In an interview that saw Pope Francis grace the screens of American television, a curious fusion of religious authority and climatological commentary was on full display. Speaking from the Vatican, the Pope tackled a variety of topics, but none seemed to ignite his fervor quite like the topic of climate change, where he promptly labeled skeptics as “fools.”
Let’s unpack the nature of this discourse, starting with the Pope’s assertion. By dubbing climate change deniers as “foolish,” the Pope effectively shuts down the critical, scientific inquiry that is the bedrock of robust scientific discourse. Such a dismissal, especially coming from a religious leader, applies the import of religious dogma to a secular issue.
The often ‘progressive’ pontiff spoke with CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell at the Vatican this week to give his thoughts on violence in Ukraine and Gaza and other important subjects.
However, he made a pointed effort to express his displeasure with those who deny climate change when asked what he says to those who deny it by O’Donnell.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13347387/Pope-Francis-uses-TV-interview-slam-climate-change-deniers.html
…
‘They don’t understand the situation or because of their interest, but climate change exists,’ he added.
The CBS interview also touched on broader global issues like conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, yet it was the climate change segment that resonated most strongly with the Pontif. While expressing concerns about violence and the plight of children in war zones—serious issues—the pontifical leap to decry climate skepticism smacks of misplaced priorities of fanaticism.
Further compounding the issue, the Pope’s comments arrive alongside a chorus of alarming declarations from various scientific bodies, like the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which claims that climate change indicators are “off the charts” and that humanity faces a “defining challenge.” These statements are typically accompanied by dire warnings from the United Nations Secretary-General about “chart-busting” changes. However, what often goes unchallenged in these dramatized assertions is the underlying data’s reliability, the models’ accuracy, and the feasibility of proposed solutions like massive economic overhauls and energy transformations.
Critics and skeptics often raise valid concerns regarding the economic and social impacts of drastic climate policies proposed in reports and by policymakers. For instance, the push towards net-zero emissions and the implementation of policies akin to the Green New Deal have profound implications on energy costs, economic stability, and even food security, particularly in developing nations. These are not trivial trade-offs and warrant far more discussion than the binary good-versus-evil narrative often portrayed.
The Pope’s foray into climate advocacy also highlights a significant overreach of moral authority into scientific realms, where empirical evidence should guide policy, not moral compulsion. While his position purports to galvanize action by framing climate change as a moral crisis, it dangerously simplifies a vastly complex issue, potentially alienating those on the fence rather than engaging in constructive dialogue.
As for the media’s slobbering coverage of the event, this reflects a broad trend in media to champion causes that fit a particular ideological slant.
Labeling dissenters as “fools” not only stifles legitimate debate but also alienates a significant portion of the global population who remain skeptical of climate change dogma. More nuance and analytically rigorous approaches are essential for genuine progress in all things as a society. This involves acknowledging the uncertainties, engaging with critics constructively, and most importantly, preserving the spirit of inquiry.
H/T Willie Soon
Did the Pope violate the separation of Church and State?
That’s a useless silly question. The Pope IS the head of BOTH Church and State.
If you mean the US doctrine, it doesn’t apply to him.
If you meant anything else, you sure weren’t clear about it.
Even religious leaders are allowed to have opinions.
Well climate change is a religion and I suppose we should be grateful that the Roman Catholic church has moved on from slaying non-believers, leaving that to the medieval muslims.
Religious leaders would be best advised to stick to topics pertaining to their faiths, especially when surveys show that secularism is consistently increasing in the developed world. If they’re already having trouble retaining people who should be believers, what chances do they have in persuading them that the churches are somehow better equipped to pass themselves off as experts on climate change, which most citizens consider to be just another combination of mythology and fraud?
Oh, but he IS sticking to a topic pertaining to his faith, Edward. He boldly proclaims his profound faith that climate change exists. No nuanced ambiguity there.
A pity it is for us Catholics that he leaves ambiguous whether he believes that certain sins exist, whether the Bible has any authority, and sometimes whether even God exists.
Only God knows for sure what is in his heart, and so I’ll leave it to God to judge him and condemn him if the state of his soul is what it seems to be to a ‘fool’ like me.
Matthew 5:22
22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A22&version=RSVCE
. . . but the Bible also states:
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”
— Romans 1:22, King James Version (KJV)
What? . . . anyone think that doesn’t apply to the Pope???
Well, actually no. I don’t think Bergolio professes to be wise. He pretends to be humble and a common man when he’s actually vindictive, petty, and a crude ideologue. He is the least intellectual pope in living memory, and he often says shizz like ‘who am I to judge’. He’s the aw shucks pontiff.
It’s a good verse to bear in mind though for folks like you and me.
What? Did you not read this statement in the above article:
“By dubbing climate change deniers as “foolish,” the Pope effectively shuts down the critical, scientific inquiry that is the bedrock of robust scientific discourse. Such a dismissal, especially coming from a religious leader, applies the import of religious dogma to a secular issue.”
Bergolio is effectively saying I am so wise as to assert my religious beliefs trump scientific evidence and debate.
Of course I read it. Charles makes a reasonable point that the politician-pope is attempting to use the imprimatur of his office to imply that all debate on a scientific and economic question is shut down. Roma locuta causa finita
But that’s just another bit of evidence that he’s a very bad pope (one of a handful of historically bad popes over the millennia). He surely understands that orthodox Catholic theology doesn’t claim for him any special charism of infallibility on matters of scientific fact or economics.
It’s not the arrogant pride of claiming to be wise enough to correct the world on a scientific fact. It’s the naked exercise of power and devious intention to deceive and drive an evil agenda.
He also surely understands that a lot of his flock do not understand just how limited is his ‘infallibility’, so he’s happy to work where he works best, in the realm of ambiguity and implication. He wants us to assume that it is a moral matter that we accept the satanic lie that the gas of life that sustains us (CO2) is actually a danger to us.
Much the same as he in one breath publishes a document affirming traditional understanding of gender and in the next is approving the blessing of people in homosexual relationships. Reading the fine print they’re supposed to be private blessings of individual persons, but it was of course the manifest intention to have the document misunderstood by the general public as blessings of gay marriages.
By their fruits you will know them. There is a lot of bitter and rotten fruit in Rome at the present time.
Let’s not leave out the reading from the 1st Letter of Mr T to the A Team:
1AT 12:13
”I pity the FOOL!”
I agree . . . fools do exist, and indeed are plentiful among the alarmists that assert that climate change™ is man-made and is an existential threat.
As long as we are throwing Bible texts at the pope, Here’s one that is more to the point:
“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” Genesis 8:22 KJV
I live in Argentina, the home country of the current Pope, and I hear comments about the Pope on nearly a daily basis. He is not intellectually advanced, neither personally nor educationally. For instance, he has re-introduced the teaching of exorcisms, which might be useful with some of the possessed CAGW crowd.
Latino Catholics are too often into Liberation Theology, which Pope John Paul II tried to suppress unsuccessfully. Bergoglio grew up under Peron, a low rent neofascist, so he finds socialism familiar.
Let’s not generalize about “Latino Catholics’. Here, in Colombia, they are very conservative.
So, we now have a Catholic Climate Church also.
Bless me father for I have sinned, I have been reading the WUWT blog that has tempted with sceptical climate-change thoughts …
… stay away from temptation by not reading such blasphemous material, say three Hail Marys and go in peace.
Quite frankly, I don’t give a rat’s a**e about anything the Poop says.
The guy is a low-life moronic cretin.
The Dope comes to the same conclusion Al Gore the divinity school dropout stated decades ago.
Maybe you dont but millions do. It is still shocking to see leaders who know nothing about the subject come out and condemn people who criticise a dogma. Its not uncommon for a church leader to call out ‘heretics’ but it usually has at least something to do with religion. But, come to think of it, climate alarmism seems closely related and carries the same dogmatic priciple as a religious one.
Given the complexity of ‘the climate’ anyone looking at the elements/variables for 5 minutes must conclude that there is a lot of speculation involved. Unless of course you gobble up a simplistic picture and claim its absolute truth and declare a dogma around it which is what’s happening.
It’s quite sickening. And it is not only concerning climate. Like a mass delusion by a cult who are on the war path. Frightening.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” Richard Feynman
We are definitely dealing with a human-caused climate change mass delusion.
We know the reasons why this mass delusion has surfaced.
The Deluded don’t realize they are living in a False CO2-is-Bad Reality created by Liars, for fame and profit.
It is only fitting that a religious leader has an opinion on Climate Change™. After all, it is just another religious belief.
Fortunately Climate Deniers™ are not the zealots he would face if he called followers of say islamic faith fools.
Serious not so fun comment.
Some years ago, my significant other nearly died of anaphylactic shock from wasp stings at our north Georgia ‘cabin’. Speeding down the mountain to the rural town doc was a very scary and dangerously fast half hour, during last part of which as her throat swelled closed she thought she would die of anaphylactic suffocation so said goodby. Something you NEVER forget. We got her saved at last minute by the only rural town doc using an Epipen.
She had been a faithful Catholic for decades, serving communion every weekend at her chosen local church for many years even before I met her (on a blind date—separate story), near where we now live together in north Fort Lauderdale on the beach. The only reason we were not long ago married is that we are both divorced, and if we re married she would be by Catholic doctrine ex-communicated and no longer allowed to serve communion.
So, when I asked her long time Parish church to come visit her in her new near death PSTD tribulations, they refused—because she was not within their geographic parish despite her many years of service there.
So, we no longer go to any physical church of any denomination. God inhabits us, NOT his physical churches. We have long lasting personal proofs—she survived after already saying goodby, and we now have 24 glorious years together.
and may you have many, many more Rud.
“God inhabits us, NOT his physical churches.”
Yes.
That must have been a very traumatic trip down that road. Thank God everything worked out! 🙂
You’re upset with one Catholic parish, and are taking it out on all denominations?
Same organization 400 years ago told Galileo to shut his pie hole about heliocentric astronomy, because it is settled science that the sun circles the earth.
WS, see the entry for Giordano Bruno .
I have a more than passing acquaintance with Renaissance history. Lets keep the point simple. The tiger has not changed its stripes.
The myth of the evil church dogmatically shutting down Galileo is dramatically oversimplified. Cardinal Bellarmine was the person involved in what could have been called “negotiations” with Galileo.
He asked Galileo if the Earth was spinning in space, why didn’t everything fly off? Galileo, not having developed a theory of gravity could not answer. Bellarmine concluded that Galileo’s theory was therefore unproven or incomplete, and while at some point in the future the church may need to revise its
dogmadoctrine, the time was not now as that would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.Galileo, unable to account for gravity, was not able to offer a strong enough case. Then the fireworks started.
Trying to shift the blame to Galileo for admitting he didn’t know everything? The Cardinal knew even less, and refused to admit it.
Hrrr drrrr stooopeed Cardinal.
Katholeecs amirite?
You are seeing what you want to see.
You are convinced that the Catholic Church was completely in the wrong, and you refuse to see any evidence that runs counter to this.
You really do remind me of so many climate alarmists.
Great comment, only quibble is that in a Catholic understanding, dogma isn’t revisable, doctrine may develop. It was never a dogma that the earth was the center of the universe.
It’s a major point and I stand corrected. My knowledge of Catholicism does not even rise to superficial. The Galileo story has been distorted and coopted by atheists to cast the Church as simplistic, evil, and irrational.
It’s part of a long campaign to delegitimize Judeo Christian faiths, that I believe began in the early 20th century. Not even Darwin felt this tension between Christianity and “science”. His work was coopted later as part of this campaign.
Atheism, being the least intellectually rigorous of all religions or faiths, oozes an insecurity that requires its faithful to engage in a constant campaign to denigrate other religions.
It’s hilarious to watch Dawkins, one of the more embarrassing high priests of the atheism crusade beginning to recant as he watches Western Civilization collapsing.
Not to say that the current Pope isn’t an embarrassment, a Pope more popular with atheists than Catholics.
Woah, Charles! You could have picked a smaller brush out of your ‘people painting’ kit. I’m an atheist and have no bone to pick with anybody over their belief in any particular notion of a god(s). I even bow my head at appropriate times in religious gatherings.
It is my firmly held belief, however, that Western Civilization and laws built upon Judeo-Christian principles is far superior to all of the social/political/economic systems tried out by Man so far. Even discounting all measures of human wellbeing, body count alone would lead anybody to that conclusion.
Then you’re not the kind of atheist I was talking about. Sorry if you felt swept up.
Unfortunately thoughtful atheists remain silent while others spend much of their time openly insulting anyone who isn’t an atheist.
By the way, several of the less thoughtful variety of atheists are throwing their bile further down, would you care to prove your bonafides by dealing with them?
Mark, it is not my place to “deal” with anybody; why would I pick a fight with somebody over things that don’t affect me? And I need not prove anything to anybody about the sincerity of my atheism nor my acceptance of others’ religious beliefs. Those are personal and I don’t care what people think of them.
If you continue to let the unthinking speak for atheism, then don’t be surprised when most people believe that all atheists are ignorant assholes.
Again, Mark, I don’t care what people think about atheism and atheists. I speak for myself, not others. There are too many ignorant assholes worldwide on any given subject to counter in any meaningful way.
Didn’t Galileo drop two objects off of the Tower of Pisa to prove that gravity acted on each one according to weight?
Most historians consider that a thought experiment and not a physical experiment, but whether thought or physical, it lacked the explanation for WHY, and why it would work on spinning object. I also don’t think Galileo applied it to orbital bodies.
My point was that the Church engaged in a logical back and forth and concluded that Galileo did not make his case with enough certainty to necessitate a change in doctrine AT THAT TIME, while leaving open the possibility that might change as more evidence came in.
Not the blind mindless rejection as is now presented as part of the anti-theology rewrite of history.
Galileo did see four moons orbiting Jupiter and named them. So not everything orbited the Earth. He also described a “star” near Jupiter that may have been the planet Neptune. And Galileo proposed the idea of relativity. He was no “lightweight” in the physics department.
He was brilliant, but there were holes in his theories he didn’t know how to fill.
Bellarmine offered to accept his model, but only for abstract predictive purposes, but not as a description of physical reality. That wasn’t enough for Galileo and the issue continued even after Bellarmine passed away. I thin this all spanned more than a decade.
Gravity as a concept was Newton’s idea, formulated 30+ years after Galileo died (Newton was born the year after Galileo died) Apollo 12 I think proved the hammer and feather falling at the same rate on the moon – no air to hinder the feather.
That was demonstrated in laboratories with vacuum chambers many years before Apollo. Apollo just gave a fun visual illustration. I don’t think NASA would have been very successful at calculating trajectories without a pretty strong mathematical theory of gravity.
A story I heard was the Catholic scientists knew Galileo was right, but the Catholic authority asked him not to upset the apple cart–so to say. He refused, and then the fireworks started.
There was one famously learned pope viz. Benedict XIV (1740–58) “who was one of the driving forces behind the Italian Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. His campaign to reconcile faith and empirical science, re-launch a dialogue between the Church and the European intellectual community, and expand papal patronage of the arts and sciences helped restore Italy’s position as a center of intellectual and artistic innovation”.
And Newton.
Galileo was punished for insulting the Pope and for declaring that heliocentrism was fact, when he lacked the evidence to demonstrate that.
By that time most scholars, including many in the church believed that heliocentrism was the correct model.
Perhaps the Pope is about to be called to Home by the Higher Authority. He was born Dec 1936. He has several health issues.
I wonder if he realises he will be heading downwards… not upwards !
Bear in mind that he has packed the College of Cardinals with like-minded clerics, so as appealing as the idea of him shuffling off the mortal coil may be, be careful what you wish for. Pope Francis II will probably be even worse. It could be his ghost writer Tuco Fernandez, a uniquely evil man, responsible for all the pagan earth worship and perverse blessing of sodomites.
Even the church finds the AGW narrative to be an attractant for the easily convinced.
Yes, I always assumed they saw it as a way to gain more contemporary relevance, as they can’t really go down the gender rabbit hole, too many contradictions of dogma there.
AGW is a “safe space”.
Pope goes all weasel He calls me a fool I call him a mendacious evil Commie useful idiot. Time for Primate Change
“Time for Primate Change”
Agreed,
Most apes & monkeys have a greater understanding of climate than the poop,
they live in it; the poop lives in a bubble.
From the Authorised Version of the Bible – Jesus said: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
I hope the Pope likes it warm.
Man, this guy… Isn’t he supposed to have a direct line to the almighty? The same almighty that was very keen on burnt offerings back in the day? I mean, sure, coal and petrol aren’t as fragrant as lamb, but let’s not quibble. After all, if this was a problem worthy of the great sky tyrant, surely he would have put it in his book. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not burn crumbly black rocks or black liquids, thou shalt not…
On the other hand, religious people have told me that everything happens according to God’s Plan, although what the end goals of the Plan are no-one’s been really clear about, let alone how individual steps are supposed to get us there. Anyway… Given that there have been zero prior Popes – from the invention of the steam engine until this guy – that have warned about the dangers of fossil fuels, surely we can conclude that either burning fossil fuels is part of the Plan, or the Pope is stepping out of his lane without consulting his boss.
Of course, being an atheist, my view is that the whole religion thing is based on a lie and there are no gods. This senile old busybody is doing nothing to convince me that I’m wrong. Also, wasn’t the early Roman Catholic church responsible for effectively wiping out paganism in Europe? And now we’re almost back to it again. Three Hail Mary’s and do your recycling, else you’re going to a 15-minute city after you die…
“the whole religion thing is based on a lie”
“the opiate of the masses” as one well known commie once said 🙂
Yeah, just when you think you have it all figured out, along comes the Shanti Devi story.
“the whole religion thing is based on a lie”
Can you prove that, or is it just something you have to take on faith?
What would you accept as “proof”? Setting aside that proofs are for maths and the fact that “proving” the non-existence of something is a fool’s errand. I mean, if that’s the route you want to go down, then can you “prove” that Thor does not exist?
I know what I would accept as evidence for the existence of god – the original ten commandments, carved on indestructible tablets in letters of fire that cannot be extinguished. But those don’t exist, and no other tangible evidence exists that even hints at the existence of anything remotely supernatural.
I didn’t ask you to prove that God exists, I asked you to prove that he doesn’t, since that was your claim.
The fact that you had to change the terms of the challenge proves that you know that you can’t and that your religion can’t be proven either.
And I asked what you’d accept as proof.
For example, if we were talking about Santa Claus, you might say something along the lines of, A snapshot of the entire Artic Circle at 10cmx10cm resolution that shows no sign of Santa’s workshop would be proof that he doesn’t exist. What would be your equivalent acceptable proof for the non-existence of god be? And if I cannot provide that for your god, nor any other, does that then mean that they must all exist?
As for my “religion”, atheism isn’t a religion.
Many rabid atheist greenies must be seething at the fact that they’re in agreement with the Church.
From the article: “However, he made a pointed effort to express his displeasure with those who deny climate change when asked what he says to those who deny it by O’Donnell.
…
‘They don’t understand the situation or because of their interest, but climate change exists,’ he added.”
It is the Pope who is the one who doesn’t understand the situation.
The Pope shouldn’t talk about things he doesn’t understand. That’s not a good look for a Pope. Why would anyone want to follow an ignorant Pope?
The Pope should stick to things he is knowledgeable about.
Who “denies” climate change? I know nobody who does. I have read of nobody who does.
I have lots of company here among those who are skeptical of CAGW, “crisis”, “existential threat” and “emergency”.
The Pope chose to be advised solely by alarmists such as Schellenhuber, Waddams, Oreskes, Klein and Sachs.
“The Pope should stick to things he is knowledgeable about”
That would be a short & boring conversation.
Pontiffs pontificate. 😉
The sound of silence
Here we have a Christian LIAR, giving false witness regularly. What a fool!
The whole thing with the poop and his pagan cult saying that climate change exists is pure gaslighting, a strawman argument, since there are no skeptics who think the climate doesn’t change!!!
It’s about time people proclaim the truth that Pope Francis is foolishly lying.
Just wondering how many climate refugees the current Pope has invited to stay in Vatican City?
Prominent among the seven “corporal works of mercy” that are a core part of the Catholic religion are:
— to feed the hungry,
— to give drink to the thirsty,
— to clothe the naked,
— and to give shelter to travellers.
If you’re gonna talk the talk, then you gotta walk the walk.
Science disagrees with the pope
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
And he is as guilty as any of stupid word games.
ALL skeptics/realists believe in climate change, it’s the alarmists that don’t.
We simply dispute the cause, and if anything particularly unusual is happening today (NOT).
the pope should stick to the imaginary things he is trained in although AGW is a good fit for persons of faith.
IF there was CAGW , it must be part of god’s plan !
The poop needs to talk to his invisible fiend for an update on the current corporate policy.
This whole Thread has degenerated into a religious ‘point-counterpoint.’
I’m an atheist. I believe, however, that people should thank whatever god(s) to which they pray (or not) that the authors of the U.S. Constitution were religious men. The 1st Amendment is the bedrock of the principle that freedom of thought and expression, including religion, is the natural right of all humans.
Hmmm . . . just wondering how you might then explain that “In God We Trust” is on the back of every $1 bill, $5 bill, $10 bill, $20 bill, and $50 bill (maybe others) of US currency presently in circulation.
Today, an atheist is not “free” to cross out that religious phrase without arguably committing the crime of defacing US currency (see https://abc13.com/money-coins-us-currency-defacing/1566492/#:~:text=With%20that%2C%20you%20could%20conclude,a%20national%20or%20federal%20entity. ).
Note: I’m not saying that the status is right or wrong . . . just that it exists.
With all of the nonsense and outright lies spewed by governments why would I single out the ubiquitous phrase “In God We Trust” for my ire? Its no skin off my nose.
Sorry, the Galileo apocryphal myth propaganda story always sets me off.
‘Giver of all good gifts’, we say.
So where did CO2 and ‘fossil fuels’ come from?
Are they stones instead of bread?
“Climate change denier” is a stupid and malevolent charge.
It is the alarmists who are attempting to deny climate change…of the natural variety.
Climate change is not the issue. Climate changes every second of every day and has done so for millions/billions of years.
The issue is the magnitude (however small) of mankind’s contribution to climate change and more significantly the blatant hubris that mankind can control the planet’s climate with all the derived population control mandates issues to deliberate whole populations in the name of “Saving the Planet.”