Search Results for “Cardinal pell” – Page 2

Pontifical Academy of Science Emails Document Vatican Hostility to Climate Change Skepticism

January 7, 2021

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/april-2015-conference By Edward Pentin VATICAN CITY — Five-year-old emails within the Pontifical Academy of Sciences have surfaced to show just how anxious some top Vatican officials were to suppress any voices skeptical of the science of climate change. The testy exchanges, all written that year and leaked to the Register, mostly relate to an invitation the academy made to professor Philippe de Larminat, a French climate change skeptic, to speak at an important Pontifical Academy of Sciences-hosted high-level summit on “The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development.” Aimed at building a consensus between scientists and religious leaders on the science of climate change, the April 2015 meeting coincided with both Pope Francis’ environmental encyclical Laudato Si (On Care for Our Common Home) published a month later, and the creation that year of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Among the keynote speakers were the then-U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the SDGs’ chief architect, Columbia University economist and population control advocate Jeffrey Sachs, and five Nobel laureates. De Larminat, who wrote a book arguing that solar activity rather than greenhouse gases was driving global warming, also dissented from the conclusions of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He had reportedly sought a place at the 2015 symposium to try to change the Pope’s mind on the science. The then-president of the Pontifical Academy, Werner Arber, a Protestant Swiss microbiologist and Nobel laureate appointed by Benedict XVI in 2011, was sympathetic to de Larminat’s concerns and cautious about accepting the climate change “consensus.” In one of Arber’s emails, dated March 23 and sent to the academy’s chancellor Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo and academy member Veerabhadran Ramanathan, the Swiss scientist stressed that the climate has a “high degree of complexity” and scientific studies depend on models that can lead to “different conclusions.” In general, these produce conditions of “insecurity” about the science which, he wrote, the Vatican and the Pope should be informed about. Arber therefore argued for following “the precautionary principle” — to recommend lowering the quantity of CO2 emitted by human activity, but not issue a “clear statement” of predictions regarding climate change that “could seriously harm confidence in the science.” As a postscriptum, he added that de Larminat “might be ready to attend our workshop on April 28, if desirable.” The decision to invite de Larminat appears to have already been taken as in a March 30 email, Cardinal Peter Turkson, then-president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, told de Larminat that “if you would like to participate [in the summit], the academy would be very happy. All you have to do is let me know.” The French scientist responded by asking if his brother, professor Stanislas de Larminat, an expert on Christian ecology, could also attend with him. Stanislas had once written that “ecologism” is a “form of culture of death that pushes us to dream of a return to paradise lost.” He had also authored a book prefaced by Cardinal George Pell, well known for his skepticism of human-caused climate change. Bishop Sanchez didn’t become aware of their invitation until April 16, a few days before the symposium, when Arber emailed him to say he “would welcome” de Larminat’s participation. The scientist’s contribution, Arber wrote in the email, would offer “a deeper insight into the complex phenomenon of climate variations and into predictive modeling by using this approach, which differs from the approach used by the IPCC.” In an email the following day opening with the words “Dear Friends” and sent to academy members Ramanathan (now known as Pope Francis’ “climate scientist”), Peter Raven, an American botanist, and Sir Partha Dasgupta, an Indian economist, Bishop Sanchez expressed his shock, calling Arber’s suggestion to Cardinal Turkson to invite de Larminat “incredible!” Raven responded by expressing sorrow that Bishop Sanchez should be “put in the middle of this ridiculous and most unfortunate situation,” adding that “if we differ from what the scientific world has concluded in this area, we will be ridiculous.” A controversy at the meeting “will make all the news,” he feared. Raven encouraged Bishop Sanchez to “continue to be strong,” and claimed Arber “wasn’t listening.” Dasgupta urged the chancellor not to “fret” about the situation “because there is nothing to be done,” adding that even if they had a scientist to rebuff the dissenting position, “the whole point of the meeting on the 28th would be lost.” Ramanathan believed that the only option was to disinvite the dissenting scientist and do everything possible in order to “avert an undesirable outcome.” Bishop Sanchez wrote back, telling them, “Don’t worry because even if this Professor de Larminat should come, he has no authorization to speak or make any kind of intervention.” Raven remained concerned and responded by saying he could imagine Arber and de Larminat “making trouble.” They would “take all the news from the meeting,” Raven wrote in an April 21 email. “I guess we could worry forever. It’s so sad to have to oppose our own president, a scientist for whom we have full respect, on this issue.” He added “it would be all too easy” for others to compare Arber to “Galileo and the persecution of someone who really had the truth being suppressed if they wanted to play that hard.” Three days later, on April 24, just four days before the meeting, Bishop Sanchez sent an email to Marta Infantino, the academy’s event manager, asking her to “please remove de Larminat who is no longer invited by Card. Turkson.” The Washington Post reported in June of 2015 that de Larminat had bought his flight ticket from Paris to Rome but was told there was no space left. “They did not want to hear an off note,” de Larminat told the Post. The conference nevertheless made unwelcome headlines for the organizers when two climate change skeptics, Lord Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and Marc Morano, founder of Climate Depot, a non-profit that denies the existence of human-caused climate change, were ejected from the conference after the organizers discovered who they were. The Heartland Institute, also skeptical of the science, hosted a well-publicized parallel conference nearby. In a June 19 email responding to questions from The Washington Post, Bishop Sanchez acknowledged their presence: “I think there was a group in the Columbus [a hotel near the Vatican], but they didn’t do anything serious: they are amateurs,” he wrote. Responding to another question, that de Larminat had actually been invited to the April meeting, Bishop Sanchez responded: “I know that [invitation] hasn’t been sent because the invitations were sent by the Academy and nobody approached that author.” Asked at the summit why the meeting was different to a similar Vatican climate change conference in 2007 which was open to all sides, Bishop Sanchez said: “There’s only one side.” Since the 2015 conference, the Vatican has aligned itself ever more closely with the IPCC’s position on climate change and the U.N.’s agenda in general, particularly in the area of education and the SDGs, despite concerns that the agenda is a “stalking horse” for population control. The most recent example took place last week when the academy hosted its fifth consecutive annual Vatican Youth Symposium in collaboration with the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) — an organization directed by Jeffrey Sachs and partially funded by the pro-contraception and pro-gender theory Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The meeting was used to launch Mission 4.7, a U.N.-backed initiative to help promote SDG target 4.7 that aims to educate young people in sustainable development and gender equality. Bishop Sanchez is one of Mission 4.7’s four co-chairs.

Prominent Dutch Scientist Declares his dissent: ‘You can’t stop climate change by simply turning a CO2 button’ – ‘Doomsday scenario became a kind of religion’

February 1, 2019

https://www.thegwpf.com/prof-guus-berkhout-stop-the-doom-and-gloom-mongering/ JAS Foundation, Holland Professor Guus Berkhout is setting up a new international climate institute in the Netherlands. Q: So, everything is fine you would think? Well, at first there was a constructive conversation indeed. But the problems arose when the climate movement started to exaggerate. Terrifying doom stories were spread and human CO2 was the only culprit. That also happened in a very aggressive way. Think of the apocalyptic films of Al Gore. One disaster after another would hit us. The general public was shocked by all these terrifying stories. ‘ As a counter-reaction, the climate movement insulted dissenters as ‘deniers’, a very bad framing that refers to the holocaust deniers. ‘ Q: Hasn’t there been criticism of this fallacy right from the start? Yes, a number of renowned scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, quickly put the brakes on by reassuring society with a clear disapproval. Their message was that the terrestrial climate system is incredibly complicated and that we do not yet have the knowledge to draw such extreme conclusions with such certainty. It’s really not five to twelve! Those scientists were fiercely blamed for that dissent. ’ Counter arguments are not tolerated Q: People didn’t hear a positive story anymore? Indeed, the doomsday scenario became a kind of religion. When the scientific criticism from outside the climate movement became broader and more extensive, and cost calculations also showed that implementing the extremely expensive climate measures could seriously disrupt society economically, things really went wrong. As a counter-reaction, the climate movement called dissenters ‘deniers’, a very bad framing that refers to the holocaust deniers. ‘ Q: But true scientists will not be stopped, will they? Unfortunately, it did at first. Their critical articles were no longer welcome and, even worse, their research was excluded from funding. For these dissidents a cordon sanitaire was laid by official bodies and mainstream media. The only sound that the general public has heard in recent decades was: ‘human CO2 heats up the Earth! ’. Q: You hear it all around, do you? Sure, that message was and is being rammed into the audience. The discussion is no longer about climate change, but about CO2 reduction. A sad narrowing down of a very complex issue. Fortunately, we now see a tipping point on the horizon. Because science can measure better and better, we find out that the predictions of climate models do not match measurements. That is scientifically unacceptable. And we also see that the costs are definitely going to pass bearing. Everything suggests that costs will exceed many hundreds of billions in The Netherlands alone. And hardworking citizens are now rightly asking themselves: ‘But what are the benefits of this billion-dollar circus? Q: Why does one CO2 camp find more support in left-wing politics and another more support in right-wing politics? Left-wing politics has always been committed to a better environment. But in recent years, the environmental movement has been step by step exploited by the climate movement. In this way, climate and environment were presented as one and the same theme and climate change also became a favourite with the Left. The mixing of both movements now causes a lot of confusion. Many people who say they are very concerned about climate change actually mean that they are very concerned about the natural environment, such as air pollution. ’ I regularly give lectures on climate and environment and before the beginning there are always people coming to me with vicious remarks such as: “So, you are the one who wants to screw-up our Earth”. The cutting down of forests and the subsequent production, transport and incineration of wood pellets are issues that go against everything the environmental movement stands for. These three are the classic concerns of the environmental movement and are more topical than ever in this day and age! But unfortunately, these noble concerns have now been completely overshadowed by the monomaniacal CO2measures. The environmental movement is now beginning to realise that they made a cardinal mistake. Burning bio-mass is even worse than burning coal The first clear controversy now plays and is about the role of biomass. The cutting-down of forests and the subsequent production, transport and incineration of wood pellets are issues that go against everything the environmental movement stands for. There are even business models on the drawing board that want to cut down forests for pellets and then place solar panels on the vacant bare ground. This way a double business model is created.……… . How have environmental organisations been able to get this far from their mission? ’ Q: Where do you stand in all this? I am a geophysicist and in my research I make the history of the Earth’s climate visible, which is called ‘geo-imaging’. After all, to understand the present you need to know the past. The geological archive contains rich climate information and tells us the primeval story of climate change: it is of all times. The archive shows very nicely that hot and cold periods have alternated regularly. This happened in fits and starts, two steps forward and then one step backward. For an illustration, we really do not have to go back to the great ice ages. In the Middle Ages, around 800, we had the Middle-age Warm Period. Then there was plenty of agriculture in Greenland! And in the Dutch golden age, around 1600, we were in the middle of the Little Ice Age. The Dutch great painters show beautiful scenes from that cold period. From the end of that small ice age, around 1850, we are in a warming up period, of course again with fits and starts. Nothing special, I say. These are the natural movements in the climate system. Soon it will go down again. ’ Q: We are getting harsh winters again? It’s not about whether, but about when. As a geophysicist, I warn that it is highly unlikely that the natural movements would have stopped abruptly after 1850. And that since then only mankind would be responsible for this warming. However, this extreme message is exactly what the IPCC has made clear with great emphasis in its latest report SR 1.5. According to the report, nature’s contribution is marginal and will remain marginal in the future. The IPCC derives all these certainties purely from its theoretical model! ‘ There are still many essential questions that need to be answered. For example, why is the amount of ice at the South Pole increasing?’ Q: Is a misleading image created? Yes, because reality tells IPCC people to be less arrogant. You can’t stop climate change by simply turning a CO2 button. Until today nobody knows exactly what the complex interactions are between the radiation of the sun, the dynamic cloud cover, the inhomogeneous Earth surface, the energy-rich gulf stream and the water-vapour rich atmosphere. Note that IPCC is referring to the greatest details in the atmosphere, but they should not forget that the heat capacity of oceans is a factor 1000 higher than that of the atmosphere! The amount of heat that the gulf stream in the oceans drag from the equator to the poles is gigantic compared to the modest amount of heat in the atmosphere. With this in mind, can we ask the question whether the ice cap at the North Pole melts now due to the higher temperature in the atmosphere or due to the influence of the warm Gulf Stream? And why is the amount of ice at the South Pole increasing? There are still many essential questions that need to be answered. The great certainties that the IPCC wants us to believe, with a certainty of even > 95%, cannot be maintained. Bertrand Russell once said: ‘The fools are self-confident and the wise are filled with doubt. ’ ‘I like to say it in my own way: ‘Through criticism of the content, science is where it is now and I am the scientist I have become.’ In the last 20 years the CO2 increase has thundered on, but the observed temperature does not show any increase anymore. That is an important indication that there must be much more going on than CO2warming. Q: Which group do you belong to? (Laughing) In short, my message is as follows (Berkhout counts). One: Since the small ice age, the LIA, the Earth has been warming up again with fits and starts, nothing new in the Earth’s climate history. In the past 150 years, we can distinguish six different climate periods. Secondly: The general public is rightly asking the climate movement for hard evidence that after the small ice age Mother Nature suddenly has no effect whatsoever on the Earth’s climate. They also ask the climate movement what according their wisdom the correct temperature of the Earth should be? And, very important, number three: CO2 certainly has a warming effect, but how much exactly is still very uncertain. This is also evident from the enormous margin in the warming factor that the IPCC itself maintains: 1.5-4.5 degrees. That’s 300%! Four: In the past century the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has steadily increased, but in none of the natural disasters do we see that an increase has taken place. On the contrary, we are even at a time period we often observe a downward trend. Five: Within the last 20 years the CO2 increase has thundered on, but the observed temperature does not show any increase anymore. This is an important indication that much more is happening than CO2 warming. And then last but not least, six: The Dutch climate plans cost many hundreds of billions. We will soon come up with the real figures, but the benefits of all these Dutch plans for the planet are nil, about 0.0003 degrees, and for the Dutch citizen they are very negative. The latter also applies to the business climate in our country. So why are we going to carry out these plans anyway? And don’t forget that CO2 is also an indispensable building block for all life on Earth. My advice to administrators is therefore: You should not put billions into CO2 reduction, but billions into a much better protection of the natural environment: ‘good stewardship’. I hope to come back to that later in this interview. ’ Q: But if we reduce CO2, don’t we also reduce air pollution? That is certainly true, but if we want to combat a rat infestation, we will not start catching mice, will we? Reducing CO2 is an extremely difficult and expensive task, while the benefits are very uncertain. Air pollution – think of soot particles, fine dust, SOx and NOx compounds, etc. – is not only much more targeted to combat, it also guarantees high benefits for man and nature.’ Q: Doesn’t science start with measurements? The difference between science and religion is that scientific statements must always be verifiable with observations. Theoretical models should therefore always be validated by critically comparing model results with real measurements. If that has not happened, you may not apply theoretical models. The more complex the issue, the more important it is to make measurements. Information in the measurements shows the way how further develop these models. The history of science shows time and again that major theoretical breakthroughs were inspired by breakthroughs in measuring instrumentation. The climate system is so complex that it is pre-eminently in climate science that measurements must show the way. But so far, theoretical models have played far too big a role in climate research. The course has to change now. Large-scale funding should be provided for scientific projects to drastically accelerate the development of new measuring instruments and measurement facilities. How is it possible that IPCC never felt the need to invest in experimental facilities to thoroughly validate the warming theory of CO2 with measurements? ‘ By constantly telling that 97% of scientists confirm the story of the climate movement, the general public thinks it is the truth. The opposite is true. Q: These poorly validated computer models describe a dreamworld. Yet, these climate models have an enormous impact, is’t that right? The power of the climate movement is the simple message: ‘Human CO2 is the cause of warming; warming is causing a catastrophe; if we turn the CO2 button everything will be fine again’. I said it before, that message is being hammered into the public. Not knowledge but fear is used as an emotional driver. What they have also smartly done is to regularly use climate change as a scapegoat. For example, the cause of much misery in Africa is attributed to climate change, even though the problems are of an ethnic, religious and political nature. But unfortunately that is not all. By constantly telling that 97% of scientists confirm the story of the climate movement, the general public thinks it is the truth. However, the opposite is true. This consensus strategy is not new. For example, in the start to the financial crisis in 2007, everyone told everyone that the economy could grow indefinitely if everyone was making debts. If you didn’t agree with that message, you would be called a fool. Of course, nobody wanted to be judged as such. Even if you didn’t understand anything about the theory of ‘growth by making debts’. They just parroted each other. Even the solid Dutch Rabobank, at that time the only bank in the world with a triple A rating, bought debt securities. At the time, the consensus was almost complete: if you want to grow, you have to get into debt! But we know how it ended. Now we are in the same situation with the earth’s climate. When I ask critical questions, it turns out that very few people know anything about the climate system. Everyone parrots everyone. Conclusion is that history shows time and again: ‘Beware of people who use consensus as a truth argument’. The same also applies to activists who put small children forward. Q: How do we move forward? The Netherlands would like to be an example country, wouldn’t it? First of all, be positive! Stop doom thinking and give way to the many opportunities that climate change also offers the world. And during realization, considering this extremely complex issue, you don’t focus on just one solution. With all the great uncertainties until today, we just cannot afford this. National governments never must take the risk of following the CO2 scenario only, especially since it involves such extremely high costs. So stop all these urgent CO2 reduction measures! My advice is that countries base their climate policy on three scenarios: Scenario 1: Climate adaptation If Mother Nature alone is responsible for climate change, mankind has only one thing to do: adapt to change. Life on Earth has always been confronted with changes in the natural system. Darwin’s theory of evolution shows that inventive adaptation is the best answer and has also led to ever-higher forms of life. This applies not only to plants and animals, but also to humans. Wanting to stop natural change is not only arrogant and naive, it is also negatively charged and it sets the clock back. Adaptation challenges give positive energy and stimulate innovation. The Netherlands is champion in adaptation. Through the centuries we have fought against the water. And the Netherlands is also a global leader in adapting crops to new natural conditions. ‘ Wanting to be the best boy in the class by closing the relatively clean power plants in The Netherlands is downright stupidity. If politics does not stop this policy, it is the citizens’ turn to take action! ’ Scenario 2: CO2 reduction If only human CO2 were responsible for terrestrial climate change, then humans would have to implement sensible CO2 reduction measures. The top priority in this scenario is to ban wood burning and close the most polluting coal-fired power plants in the world. Coal-fired power plants are still being built all over the world, particularly in developing countries. Starting to close the relatively clean power stations in The Netherlands is downright stupidity. It costs the Dutch citizen an extremely large amount of money and it is of no benefit to the climate. Scenario 3: decomposition If we are dealing with a complex mixture of natural forces and human influences, then we must first determine which part is caused by Mother Nature and which part is caused by humanity (decomposition). However, today we do not yet have this knowledge at all. So, in this scenario we must acquire this knowledge with high priority. If it turns out that both causes have a comparable influence, it should lead to a mixed adaptation-reduction policy. Looking at everything we know today, the Netherlands should not become a leading country in CO2reduction. That has no measurable influence (0.0003 degrees). Instead, it should invest in both climate adaptation and good stewardship. ’ Political and commercial interests are becoming an increasingly important part of scientific research. Today, many scientists have lost their independent position in society. Q: And what role do you expect science to play in this? The greatest value of a scientist is his or her independent position in society. During my 40-year career as a professor I have seen that young scientists became more and more financially dependent on government and industry. Political and commercial interests have become an increasingly important part of their research. Many scientists have thus lost their independence. For this reason, I could not acquire young professors in my critical climate team. Only pensioners were and are still available. Only they can afford to think different from the main stream. That is extremely worrying. Are there still independent scientists to be found today? ’ Q: it seems nobody cares about? The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) is the guardian of integer scientific practices in our country. Particularly this organization should know that history of science tells us time and again that scientific progress never came about through consensus, but through stubborn scientists who dared to question existing concepts. It is in the interests of both science and humanity that these very dissidential thinkers are not silenced, as is currently being done by the IPCC, public media and commercial lobby clubs. Academies of Sciences, we want to know what the real truth is, don’t we? Moreoever, if politics misuses scientific results – with major consequences for society – then science should sound the alarm bell, should it not? Doubt is the basis of all scientific progress. Scientists who have no doubt and are convinced that they are right, do not ask questions but look for a row. That is why we do not make any progress in the climate debate. ’ Q: Despite everything, are you still optimistic for the future? Yes, but then we have to start all over again. Far away from the political UN with its nonsensical, polluting and costly climate conferences. These conferences are nothing more than a travelling CO2 circus with bureaucratic climate clowns talking about everything except the climate system. They forget in their ignorance that politicians are also bound by the universal laws of nature. And UN’s IPCC has completely screwed it up. It has degenerated into a political clique, full of manipulation and certainly not looking for the truth. That can never be put right again. The role of the IPCC can be seen as a dark period in the history of climate science. Stop it now! ’ In connection with this, you probably may know the beautiful musical Jesus Christ Superstar, in which after the death of Jesus his followers sadly wonder: ‘Could we start again, please?’ A touching moment in the musical. That is also how I see it in climate research. We need to start all over again, with a whole new approach in a whole new organisation. In this new organisation, we will be organising climate research in a much broader way. No more exclusive shows of mathematical model makers. They are far too one-sided for solving the comprehensive climate problem. The IPCC has therefore made little progress in recent decades. Hardly any new insights have been added. To put that behind us, we need scientists from many more fields of science. ’ We just founded the Climate Intelligence Foundation Q: What are your ideas about involving scientific areas? Think especially of astronomers who have knowledge about the influences of the universe on planet Earth, especially the solar activity, the cosmic radiation and the gravitational forces. Think also of geologists who, together with geophysicists, map the properties of the deeper earth layers and who can reconstruct the climate history of the Earth from them. And also think of archaeologists who can derive climate information about the past thousands of years from the remains of human activities in the shallow surface layers. And certainly also think of oceanographers who can translate the physical and biological properties of oceans into heat flows. Bringing together solutions from many fields of science with totally different data sources together may provide an accurate picture of the Earth’s climate. We call that ‘consilience‘. That is what I call true climate research.

Ex-Aussie PM: ‘Thought-police scientists shutting down factual climate change debate’

October 10, 2017

Published time: 10 Oct, 2017 14:31 Get short URL Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. © Toby Melville / Reuters 19 Former Australian Prime Minister, and climate change skeptic, Tony Abbott, has argued that a global temperature rise might actually be a good thing because in most countries “far more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves.” Abbott made his remarks during a speech to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) in London on Tuesday. The foundation, established in 2009 by climate change denier and House of Lords member Nigel Lawson, is an “an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.” In his speech – ‘Daring To Doubt’ – Abbott opened by thanking the GWPF for giving him the same platform as fellow Australians, former PM John Howard and George Pell, the disgraced Catholic cardinal who was recently charged with a slew of historic sex offenses. 235235 Retweets 150150 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy Abbott, who has previously claimed that climate science is “absolute crap”, also likened climate scientists to the “thought-police” – a reference to the overarching authoritarian foot soldiers in George Orwell’s dystopian novel ‘1984.’ “Beware the pronouncement, ‘the science is settled’,” Abbott said. “It’s the spirit of the Inquisition, the thought-police down the ages. Almost as bad is the claim that ‘99 percent of scientists believe’ as if scientific truth is determined by votes rather than facts,” he added. He then went on to say that Australia’s modern extreme weather events are no more harmful than they were in the 1800s. “Contrary to the breathless assertions that climate change is behind every weather event, in Australia, the floods are not bigger, the bushfires are not worse, the droughts are not deeper or longer, and the cyclones are not more severe than they were in the 1800s,” he said. Adding that “Sometimes, they do more damage but that’s because there’s more to destroy, not because their intensity has increased,” and that even if climate change was happening it might not be so bad. “In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.” View image on Twitter Follow RT ✔@RT_com ‘Hellish’ heat waves could become norm in Europe – study https://on.rt.com/8ocq 11:35 PM – Sep 27, 2017 33 Replies 3838 Retweets 3030 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy Abbott’s speech comes as current PM Malcolm Turnbull is facing an uphill battle to introduce a clean energy target. On Tuesday, Australian media reported that Turnbull was likely to cave to pressure from his backbenchers, and reject a recommendation from the country’s chief scientists to introduce reform.

Fmr. UN climate chief Christina Figueres to Vatican – ‘We need to be clear that Fossil Fuels Kill’

March 15, 2017

Marie Venner | Mar. 14, 2017Eco Catholic 4 PrintemailPDF VATICAN CITY In late January, I had the opportunity to attend a small conference at the Pontifical Lateran University on Catholic actions, financial and otherwise, to resolve the climate crisis. The tagline for the Jan. 27 conference — titled “Laudato Si’ & Catholic Investing: Clean Energy for our Common Home” — came by way of the October 2015 statement issued by the heads of Catholic continental bishops’ conferences ahead of the COP 21 international climate change summit in Paris: “Put an end to the fossil fuel era, phasing out fossil fuel emissions and providing affordable, reliable and safe renewable energy access for all.” Among the leaders who spoke were Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Vatican’s new dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development, and Christina Figueres, the former executive secretary for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, along with: Mark Campanale, founder of the Carbon Tracker Initiative; Franciscan Sr. Sheila Kinsey, executive co-secretary for justice, peace and integrity of creation commission of the International Union of Superiors General; Lutheran Rev. Henrik Grape of Sweden from the World Council of Churches; Papua New Guinea Cardinal John Ribat, president of the Federation of Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of Oceania. The experience of attending as a participant left me feeling surprised to see how far we have come in a few years, in our understanding and willingness to speak to the grave urgency of the climate crisis. Figueres was definitive on the need to ween the world off fossil fuels in the next few years. Though not often seen first as a Catholic, her call to metanoia was the sharpest and clearest of any of the speakers. “This is a moral responsibility that we all share,” she said. “That moral responsibility, how are we going to ensure that it is achieved before it is too late for the most vulnerable? We need to align our moral compass … we need to be clear that fossil fuels kill.” It’s been four years since Pope Francis’ election. Help us continue to report about this pope and his vision for the church! Subscribe and save $10! Other speakers were also compelling with their words. Cardinal Ribat said those on Pacific islands are facing rising seas on all sides. They are helpless in the face of this challenge, so even while they switch to renewable energy sources in their own lands, this effort must be taken up by us all, without delay, to protect all life. Some of us at the meeting spoke about what it would take to bring clean renewable energy to those still without electricity and truly take responsibility for our brothers and sisters. The discussion reminded me of something Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a climate scientist at the University of California-San Diego and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said during a Global Catholic Climate Movement webinar last summer marking the Laudato Si’ one-year anniversary. Ramanthan argued that if the top 1 billion people in the world each paid $150, those funds would cover the electricity needs of those who lack it (1 to 1.2 billion) or have intermittent energy (about 800 million). Closer to home, one idea we came up with was advocating our local energy systems to quickly shift toward renewables sources. That level of engagement can often offer more impact than contacting state or federal representatives. A friend of mine who’s worked in this area said that just 15 minutes a week can make a real difference. I’ve contemplated making this a Lenten practice. The work of Campanale and the Carbon Tracker Initiative has been critical in comprehending the situation. In his presentation, he said that while fossil fuel companies are projecting increases in fossil fuel usage in the next two decades, those forecasts don’t align with current energy demand, the increasing role of renewables and looming changes in energy. Studies show that to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, only a third of existing fossil fuel reserves can be burned — and even less to keep average global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees, which was deemed necessary to protect those people on Pacific islands from losing their homes entirely to rising seas. Campanale added that fossil fuel companies “need to wind down or be wound down in an orderly fashion,” but that we shouldn’t wait for them to talk about the future. It became apparent that we need to turn off the spigot to avoid surpassing what our atmosphere and oceans can absorb. Roughly 20 percent of carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for 1,000 years, so what we put in the atmosphere now will remain there for generations to come. And every year we wait makes the year-on-year reductions sharper, deeper and more difficult — but it doesn’t have to be that way. The difficulty comes with continuing to delay. Cardinal Turkson called attention to paragraph 165 of Pope Francis’ encyclical “Laudato Si’, on Care for Our Common Home,” in which the pope stated “We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels – especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas – needs to be progressively replaced without delay.” The message was clear — it’s a moral issue — and was reinforced recently after German sustainable investment firm Wermuth Asset Management announced it would provide the Vatican a series of studies on how it can shift toward the use of 100-percent renewable energy — and along with it, zero emissions.

Former Obama EPA Chief concedes: ‘Climate change has become a religion’

February 9, 2017

Speaking in California, former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admits, “climate change has become a religion — a politically induced religion”. GINA MCCARTHY: “I don’t know why climate change got to be a religion instead of a simple fact based science exercise but I do know that the actions that California is taking and others will make the difference between whether we stand still or fall back or move forward. […] I do see that states are actually making these investments. The challenge I think we have is for some reason climate change has become a religion — a politically induced religion instead of science fact that now we have to embrace and move forward on.” Conversation with former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy California Senate Democrats February 8, 2017 # Former EPA head Gina McCarthy: “I don’t know why climate change got to be a religion” – Mercury News Related Links: Actor Harrison Ford’s Green Religion: ‘I needed something outside of myself to believe in and I found in nature a kind of God’ Watch: Video of climate activists at Papal rally in DC reveals they don’t believe in God – ‘I’m more involved with the nature religions’ Repent Ye Sinners to Stop Bad Weather! Wash Post features theologian Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite urging us to ‘repent’ for our ‘sin’ of causing Typhoon Haiyan due to the ‘moral evil of climate change denial’ – ‘Suffering and the sin of climate change denial’ WRATH OF GOD ON CLIMATE SKEPTICS: NYT Warmist Paul Krugman to those whose ‘deny’ global warming: ‘May you be punished in the afterlife for doing so’ — Calls ‘denial’ an ‘almost inconceivable sin’ The book of revelation type claims made in the movie Ghostbusters has even been compared to the modern global warming movement. See: ‘The dead rising from the grave!’ Global warming claims imitate scene from 1984 comedy ‘Ghostbusters’ – ‘A disaster of biblical proportions…real wrath of God type stuff’ Related Link: Global warming religion advances: ‘Sin, guilt, tithes, penance, punishment, sacrifice, and now we have the sacred peer-reviewed scriptures’ – Climate Depot’s Exclusive Round up of Religion climate claims Real Science website: – ‘Only the inspired writings of the great prophets Mann and Hansen shall be read, and never by the lay folk’ ‘The global warming cult wants to criminalize non-belief in their CO2-centric religion. Mankind as center of the universe’ Repent Ye Sinners to Stop Bad Weather! Wash Post features theologian Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite urging us to ‘repent’ for our ‘sin’ of causing Typhoon Haiyan due to the ‘moral evil of climate change denial’ – ‘Suffering and the sin of climate change denial’ WRATH OF GOD ON CLIMATE SKEPTICS: NYT Warmist Paul Krugman to those whose ‘deny’ global warming: ‘May you be punished in the afterlife for doing so’ — Calls ‘denial’ an ‘almost inconceivable sin’ Catholic Cardinal George Pell: ‘In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in Co2 emissions’ ‘Faith-Based IPCC Turns Science into Sin’ – ‘Climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith, and not science’ – ’The First Church of Climate Change needs a reformation. According to its leaders, we peasants are no more qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science than the serfs of medieval Europe were qualified to understand the mysterious motions of the heavens. And so we are told to put our faith in the modern-day version of the papal astronomer and to never, ever question the word of the educated elite. To do so would be heresy, a sin that has the most heinous of consequences.’ Analysis: ‘Blaming storms on human industry is as backward as blaming them on gays’ – ‘The eco-hysteria of blaming mankind for the floods’ Esquire Mag. joins doomsday cult: ‘How We’re Fked As A Species’ – ‘Centuries from now, when the several remaining humans are huddled around a dwindling fire and pondering how each of them will kill the others and eat their still-warm flesh’ Watch Now: Charles Krauthammer: Climate change is not political, it’s a ‘religion’ UN high priest of global warming Christiana Figueres describes her job as “sacred” Forget Christmas Cheer, it’s End Times!? Scientists: ‘Here’s How Earth Could Really End’ — Cite ‘global warming’ as ‘the biggest threat of all!’ Al Gore on the Weather: ‘Every night on the news now, practically, is like a nature hike through the book of Revelations’ ‘Faith-Based Climate Astrology’: ‘Events which used to be called ‘acts of God’ or Mother Nature, are now being blamed on mankind’s emissions of a trace essential gas (CO2) in the atmosphere that we exhale from our mouths’ End Times: Peace Prof. Michael Klare in Salon Mag. ‘If earth continues heating at its exponential rate, our post-apocalyptic fantasies could become everyday realities’ — ‘We envision rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising sea levels…food riots, mass starvation, state collapse, mass migrations, and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could prove even more disruptive and deadly…persistent drought and hunger will force millions of people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns’ Repent Ye Sinners to Stop Bad Weather! Wash Post features theologian Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite urging us to ‘repent’ for our ‘sin’ of causing Typhoon Haiyan due to the ‘moral evil of climate change denial’ – ‘Suffering and the sin of climate change denial’ WRATH OF GOD ON CLIMATE SKEPTICS: NYT Warmist Paul Krugman to those whose ‘deny’ global warming: ‘May you be punished in the afterlife for doing so’ — Calls ‘denial’ an ‘almost inconceivable sin’ Huffington Post: Earthquake/Hurricane Caused By The Wrath Of The CO2 God: ‘God is very disappointed with humanity for leaving the gas on in our home planet. it’s dangerous, wasteful, and wrong’ UK Prof. Philip Stott: ‘From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness’ Physicist Dr. Will Happer Compares Global Warming Craze to Aztec Human Sacrifices: What Climate Scientists Can Learn From The Aztecs: ‘Like the Aztecs, many scientists believe that sacrificial offerings are necessary to stabilize climate’ ‘At last, consensus: The Aztecs, the Mayans, and Time Magazine all agree that humans must make sacrifices to avoid droughts’ Does Sacrifice Appease The Sun? ‘This is an age old idea used by Aztecs. It was well known at the time that global warming was ubiquitous and caused by a lack of human blood being spilled’ — Today, ‘politicians now take a more subtle approach to human sacrifice. By raising energy prices, they can freeze people to death silently in their homes, which has the same effect of appeasing the CO2 gods’ Michael Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion: ’Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.’ – ‘There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.’ ‘Naked Girls plow parched fields in a bid to embarrass weather gods to bring badly needed monsoon rain’ – ‘Chant ancient hymns after sunset to invoke the gods’ in India – July 24, 2009 [Editor’s Note: The ‘naked’ farm girls attempt to control the climate is as plausible as President Obama’s G8 Pledge to limit the Earth’s Temps. In fact, Climate Depot votes for the “naked farm girls” to have a much better chance of succeeding than Obama and the G8 leaders.] Kenya’s rainmakers — using trees, pots and herbs — called to combat climate change – – ‘Kenya’s Nganyi rainmakers [have] long vilified as sorcerers…the magic of their art involves the sacrifice of animals and libations in secret forest shrines…” – September 20, 2009 [Editor’s Note: Once again, as plausible as Obama’s G8 temperature pledge. In fact, Climate Depot votes for the ritual animal sacrifices and “libations” of Kenya’s rainmakers to have a much better chance of succeeding than Obama and the Western G8 leaders.] ‘Prayers offered to appease rain god…people of different faiths offered special prayers to propitiate rain god’ – The Hindu – June 26, 2009 ‘The dead rising from the grave!’ Global warming claims imitate scene from 1984 comedy ‘Ghostbusters’ – ‘A disaster of biblical proportions…real wrath of God type stuff’ #

Scientist asks: ‘Who is better on the science? Trump or Pope Francis? Answer: Trump

December 2, 2016

By WILLIAM M BRIGGS Published on December 1, 2016 • 3 Comments William M Briggs Pope Francis has, according to Reuters‘ interpretation, placed a shot across the bows of USS Trump when he “urged national leaders on Monday to implement global environmental agreements without delay.” The Pope did not mention the president-elect by name, but was speaking of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, which purports to be kind of a scientific treatise, but which is actually yet another in a long series of gestures from ambitious politicians to signal their eagerness to be put in charge of whichever organizations that are tasked to do the impossible, such stopping the earth’s climate from changing. The Pope is concerned that the United States has not adopted the Paris Agreement. Marc Morano at Climate Depot is reporting that the Trump administration will not only ignore the Paris Agreement, but will rein in the worst excesses of the EPA. President-elect Trump has long expressed his suspicion of the more dire claims of climate doomsayers. That Mr. Trump has hired Steve Bannon, ex-chief at Breitbart, is another indication the USA won’t bow to the United Nations’, and now the Pope’s, pressure on the subject. Bannon and Breitbart are well known for their realistic views towards climate claims. After multiple decades of failed predictions, after repeatedly promising doom but failing to deliver, after years of mistaking theory for observation, should a scientific hypothesis, like runaway man-made global warming, that fails to make skillful forecasts, not be abandoned? Yet the Holy Father will try and use his bully pulpit to influence the incoming administration. With the notable non-climate-scientist Stephen Hawking by his side, Francis said, “The ‘distraction’ or delay in implementing global agreements on the environment shows that politics has become submissive to a technology and economy which seek profit above all else.” It is true that the USA eschewing the Paris Agreement will be terrific news for the world’s economy. Economist Bjorn Lomborg noted the Paris Agreement, if everywhere implemented, would “cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually.” That’s trillion-with-a-T, friends. Most of that money would go into the hands of bureaucrats, politicians, and their cronies. So it’s perhaps not a surprise that most of the political class profess to be frightened beyond measure of a few tenths of a degree increase in temperature. The Holy Father’s charge of putting profit first is therefore false. Mr. Trump knows that the money to fund the UN’s latest extravagance would be borne by ordinary citizens to the benefit of the elite political class. It’s clear the Pope wants more government control of the world’s economy and, what follows, of your behavior. He infamously said, “The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.” As hyperbole, this is clever. Unfortunately, it’s poor science, because, with of course local exceptions, it isn’t true. This brings up the question of scientific basis of the Pope’s statements on the environment. At the risk of being accused of sewing “difficulty and division,” or causing “grave scandal,” or worse, allow me to add an entry to the dubia (questions) being asked of (and ignored by) Pope Francis. After multiple decades of failed predictions, after repeatedly promising doom but failing to deliver, after years of mistaking theory for observation, should a scientific hypothesis, like runaway man-made global warming, that fails to make skillful forecasts, not be abandoned? Now I know the answer, and you, dear reader, likely know the answer. Scientists also used to know the answer. Strike that. Scientists still know the answer, but they’re reluctant to admit it because the consequences of doing so can be consequential to their careers. The old adage “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you” is old and an adage for good reason. Elite politicians know the answer, too. Which is why they are so good at suppressing the question. Last thing these politicians want is for people to consider ramifications of the answer. People might conclude they don’t need elite politicians. The real question is whether Pope Francis, God bless him, knows the answer.

Pope warns Trump: Do not back away from UN climate pact – Pope declares ‘crisis of climatic change’

November 29, 2016

Pope Francis has issued a climate change challenge directly to President Elect Trump. The Pope, in thinly veiled speech, urged Trump not to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Paris agreement reached in 2015. The UN treaty has been said by critics to be “history’s most expensive treaty’,” with a “cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually.” Pope Francis warned of the “crisis of climate change.” “The ‘distraction’ or delay in implementing global agreements on the environment shows that politics has become submissive to a technology and economy which seek profit above all else,” Francis said, in what Reuters described as “a message that looked to be squarely aimed at” Trump. Trump pledged to pull the U.S. out of the UN Paris climate agreement and defund and withdraw from the UN climate process. See: Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Set to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda! Speaking to a group of scientists, including physicist Stephen Hawking, the pope said in his speech that scientists should “work free of political, economic or ideological interests, to develop a cultural model which can face the crisis of climatic change and its social consequences”. The Pope has previously urged Catholics to pray for a UN climate agreement. See: Pope urges prayers for passage of UN climate treaty! Tells faithful ‘to ask God for a positive outcome’ for Paris UN agreement (Pope Francis greets Stephen Hawking (R), theoretical physicist and cosmologist, during a meeting with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Vatican, November 28, 2016. Osservatore Romano/Handout via Reuters) Pope Francis also called for “an ecological conversion capable of supporting and promoting sustainable development.” In 2015, the Pope issued an encyclical on climate and the environment titled “Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home.” In a 2015 Climate Depot Special Report revealed the Pope’s inner climate circle were. See: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate” The report noted: “The Vatican relied on advisers who are the most extreme elements in the global warming debate. These climate advisors are so far out of the mainstream they even make some of their fellow climate activists cringe…The Vatican advisors can only be described as a brew of anti-capitalist, pro-population control advocates who allow no dissent and are way out of the mainstream of even the global warming establishment.” Climate Depot also released the 2015 report: The Climate Skeptic’s Guide To Pope Francis’: Talking Points About The Pope & Global Warming – & See: Pope is a ‘climate lobbyist’ – Listen: Morano: ‘Pope is serving as chief religious lobbyist for man-made global warming & UN’ Climate experts who have looked at the UN climate agreement think Trump is correct to dismantle it. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.” Lomborg added that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.” (Also see: Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours’) University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack has also noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.” Climate Depot Note: “In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!” Francis has faced considerable criticism for his climate activism from both inside the Vatican and out. See: No Consensus inside the Vatican: Skeptical Vatican Cardinal takes a swing at Pope’s climate encyclical: The Catholic Church has ‘no particular expertise in science’ – The Vatican’s financial chief, Cardinal George Pell, Flashback: Fox’s Andrew Napolitano: Pope Francis is ‘somewhere between a communist with a lowercase ‘c’ and a Marxist with an uppercase ‘M’ Climate Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs was blunt in his criticism of the Pope’s climate claims. “The Pope Is Wrong About Global Warming,” Briggs declared. “The Pope declared it would by ‘sad, and I dare say even catastrophic,’ were particular interests to prevail over the common good at the upcoming climate conference in Paris.” It would be sadder if we signed over to politicians even more control than they already have to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. That would really hurt The Poor™. So why does the Pope believe all these demonstrably false things? Bad advice, in part,” Briggs wrote in 2015. Related Links: Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate Flashback: The Climate Skeptic’s Guide To Pope Francis’: Talking Points About The Pope & Global Warming Pope is a ‘climate lobbyist’ – Listen Now: Morano: ‘Pope is serving as chief religious lobbyist for man-made global warming & UN’ Listen Now – Full 10 minute interview: Morano on the Pope on SRN News radio (9-23-15): ‘This is all about ideology and central planning and the Pope is now serving as the chief religious lobbyist for man-made global warming and the UN. And this is a very ill-conceived role for any pope to play. It’s hard to say the pope is being used, because he is willingly allowing himself to be used by the media and by the UN as a climate lobbyist.’ Pope turns lobbyist?! Urges prayers for passage of UN climate treaty! Tells faithful ‘to ask God for a positive outcome’ for Paris UN agreement – Pope Francis: ‘We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays.’ Climate Depot’s Marc Morano comment: “No matter how nuanced and faithful to Catholic teachings this encyclical attempts to be, this passage where the Pope urges Catholics to ‘ask God for a positive outcome’ to the current UN global warming treaty process, will overpower every other message. The Pope is clearly endorsing a specific UN political climate treaty and essentially declaring he is on a mission from God to support a UN climate treaty. He even conjures up the comical concept of climate ‘tipping points’.” See: Flashback: Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: Climate Depot Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global Warming ‘Tipping Points’ — Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium Bloomberg Pope poll shows climate lowest of all issues: Only 33% of Americans agree with Pope’s warmism – Bloomberg Poll: America Loves Pope Francis, But Not His Stance on Climate Change – Bloomberg Poll reveals 56% of U.S. Catholics believe the Pope’s ‘climate change’ push is a ‘bad direction’ for the church. Only 33% think it amounts to a ‘good direction.’ Study: Papal letter, Laudato Si’ fails to inspire Catholics on ‘climate change’ – “While Pope Francis’ environmental call may have increased some individuals’ concerns about climate change, it backfired with conservative Catholics and non-Catholics, who not only resisted the message but defended their pre-existing beliefs by devaluing the pope’s credibility on climate change,” says Nan Li, lead author of the study. Podesta Emails: ‘Pope Is the Real Deal’ on Climate THE POPE’S BOSS?! Wikileaks reveals Pope and Soros Forged An Unholy Alliance On ‘Global -‘In 2015, the Soros operatives, embedded in the Vatican, directed Pope Francis’ Environmental Agenda, by delivering for Soros and the UN, an Apostolic Exhortation on Climate Change, and a prized papal endorsement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Pope’s apostolic blessing on the Paris Climate Treaty. Soros won the environmental trifecta sealed and delivered by Pope Francis.’ Pope Maker: The Soros Syndicate Partners With Vatican to Promote UN Climate Agenda Pope Maker: The Soros Syndicate Partners With Vatican to Promote UN Climate Agenda – On March 13, 2013, Soros and his UN operatives understood that the climate instantly warmed and opportunities abounded with the new leftist Argentine pontiff. George Soros could not have imagined a more perfect partner on the world stage, one he has been searching for his entire career: a major religious leader pontificating as the moral authority for the environmental, borderless countries, mass migration, and pro-Islamic movements. Climate Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs: ‘The Pope Is Wrong About Global Warming’ – The Pope declared it would by “‘sad, and I dare say even catastrophic,’ were particular interests to prevail over the common good at the upcoming climate conference in Paris.” It would be sadder if we signed over to politicians even more control than they already have to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. That would really hurt The Poor™. So why does the Pope believe all these demonstrably false things? Bad advice, in part. Leonardo DiCaprio Meets With Pope Francis On ‘Need for Immediate Action on Climate Change’ Bjorn Lomborg: On climate change, Pope Francis isn’t listening to the world’s poor – Lomborg: ‘Those who claim to speak for the poor and say that climate change is the world’s top priority are simply wrong. The world has clearly said it is the least important of the 16 priorities the UN focuses on. And when those campaigners suggest the poor don’t know what’s best for them because carbon cuts will stop global warming from making all other problems worse, they’re wrong again. The poor are typically much better helped directly rather than via climate aid.’ No Consensus inside the Vatican: Skeptical Vatican Cardinal takes a swing at Pope’s climate encyclical: The Catholic Church has ‘no particular expertise in science’ – The Vatican’s financial chief, Cardinal George Pell, has taken the unusual step of criticizing Pope Francis’ groundbreaking environmental encyclical, arguing the Catholic Church has “no particular expertise in science.” Nearly 18 months after Pell was brought to the Vatican by Pope Francis and given a mandate to reform the city-state’s banking affairs, the Australian cardinal gave an interview to the Financial Times, whacking his boss’ landmark document. “It’s got many, many interesting elements. There are parts of it which are beautiful,” he said. “But the church has no particular expertise in science … the church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters. We believe in the autonomy of science,” Pell told the Financial Times. Cardinal George Pell on global warming: If it’s science, where’s the evidence? Kudos! A religious leader who gets it! Flashback 2006: Catholic Cardinal George Pell: ‘In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in Co2 emissions’ Claim: Pope Francis Part of Amicus Brief Filed in Support of Teen’s Landmark Climate Change Lawsuit Watch: Video of climate activists at Papal rally in DC reveals they don’t believe in God – ‘I’m more involved with the nature religions’ – ‘The best part, most of those in attendance didn’t even believe in God! And they certainly were not convinced by the Pope’s position on climate to think more critically about other matters faith and Catholic teaching, such as issues like abortion. If the Pope and the Vatican think that by taking a step closer to the left on climate change they would make people more open to serious matters of faith and morality, they are flat out wrong.’ UK Sun newspaper: Pope Francis committing ‘Holy Wrong’ – ‘He has no business banging on about climate change’ – ‘Stick to religion, Your Holiness’ Alabama’s climatologist Dr. John Christy: I would give the Pope some homework on global warming – Regs ‘will actually do nothing to change what the climate is going to do’ ‘We have never lived in better times’: Aussie Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer: Heaven and Hell, the Pope condemns the poor to eternal poverty – This book criticises the Encyclical and shows that we have never lived in better times, that cheap fossil fuel energy has and is continuing to bring hundreds of millions of people from peasant poverty to the middle class and that the alleged dangerous global warming is a myth. ‘Only when Third World children can do homework at night using cheap coal-fired electricity can they escape from poverty.’ Pope Francis, Vatican Officials and Climate Skeptics Have a Common Enemy in United Nations Global Warming Agenda Robert Redford: The Pope is right about climate change – Redford: ‘Flooding, drought, wildfires, and hurricanes – all you have to do is open your eyes to see the damage being done, and it’s going to get worse. We can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse for inaction. The jury is no longer out – climate change is real. It is not just a threat for the future, but happening here and now. And as Pope Francis so eloquently points out, climate change is a moral imperative that transcends politics.’ UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After Trump Event – SHREDDED UN Climate Treaty at Summit – Full Video of UN Climate Cops Shutting Down Skeptics Climate Report to UN: Trump right, UN wrong – Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Set to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda! Bjorn Lomborg: Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all – Clexit ‘will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’ – ‘So Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’

Religious studies professor: Ignoring climate change akin to ‘sin’

October 30, 2015

Via: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24764/ Professor Laurie Zoloth, who directs the Center for Bioethics, Science and Society at Northwestern’s School of Medicine also calls for sabbatical year from travel every seven years to allow Earth a rest – ‘no big conferences, no academic flying’ Professor Laurie Zoloth, ([email protected]) who directs the Center for Bioethics, Science and Society at Northwestern’s School of Medicine, told The College Fix that she agrees with the suggestionrecently made by the head of the Episcopal Church that ignoring climate change is “sinful.” “If you understand the science and its implications, and yet, you continue to live in such a way that your (Greenhouse Gas) emissions are LaurieZolothdestroying the capacity of the planet to be a safe place, I would say that your actions ‘miss the mark’ if your goal is to live a decent and just life,” Zoloth said. … When asked how her beliefs were similar to those of Pope Francis, Zoloth told The Fix that “Pope Francis discusses the moral imperative of climate change as a problem inherent in a wasteful, careless, and overwrought capitalism.” “I agree with him about his analysis of the issue, and about the debt to the poor that is created by the driven, competitive and wasteful society in which we live,” she said. # End Article Excerpt Climate Depot Comments: This linking of man-made global warming with religion another example in a long line of claims. Other high-profile global warming activists have used religion to persuade people to believe in a man-made climate crisis. Outgoing UN IPCC Chief reveals global warming ‘is my religion and my dharma’ – Pachauri’s resignation letter on religion: ‘For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.’ Pope Francis has also become active in climate change. The Climate Skeptic’s Guide To Pope Francis’ U.S. Visit: Talking Points About The Pope & Global Warming & Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate Repent Ye Sinners to Stop Bad Weather! Wash Post features theologian Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite urging us to ‘repent’ for our ‘sin’ of causing Typhoon Haiyan due to the ‘moral evil of climate change denial’ – ‘Suffering and the sin of climate change denial’ WRATH OF GOD ON CLIMATE SKEPTICS: NYT Warmist Paul Krugman to those whose ‘deny’ global warming: ‘May you be punished in the afterlife for doing so’ — Calls ‘denial’ an ‘almost inconceivable sin’ Actor Harrison Ford revealed his Earth based religious beliefs in the new Showtime global warming series featuring Hollywood celebrities by James Cameron. Ford explained in the series: “I needed something outside of myself to believe in and I found in nature a kind of God.” Ford has already been under criticism for a lifestyle not conducive to low carbon ideals. See: Harrison Ford flies around the world for the climate alarm in new Showtime climate series. Ford has admitted to huge carbon footprint “sins.” In 2010, Ford conceded that “I often fly up the coast for a cheeseburger.” Reviews for the celebrity filled Showtime series have been less than stellar. See: ‘When it comes to issues like the climate, James Cameron is just batsh*t crazy’ – says Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl & NYT OpED: ‘If you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change’ from Showtime Ford’s comments about his belief in nature as “a kind of God,” reaffirms what critics of the global warming movement have been saying for years, that environmental activism is a religious belief for many. The late author Michael Crichton stated: “Environmentalism is a religion.” Crichton wrote: “Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.” Crichton added: “There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.” Catholic Cardinal George Pell has noted: “In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in Co2 emissions.” Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer recently declared climate change is not political, it’s a ‘religion.’ The book of revelation type claims made in the movie Ghostbusters has even been compared to the modern global warming movement. See: ‘The dead rising from the grave!’ Global warming claims imitate scene from 1984 comedy ‘Ghostbusters’ – ‘A disaster of biblical proportions…real wrath of God type stuff’ Global warming religion advances: ‘Sin, guilt, tithes, penance, punishment, sacrifice, and now we have the sacred peer-reviewed scriptures’ – Climate Depot’s Exclusive Round up of Religion climate claims Real Science website: – ‘Only the inspired writings of the great prophets Mann and Hansen shall be read, and never by the lay folk’ ‘The global warming cult wants to criminalize non-belief in their CO2-centric religion. Mankind as center of the universe’ Repent Ye Sinners to Stop Bad Weather! Wash Post features theologian Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite urging us to ‘repent’ for our ‘sin’ of causing Typhoon Haiyan due to the ‘moral evil of climate change denial’ – ‘Suffering and the sin of climate change denial’ WRATH OF GOD ON CLIMATE SKEPTICS: NYT Warmist Paul Krugman to those whose ‘deny’ global warming: ‘May you be punished in the afterlife for doing so’ — Calls ‘denial’ an ‘almost inconceivable sin’ Catholic Cardinal George Pell: ‘In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in Co2 emissions’ ‘Faith-Based IPCC Turns Science into Sin’ – ‘Climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith, and not science’ – ’The First Church of Climate Change needs a reformation. According to its leaders, we peasants are no more qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science than the serfs of medieval Europe were qualified to understand the mysterious motions of the heavens. And so we are told to put our faith in the modern-day version of the papal astronomer and to never, ever question the word of the educated elite. To do so would be heresy, a sin that has the most heinous of consequences.’ Analysis: ‘Blaming storms on human industry is as backward as blaming them on gays’ – ‘The eco-hysteria of blaming mankind for the floods’ Esquire Mag. joins doomsday cult: ‘How We’re Fked As A Species’ – ‘Centuries from now, when the several remaining humans are huddled around a dwindling fire and pondering how each of them will kill the others and eat their still-warm flesh’ Watch Now: Charles Krauthammer: Climate change is not political, it’s a ‘religion’ UN high priest of global warming Christiana Figueres describes her job as “sacred” Forget Christmas Cheer, it’s End Times!? Scientists: ‘Here’s How Earth Could Really End’ — Cite ‘global warming’ as ‘the biggest threat of all!’ Al Gore on the Weather: ‘Every night on the news now, practically, is like a nature hike through the book of Revelations’ ‘Faith-Based Climate Astrology’: ‘Events which used to be called ‘acts of God’ or Mother Nature, are now being blamed on mankind’s emissions of a trace essential gas (CO2) in the atmosphere that we exhale from our mouths’ End Times: Peace Prof. Michael Klare in Salon Mag. ‘If earth continues heating at its exponential rate, our post-apocalyptic fantasies could become everyday realities’ — ‘We envision rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising sea levels…food riots, mass starvation, state collapse, mass migrations, and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could prove even more disruptive and deadly…persistent drought and hunger will force millions of people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns’ Repent Ye Sinners to Stop Bad Weather! Wash Post features theologian Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite urging us to ‘repent’ for our ‘sin’ of causing Typhoon Haiyan due to the ‘moral evil of climate change denial’ – ‘Suffering and the sin of climate change denial’ WRATH OF GOD ON CLIMATE SKEPTICS: NYT Warmist Paul Krugman to those whose ‘deny’ global warming: ‘May you be punished in the afterlife for doing so’ — Calls ‘denial’ an ‘almost inconceivable sin’ Huffington Post: Earthquake/Hurricane Caused By The Wrath Of The CO2 God: ‘God is very disappointed with humanity for leaving the gas on in our home planet. it’s dangerous, wasteful, and wrong’ UK Prof. Philip Stott: ‘From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness’ Physicist Dr. Will Happer Compares Global Warming Craze to Aztec Human Sacrifices: What Climate Scientists Can Learn From The Aztecs: ‘Like the Aztecs, many scientists believe that sacrificial offerings are necessary to stabilize climate’ ‘At last, consensus: The Aztecs, the Mayans, and Time Magazine all agree that humans must make sacrifices to avoid droughts’ Does Sacrifice Appease The Sun? ‘This is an age old idea used by Aztecs. It was well known at the time that global warming was ubiquitous and caused by a lack of human blood being spilled’ — Today, ‘politicians now take a more subtle approach to human sacrifice. By raising energy prices, they can freeze people to death silently in their homes, which has the same effect of appeasing the CO2 gods’ Michael Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion: ’Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.’ – ‘There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.’ ‘Naked Girls plow parched fields in a bid to embarrass weather gods to bring badly needed monsoon rain’ – ‘Chant ancient hymns after sunset to invoke the gods’ in India – July 24, 2009 [Editor’s Note: The ‘naked’ farm girls attempt to control the climate is as plausible as President Obama’s G8 Pledge to limit the Earth’s Temps. In fact, Climate Depot votes for the “naked farm girls” to have a much better chance of succeeding than Obama and the G8 leaders.] Kenya’s rainmakers — using trees, pots and herbs — called to combat climate change – – ‘Kenya’s Nganyi rainmakers [have] long vilified as sorcerers…the magic of their art involves the sacrifice of animals and libations in secret forest shrines…” – September 20, 2009 [Editor’s Note: Once again, as plausible as Obama’s G8 temperature pledge. In fact, Climate Depot votes for the ritual animal sacrifices and “libations” of Kenya’s rainmakers to have a much better chance of succeeding than Obama and the Western G8 leaders.] ‘Prayers offered to appease rain god…people of different faiths offered special prayers to propitiate rain god’ – The Hindu – June 26, 2009 ‘The dead rising from the grave!’ Global warming claims imitate scene from 1984 comedy ‘Ghostbusters’ – ‘A disaster of biblical proportions…real wrath of God type stuff’ #

The Climate Skeptic’s Guide To Pope Francis’ U.S. Visit: Talking Points About The Pope & Global Warming

September 21, 2015

Also see: Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate CLIMATE DEPOT SPECIAL REPORT CLIMATE OF FAITH: Talking Points about Pope Francis’ Climate Encyclical Full PDF Report Available Here: Do Catholics have to believe in man-made global warming in order to be good Catholics? No. The Pope’s view on climate science and its alleged “solutions” are not part of the faith and moral teachings of the church. When the Pope speaks on climate change, he is not speaking authoritatively on Catholic doctrine. He is merely offering his opinion. Catholics are not bound to follow the Pope’s view on global warming. Is climate change a part of Catholic teachings now? No. Climate change is not part of Catholic doctrine. It is just another political issue to be debated among Catholics and the general public. The Federalist’s Rachel Lu: “The pontiff clearly has high authority to speak (at least to Catholics) on questions of faith and morals, but when it comes to predictive pronouncements on the Earth’s climate, he is not a definitive expert. Nor does he claim that mantle in Laudato Si.” Does the Pope’s encyclical present accurate climate science? No. Noted climate statistician Dr. William Briggs was blunt in his assessment. “Most of the scientific claims cited in Pope’s encyclical are not true,” Briggs said. “For example, the claim that the world’s temperature has been increasing is demonstrably false: it hasn’t, and not for almost two decades. Another is the claim that storms are increasing in size and strength: also false; indeed, the opposite is true. Another is the claim that thousands of species are going extinct: false, and easily proved to be so,” Briggs added. Who is advising Pope Francis? Sadly, there has been nothing short of an “Unholy Alliance” between the Vatican and promoters of man-made climate fear. The Vatican advisors can only be described as a brew of anti-capitalist, pro-population control advocates who allow no dissent and who are way out of the mainstream of even the global warming establishment. Regrettably, the Vatican only listened to extreme voices within the climate movement with whom even other climate activists are not comfortable. Many of the Vatican’s key climate advisors have promoted policies directly at odds with Catholic doctrine and beliefs on such issues as population, contraceptives, abortion, and euthanasia. But despite these advisors, “Population control is condemned at some length, and in no uncertain terms, in the encyclical itself,” as The Federalist’s Rachel Lu points out. See: Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate Did the Vatican allow a climate debate at the Vatican before the encyclical was issued? No, none at all. In fact, the Vatican went out of its way to exclude skeptics from participating in their meetings. The Vatican banned a skeptical French scientist from its climate summit. The scientist who was invited then uninvited said the reason was that the Vatican “did not want to hear an off note” during the summit with UN officials. Is the Pope hoping to use the encyclical to bring Catholic teachings to the secular environmental Left? Father Dwight Longnecker explains the strategy behind the encyclical: “The Pope successfully integrates a theology of creation into the ecology debate. He affirms, as so many environmentalists affirm, that ‘all things are connected.’ In doing so he then connects the rights of the unborn, the needs of the poor, the rights of immigrants, the needs of the elderly and disabled, and the rightful demands of the workers.” Many non-Catholics who are interested in reading the Papal encyclical will learn about Catholic teaching on a host of moral issues that they have probably have never been willing to listen to before. There is a lot in this encyclical that the global warming establishment will not like. For example, warmists will be challenged by Pope Francis when he states that it is “incoherent” to be concerned with climate change while at the same time supporting abortion. The Pope’s strategy may be working. None other than Al Gore is being swayed. Gore said: “I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, I could become a Catholic because of this Pope. He is that inspiring to me.” Should Catholics ask God for a successful outcome to the UN climate summit in Paris? No. But Pope Francis did summon a lobbying tone when he urged prayers for the passage of a UN climate treaty, specifically exhorting Catholics “to ask God for a positive outcome” for a Paris UN agreement. Pope Francis: “We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays.” So no matter how nuanced and faithful to Catholic teachings this encyclical seeks to be, the Pope urging Catholics to “ask God for a positive outcome” to the current UN global warming treaty process will overpower every other message. The Pope is essentially endorsing a specific UN political climate treaty and implying that God is smiling upon the treaty process. Is the state of the planet as dire as Laudato Si claims? No. The Pope’s general point that man has a moral duty to care for creation is traditional Catholic moral teaching. However, Catholics need not agree with his encyclical’s opinion on the dire state of the planet. The Pope declared in the encyclical: “The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.” But Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, responded: “If the pope from 300 years ago could see our world today, he’d say it was actually cleaner and healthier than his own era.” Another climate skeptic responded: “We live in luxury that even kings a few centuries ago could only dream of. You only have to look at the filth and squalor in which previous generations lived to know that most people in the past would have given anything to be born now.” As FrontPageMag.com noted in its article “Sorry Pope Francis, the State of the Planet Is Getting Better,” “If it’s covered in trash, it’s a strange kind of trash that has caused global crop yields to increase by 160% since 1961 and deaths from droughts to be reduced by 99.8% since the 1920s. It’s an odd kind of ‘mistreatment’ of the planet over the life of the Industrial Revolution that’s resulted in the global life expectancy rising from 26 years in 1750 to 69 years in 2009. This is in spite of the fact that Earth’s population increased from 760 million to 6.8 billion and incomes (in real dollars) rose from $640 to $7,300 during the same period.” Doesn’t the encyclical discuss other things besides climate? Yes. In fact, climate is a very small part of it, less than 2%. But it was the focus of intense media coverage. The Federalist‘s Rachel Lu points out: “It’s very misleading to refer to Laudato Si as ‘the climate change encyclical.’ Climate change is one of a variety of environmental problems with which the pontiff is concerned, but even his general interest in the environment is embedded within a broader critique of modernity.” If the encyclical essentially has clauses that allow for debate, why is there such a media uproar? The encyclical has many carefully worded clauses and caveats, but key newsworthy parts were the Pope’s foray into climate science and his alignment with a UN climate treaty. How does the Pope link economics and climate change together? Some observers have speculated that the Pope’s South American poverty perspective makes him very suspicious of modern capitalism, and thus more open to the centralized planning ideas of the UN climate agenda. A leader of the UN IPCC stated that their goal is to “redistribute wealth” by climate policy. By contrast, Pope John Paul II grew up in Soviet-dominated Poland and saw what centralized planning and restrictions did to human liberty and development. Are Catholic climate skeptics still in good standing with the Church? Yes. The Pope’s opinion on scientific and economic matters is not the same as his authority on issues of faith and morals. Climate skeptics can agree with his teaching that we have a moral duty to care for creation without agreeing about man’s impact on climate change. Is there a ‘consensus’ inside the Vatican on global warming? No. There is major climate dissent inside the Vatican. Skeptical Vatican Cardinal George Pell took a swing at the Pope’s climate encyclical, declaring the Catholic Church has “no particular expertise in science.” Pell, who now serves at the head of the Vatican bank, declared in 2006: “In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in CO2 emissions.” How did previous popes deal with the issue of global warming? Previous popes allowed debate and dissent. In 2007, during the tenure of Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican hosted a climate summit through the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and invited many different perspectives in the climate debate to participate. The 2007 event included atmospheric physicist and climate skeptic Dr. Fred Singer, skeptic and theologian Dr. E Calvin Beisner, and the climate skeptic president of the World Federation of Scientists, Dr. Antonio Zichichi. In 2007, Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, sought out different perspectives on climate change. Also in 2007, Pope Benedict was on record denouncing the type of alarmist activists that Pope Francis invited into the Vatican in 2015. Pope Benedict condemned what he termed the “climate change prophets of doom.” Does Pope Francis have a degree in chemistry? Via the myth-busting Snopes.com: This claim is “false.” “According to the pontiff’s official biography on the Vatican’s web site, Pope Francis ‘graduated as a chemical technician’ before entering the priesthood, received a degree in philosophy and theology from the Colegio de San José in San Miguel … the only mention of the Pope’s chemistry education was the notation that he graduated as a ‘chemical technician’; whether his training constituted the equivalent of a university degree, and where he undertook that course of study, was not specified.” The Pope relies on UN science claims to promote climate action. How reputable is the UN IPCC? The UN IPCC is a political organization masquerading as a “science” body. Many UN lead authors have now resigned from the IPCC or had their names removed due to the politicization of science to fit the climate “narrative.” The former chief of the UN IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, declared global warming “is my religion.” Former Thatcher advisor and climate skeptic Christopher Monckton explains: “It is not the business of the Pope to stray from the field of faith and morals and wander into the playground that is science. Do not invite only one narrow and boisterous scientific viewpoint that has been repeatedly discredited as events and the science and the data have unfolded.” Why are skeptics in an uproar over the Pope’s climate actions? Climate skeptics have been shut out of the debate by the Vatican, and opponents have exploited and exaggerated the Pope’s support of their side to use his influence. Having a pope personally lobby for a UN agreement and hype climate fears is confusing to Catholics who may falsely believe one’s views on climate change and alleged “solutions” are now part of being a good Catholic. A major difference in what this pope has done versus previous popes is that he is taking the extra step of endorsing a UN climate treaty. This is a game changer from previous popes and previous Vatican statements on climate. It is especially frustrating for Catholic skeptics to be pitted against the Pope on climate issues because their political opponents disagree with him on just about all of the moral issues raised in the encyclical, but they have ignored their disagreement to “cherry pick” this one issue. Why are many Catholic pro-life activists upset at the Vatican’s climate campaign? Many pro-life activists believe the Vatican is aligning itself with a UN climate agenda that is at odds with major aspects of Catholic teachings and doctrine. The UN’s climate agenda includes heavy doses of development restrictions, promotion of contraceptives, population control, abortions, etc. Despite these strange bedfellows, the encyclical is clear in condemning abortion, contraception, and population control. Pro-life activists believe the Pope is causing Catholics who oppose climate fear predictions and UN “solutions” to feel as if they are not properly following their faith. Will the Pope’s endorsement of the UN climate agenda harm the world’s poor? Yes. The Vatican is being misled on development and poverty issues as they relate to “climate change.” The Vatican’s well placed and long established concern for the developing world’s poor is being hijacked by a radical UN agenda that seeks to prevent life-saving fossil fuel energy development in the world’s poorest regions. The Pope’s concern that climate-change impacts are going to harm the world’s poor the most was entirely misplaced. Preventing poverty-stricken nations of the world from obtaining affordable and plentiful fossil fuels means they cannot develop and thus insulate themselves from climate change whether it be man-made or natural. The Pope’s claim that “it is man who has slapped nature in the face” needs to be weighed against the fact that fossil fuels have allowed mankind to stop nature from slapping man in the face. The more we develop with fossil fuels and increase our wealth and standard of living, the more we can inoculate ourselves from the ravages of nature. Centrally planning energy economics by restricting fossil fuels due to unfounded climate fears in the developing world is immoral. The Vatican and the Pope should be arguing that fossil fuels are the “moral choice” for the developing world for people who don’t have running water, electricity, or other basic needs. Is the case for man-made global warming getting stronger or weaker? The science behind man-made global warming fears is actually weakening considerably. The 97% “consensus” claims are a fallacy – studies by UN lead authors now say such 97% claims are “pulled out of thin air” with no basis in fact. Extreme weather was stable or declining on almost every measure, and global temperatures have been in a standstill for over 18 years. On everything from sea levels to polar bears, the climate narrative is failing. In addition, prominent scientists (many politically left) who used to believe in man-made global warming fears are now reversing themselves and becoming skeptics, including many UN scientists. # Related Links: Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate Watch: Morano ‘talks’ to (Cardboard) Pope on TV: ‘We are asking you to reconsider. Please don’t confuse Catholics…you have been horribly misled by extreme UN advisors’ Pope at White House compares action on climate change to Martin Luther King Climate Depot’s Mission to Rome – Persuading the The Vatican on ‘Climate Change’ Climate Depot’s Mission to Rome – Persuading the The Vatican – VATICAN HEAVIES SILENCE ‘CLIMATE HERETICS’ AT UN PAPAL SUMMIT IN ROME Climate Skeptics In Rome Warn Pope Francis of ‘Unholy Alliance’ With UN Climate Agenda – More on Heartland Institute’s sponsored skeptical trip to Rome here. Watch Now: Marc Morano’s Presentation in Rome to Vatican – April 28, 2015 Watch video here: Marc Morano, executive editor and chief correspondent at ClimateDepot.com, gives a presentation at The Heartland Institute’s climate science and policy event outside the Vatican on April 28, 2015. Watch Now: Morano in lively TV climate debate with enviro lobbyist: ‘The points she just made are demonstrably not true’ Watch: The Uncomfortable Pause; Warmist EDF climate expert explains lack of global warming: ‘I, the, yeh, uhh…’

Climate Depot’s Mission to Rome – Persuading the The Vatican on ‘Climate Change’

May 1, 2015

When the Vatican made the announcement that it would be hosting a climate summit on very short notice, Climate Depot sprang into action. As a Catholic and a climate skeptic, I was following closely Pope Francis views and policy recommendations. I had already written an OpEd in January and did a Fox News segment on the Holy Father’s climate views and proposals. If the Vatican gives its rubber stamp to UN science claims and ‘solutions’, a climate change misled and confused public would be certain to follow. The Pope’s involvement in this issue has the potential to massively mislead not only the world’s Catholics, but other religious people as well. And the pressure was on. See: Vatican Climate Workshop Pressures Pope Francis to Go ‘Full Warmist’ Upon hearing of the Vatican climate summit, CFACT began arranging for my travel to Rome to join up with a delegation of skeptics with the Heartland Institute. Here is a report of the key points made: Climate Skeptics In Rome Warn Pope Francis of ‘Unholy Alliance’ With UN Climate Agenda The mission proved to be an overwhelming success. The skeptical delegation helped re-frame the entire Vatican/Pope Francis narrative to point out that Catholics worldwide may be weary of an activist climate Pope aligned with a UN agenda. The skeptics helped publicize an Open Letter to Francis. (See: Skeptics Deliver An Open Letter to Pope Francis) The Vatican is now on notice through worldwide media that any encyclical or lobbying activities of Pope Francis on ‘global warming’ will be met with vociferous and well-reasoned arguments, both scientific, economic and religious. There was talk that many of the establishment media were disappointed with the Vatican climate statement released following the summit at the Vatican. Perhaps the large skeptical presence on hand in Rome prompted the Vatican to pull back some of the more extreme climate claims. See: Environmental Statement by Vatican Does Not Meet Media Expectations But the one-day Vatican climate summit still produced many worrisome claims that were quickly denounced by scientists. See: Scientist Dr. William Briggs on Vatican climate report: ‘They have some real whoppers in their summary document’ And the economics of the Vatican report were also to the extreme: Vatican Paper: Ditch Capitalism To Stop Global Warming Climate Depot’s mission was to make a public appeal to the Vatican to consider several key points: Persuade the Vatican to allow more than one view to advise its views and policies: Please allow open debate with multiple viewpoints present at the summit and in seeking out advisors on the science of ‘global warming.’ There has been not even been a ‘consensus’ on climate change within the Vatican itself. In 2007, during Pope Benedict XVI tenure, the Vatican hosted a climate summit through Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and invited many different perspectives in the climate debate to participate. The 2007 event included Atmospheric Physicist and climate skeptic Dr. Fred Singer and Cal Beisner and the President of the World Federation of Scientists Dr. Antonio Zichichi. In addition, senior Vatican officials are on record as being major climate skeptics. Cardinal George Pell who now serves at the head of the Vatican bank declared in 2006: See: Catholic Cardinal George Pell: ‘In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in Co2 emissions’ And in 2011, Pell wrote an essay and delivered a speech on his skepticism. In 2007, Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, sought out more than one perspective on climate change causes and impacts. Also in 2007, Pope Benedict was also on record denouncing the type of fear mongering activists that Pope Francis invited into the Vatican in 2015. See Flashback 2007: Pope Benedict condemns the climate change prophets of doom My goal was to inform the world through media coverage that the Vatican was being misled by only listening to the heavily politicized UN climate view. The Vatican and Pope Francis were not allowing dissent or alternative perspectives to be heard – and the voices they chose to hear were not even within the mainstream of the global warming establishment. The Vatican was ONLY listening to extreme voices within the climate movement that even other climate activists were not comfortable with. Many of the Vatican’s key climate advisors promoted policies directly at odds with Catholic doctrine and beliefs. The proceedings of the workshop included activists like Naomi Oreskes, Peter Wadhams, Martin Rees, Hans-Jochim Schellhuber, Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph Stiglitz. Jeffrey Sachs, a UN special advisor UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. Sachs tweeted on November 10 that ‘Climate liars like Rupert Murdoch & Koch Brothers have more & more blood on their hands as climate disasters claim lives across the world.” Peter Wadhams is a scientist that even his fellow global warming advocates distance themselves from. See: Warmists attack fellow warmist Prof. Peter Wadhams for ‘using graphs with ridiculous projections with no basis in physics’ German climate adviser Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber was also at the Vatican climate presentation in 2014. Does Pope Francis want to align himself with Schellnhuber’s views? See: Flashback 2009: German Climate Advisor Schellnhuber ‘proposes creation of a CO2 budget for every person on planet!’ Naomi Oreskes is known for advocating climate skeptics who dissent from the UN/Gore climate alarmist view be prosecuted as mobsters! See: Merchants of Smear: Prosecute Skeptics Like Gangsters?! Warmist Naomi Oreskes likes the idea of having climate ‘deniers’ prosecuted under the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). My intention was to inform the media and the Vatican that relying on the UN as its source of climate ‘science’ was doing a disservice to the world’s Catholics. During press conferences, presentations, interviews and discussion, I was able to offer evidence that the UN IPCC was a political organization masquerading as a ‘science’ body. I cited UN lead authors who have now resigned the IPCC or had their names removed due to the bastardization of the science for political purposes in order to fit the climate ‘narrative.’ I made the key point during the Roman mission to point out that having Pope Francis publicly promote one narrow UN climate panel view of climate change and promote a specific political UN climate agreement would sow confusion among Catholics and be an unprecedented step for a Pontiff. I noted that having a Pope personally lobby for a UN agreement and hype climate fears would confuse Catholics into believing the ones views on climate change and alleged ‘solutions’ are now part of being a good Catholic. The Vatican aligning itself with a UN climate agenda was at odds with major aspects of Catholic teachings and doctrine. The UN’s climate agenda includes heavy doses of development restrictions, promotion of contraceptives, population control, abortions, etc. (Note: Whatever your own views are on these issues, they are at odds with Catholic doctrine.) The Pope was facing the danger of making those Catholics worldwide, who opposed climate fear predictions and UN ‘solutions’, feel like they were not following their faith. The Vatican was being misled on development and poverty issues as they relate to ‘climate change.’ The Vatican’s well placed and long established concern for the developing world’s poor was being hijacked by a radical UN agenda that seeks to prevent life-saving fossil fuel energy development in the world’s poorest regions. The Pope’s concern that ‘climate change’ impacts were going to harm the world’s poor the most was entirely misplaced. Preventing the poverty stricken nations of the world from obtaining cheap and plentiful fossil fuels meant they could not develop and thus insulate themselves from ‘climate change’ whether it be man-made or natural. “The Pope’s claim that “It is man who has slapped nature in the face” needs to be weighed against the fact that fossil fuels have allowed mankind to stop nature from slapping man in the face. The more we develop with fossil fuels and increase our wealth and standard of living, the more we can inoculate ourselves from the ravages of nature. The key point I made repeatedly was that centrally planning energy economics by restricting fossil fuels due to unfounded climate fears in the development world was ‘immoral’. The science behind man-made global warming fears is actually weakening considerably. I noted the 97% ‘consensus’ fallacy by citing studies by UN lead authors who now say such claims are “pulled out of thin air” with no basis in fact. I noted how extreme weather was stable or declining on almost every measure and noted how global temperatures were in a standstill for over 18 years and everything from sea levels to polar bears, the climate narrative was failing. I also noted how prominent scientists (many politically left) who used to believe in man-made global warming fears were now reversing themselves, including many UN scientists. The Results of Climate Depot’s Vatican Trip: Extensive media coverage of Climate Depot’s two press conferences and questions inside the Vatican summit appeared in nearly every major news outlet in the world. From the New York Times, to USA Today, UK Guardian, UK Independent, Associated Press, The Boston Globe, Scientific American, Houston Chronicle, Washington Post, etc. Climate Depot’s Vatican mission was reported on around the world. Small sampling of international media coverage: New York Times Features Climate Depot: Morano: ‘Climate change issues are now an article of faith’ – Wash. Post features Climate Depot as part of ‘skeptical delegation’ at Vatican – Morano: ‘The global warming narrative has weakened’ – UK Independent features Climate Depot: Vatican interrupted by ‘papal heavies’ half-way through making their point – Scientific American features Morano at the Vatican – National Catholic Reporter features Climate Depot: Skeptics issues strong, blunt warnings to Pope Francis – Climate Depot’s Vatican trip prompts editorial reference in NYT: ‘Much to the dismay of some conservatives, he is confronting human-caused global warming’ – USA Today features Climate Depot: Pope lobbying for a UN climate treaty is an ‘unprecedented action and massively misguided’ Attending the climate summit inside the Vatican City and meeting, asking questions of UN Sec. General Ban Ki Moon with Vatican staff and making it known that climate skeptics were numerous and articulate. The rude treatment we received, including the threat to remove us for asking inconvenient question of the UN Sec. General was further testament to our effectiveness. See: VATICAN HEAVIES SILENCE ‘CLIMATE HERETICS’ AT UN PAPAL SUMMIT IN ROME & Vatican to skeptic asking question at conference: ‘You have to control yourself or you will be escorted out of here.’ The Vatican mission by Climate Depot was so successful that climate activist organization like Media Matters (funded by George Soros) were beside themselves with angst at how effective and well-heard the skeptics delegation was around the world in the media. See: Skeptics in Rome so successful that warmist Media Matters laments: ‘Mainstream Media Advance Climate Science Deniers’ Misinformation Campaign Against The Pope’ Climate Depot is far from finished on this ‘unholy alliance’ between Vatican and the United Nations climate agenda. Climate Depot will be ready with a rapid response when the Pope’s climate encyclical comes out sometime in late Spring or Summer. Climate Depot will be on hand in New York City in September at UN headquarters when the Pope essentially lobbies the UN for a climate agreement. Climate Depot will be on hand when the Pope and President Obama meet about ‘global warming. (See: Obama Plans to Discuss Climate Change With Pope Francis) And Climate Depot will be in Paris in December when President Obama and Sec. of State John Kerry intend to sign a new UN climate accord. Related Links: VATICAN HEAVIES SILENCE ‘CLIMATE HERETICS’ AT UN PAPAL SUMMIT IN ROME Climate Depot Round Up: Vatican & UN’s shut down of dissent is increasing in climate debate Warmists ‘are trying to clear out any remaining roadblocks’ to EPA regs and UN treaty Climate Skeptics In Rome Warn Pope Francis of ‘Unholy Alliance’ With UN Climate Agenda Climate Skeptics Descend on Vatican – Seek to Influence Pope on ‘Global Warming’

Search Results for: Cardinal pell – Page 2