe there are some things we could re-learn from the “14th century”.

Dr. Strangelove
September 4, 2017 5:03 am

Lord Monckton, there’s no flat earth consensus outside the Church since 500 BC. The Pythagoreans believed the world is round
Pope, stop the misinformation. You have bigger problems with immoral priests than global warming

Gloateus
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
September 4, 2017 10:39 am

That earth is flat remained the consensus in the ancient Near East for long after 500 BC, but covered with a half sphere (dome) or surrounded by a complete sphere. Among Bible-believing Christians, it continued to dominant until c. AD 600, when the Church adopted the pagan Ptolemaic system as its preferred cosmological model. Still partially biblical, being geocentric, with an immobile earth, but a spherical earth surrounded by nested concentric spheres.

September 4, 2017 5:29 am

Lord Monckton wrote:
“Hear instead the cry of the poor, who were once denied the wealth-giving, health-giving benefits of electrical power because it was costly. Then, at the very point when advances in exploration and in technology were making electricity affordable to all, the nasty, totalitarian faction that your recent statement on the climate shows you espouse malevolently intervened so that, though the raw-material cost of coal, oil and gas has halved in 30 years, the cost of the electricity they generate has tripled in a generation. Whom does that unreasonable increase in the cost of power harm, first and foremost, but the poor? Do they not spend a greater fraction of what little they have on energy than the rest?”
Bravo Lord Monckton – well said!
I have repeatedly stated as follows:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/27/is-the-european-commission-waking-up-to-electricity-consumer-pain/comment-page-1/#comment-2593478
Cheap, reliable, abundant, DISPATCHABLE energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
Any grid-connected intermittent system like wind or solar power that requires almost 100% conventional backup is grossly uneconomic, and also tends to destabilize the grid.
When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
We have known these facts for decades.
Allan M.R. MacRae, P.Eng.
Reference:
PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , The Globe and Mail and La Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae 2002.
http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

David King
September 4, 2017 8:54 am

I completely endorse Lord Moncton’s letter. I understand the comments of the many “analists” who like to pick nits, I am one myself. However, please don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. To point out that windmills are not mills says more about the commenter than it does the letter. Mills is a reference to “dark satanic mIlls”. The Club of Rome, anti fossil fuel, anti-growth movement of the 70’s adopted AGW because it is anti fossil fuels and economic growth. Lord Monckton is beating them with their own stick. The same goes for the flat earth reference, an echo of Obama’s slur. When congress holds hearings on AGW, the democrats say, you can have anyone but Monckton. Every comment in this thread, IMHO, should begin with thanking Lord Moncton for his tireless and effective campaigning against AGW.

Roger Knights
September 4, 2017 9:35 am

“Hear the cry of the earth”
vs.
“The phrase “pathetic fallacy” is a literary term for the attributing of human emotion and conduct to all aspects within nature.” (Wikipedia)

Derek Colman
September 4, 2017 4:41 pm

I hear the cry of the poor. The poor who bear more children than they can support because they are forbidden contraception. The poor who are cajoled to hand a significant part of their meagre income over to the church by their local priest for fear of damnation. The whole doctrine of the Roman Catholic church is designed to keep the people poor so that they remain subservient to the power of the church.

Sixto
Reply to  Derek Colman
September 4, 2017 4:45 pm

The original protection racket. The mafia learned it all from the Church.
And the suffering of the poor and afflicted brings them closer to Christ, who died for their sins.

September 5, 2017 6:07 am

“Hear the cry of the 7000 people who, in a single cold December some years ago when the entire British land-mass was snow-covered for the first time since records began, died before their time not so much because the weather was cold as because their homes were cold.”
Is there a source for this claim?
According to ONS the number of excess deaths for winter 2010/11 was 26,080, which was at the lower end for winter deaths. Overall the trend seems to be very much downwards.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2015to2016provisionaland2014to2015final/62192b74
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2015to2016provisionaland2014to2015final

September 5, 2017 7:54 am

Gloateus & others
I am sure the good lord (Viscount) is right about there being a number of natural cycles in the solar records that can explain the weather on earth as we see it today :
11 year Schwabe cycle
22 year full solar Hale cycle
Gleissberg solar/weather cycle (currently exactly 87 years acc. to my own results, sometimes skipping to more than 100 years when there is a double Min. or double Max. anywhere in between….)
DeVries cycle, reportedly being ca. 210 years
Eddy cycle, ca. 1000 years
De Bray cycle, ca. 2450 years,
which positively explains everything we are seeing in the right sequence, both historically and scientifically !
As far as God is concerned. I am sure we have been over this before/
either 1) God does not exist or 2) He does exist.\ If He does exist there must be a plan?
\
\1) It does not make sense to believe that there is no God because it is not logical. In fact, if you believe there is no God, you are actually saying that you believe that out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being. Now, for you to believe that such a miracle could have happened, you must actually have a much bigger faith than that of a person simply believing and admitting that there is a Higher Power, a God who created him for a specific plan and purpose!
2) God exists. There is a plan. Mathew 25 tells you what would make you qualify to come into His heaven after life on earth. It is showing Him the works of your life from your having faith in Him……The church is there for people to tell you the mistakes they made so that you won’t make the same mistakes…..
But now, you refuse to believe….,
hence you sit with therapists, psychologists and God knows who else (e.g. astrologists) to sort your relational and other problems…..
Better… go to church….(the Body of Christ)
(thanks, Janice, God bless you for standing up when you feel the need to do so)

Mike
Reply to  henryp
September 5, 2017 8:33 am

Henryp
One issue I see is that of choice of belief. One can no more choose one’s belief than one can choose one’s foot size. Yes one can be convinced to believe something different but one cannot actively decide what one believes. I cannot decide today to believe my lawn is purple. I cannot choose to believe the Earth is flat and rests on a giant turtle. I cannot just choose to believe in a god.

Reply to  Mike
September 5, 2017 11:58 am

Mike
I assume you mean being a Christian as opposed to being Moslim, Jewish, Hindoe or whatever opposite.
You seem to think that it depends on your family’s origin?
I have thought about this a long time and find that it does not matter to God, whether you believe His image is reflected by the sun [Egyptians], stars/planets [Romans] or moon [various countries] or whatever [various].
He/She will speak to you when you seek Him, no matter what age [remember Moses was 80] or what time frame, to tell you what He/She wants you to do.
in our days it made sense to me to believe in Christ as our one God and Savior
http://breadonthewater.co.za/2017/02/20/if-god-exists-why-cannot-we-see-him/
you too, can hear Him.

Mike
Reply to  henryp
September 5, 2017 6:34 pm

Henryp
I have no idea what in my comment led you to your assumption, but it is not what I meant.
Let be be more clear. A Christian cannot suddenly decide to be an atheist nor can an atheist choose to believe in a god.

Reply to  Mike
September 6, 2017 12:50 pm

Mike, Gloateus
I can accept anyone being agnostic, because he has not yet heard God’ specific voice calling. There is a lot of evidence of people only hearing God’s voice [clearly] later in their own life. Even Darwin came to belief in God at the end of his life. I find it difficult to accept anyone believing or confessing to be an atheist, because as, as I said, it is not logical. You cannot argue that out of absolutely nothing something physical was created. That makes no sense.

Gloateus
Reply to  henryp
September 5, 2017 12:18 pm

henryp September 5, 2017 at 7:54 am
Belief in a Creator God is not at all logical, and that’s the point. Saying “God made everything and has a plan” explains nothing, hence is not only anti-scientific but totally illogical. You might as well say that mass and energy are properties of space-time. Positing a God doesn’t explain why anything at all should exist. Why should God exist?
The point is that God must remain hidden, as observed by Luther, for faith to be meaningful. If God’s existence could be “proven” logically (which it can’t, thank God), then there would be no scope for faith in His existence.
Hindus have many gods, and other cultures have none at all, as we understand the term. So it is cultural to a large extent.
As for the existence of humans, there is no necessary role in our evolution for God, although you’re always free to inject Him into it at whatever point you want. The mutations and selection processes which led to humans don’t require the intervention of God, however.