Addressing the UN Climate Summit on behalf of the Holy See, the Vatican’s Secretary of State did not offer specific policy proposals but emphasized that the international community has a …
CLIMATE CHANGE!? COME ON! More important issues to focus on but whatever…
Poor choice of words??? Good stewards of the Earth might be better…
I could not agree more with the Church that we should be good stewards of the environment. However when they align themselves with the charlatans ,socialists and anti-capitalist who make up the modern AGW movement it greatly diminishes their message.
If Cardinal Parolin thought this issue was so unimportant he would not have addressed the Summit and would not have made the statement he did. And since he was acting in his capacity as Vatican Secretary of State, the views he expressed were not just his own personal views. You can’t dismiss this subject that easily.
I’m very happy to see this. It’s nothing new, and completely consistent with our teachings. I hope we are not so clouded with political partisanship that we ignore the facts simply to avoid being on the side of Those Darn Liberals.
I disagree that global warming is not important. If the conclusion of virtually every climate scientist in the world is correct, it threatens all life on this planet! Choosing NOT to act would be foolish. If every scientist is wrong, at least we’ve taken good action towards cleaning up our environment and being good stewards of God’s creation. it’s a win-win situation either way, and it boggles my mind how vigorously some fight against this. :shrug:
If we trust some politician more than we trust the Holy See… well… it might be something to meditate on in prayer.
Yes, it IS important. But why do we talk about that instead of far more pressing issues such as abortion? Yes, we should be environmentally friendly but I don’t like it when people say to be a good catholic you must fight global warming, ect.
By “people” I assume you mean Cardinal Parolin? (Those pesky Cardinals, trying to tell us what we should do!)
If abortion is the most pressing issue, why not jump on all those who are discussing tax policy, or minimum wage, or India’s Mars mission, or students walking out of Denver schools, or Adrian Peterson, or GOP candidates move to the middle? These topics and more fill the pages of CAF. If climate change is off limits because it is not as important as abortion, then all these others topics should be off limits too for the same reason, and the only thing that would be discussed here is abortion.
Whatever Happened to Global Warming?
Now come climate scientists’ implausible explanations for why the ‘hiatus’ has passed the 15-year mark.
Sept. 4, 2014 7:20 p.m. ET
“…In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades.”
“…The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.”
One wonders what the good cardinal reads. Certainly not the threads on CAF or he would know there are plenty of scientific studies that compete with the MMGW theories and studies. Possibly he doesn’t know there has been no global warming in the 21st Century.
Regardless, the difficulty I have with pronouncements like this made by churchmen is that while their intentions may be meritorious, they don’t take responsibility for the political specifics that often follow alleged consensus opinions about this or that problem.
So, what’s to be done? The cardinal doesn’t say. Does he favor making utility bills “skyrocket” for the poor and elderly? I wouldn’t think so, but that’s where the political part of it comes in, because that is precisely this administration’s intention. What will the cardinal think if poor and elderly people suffer from the cold or get sick because of a lack of refrigeration? What will he think if food becomes much more expensive and people suffer because of it? Will he still be for acting to mitigate MMGW that hasn’t actually occurred for some 17 or 18 years now?
One remembers the churchmen in the U.S. who supported “universal healthcare”, or what they thought it would be under Obamacare, only to find that they had supported things like forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy abortifacients; that it’s a long way from being “universal” and that it’s a job-killer. One wonders how they could have failed to see those evils coming before endorsing a political position.
One expects churchmen to be soft-hearted and to want to avert things that cause human suffering. But one is inclined to at least want them to look forward to see what the political ramifications of their expressions might be and be a bit more careful about what they say.
Are they going to do more harm to people than good? Do they think that through at all? When I see things like this, I am inclined to think they often do not.
Facelift Gym is really a truly easy to utilize item. You join the vibrating hubs to the glue cushions and turn them on. They will work for a couple of minutes, amid which time you will feel a slight vibration underneath your eyes. This last roughly 10 minutes and ought to be utilized to three times each week. After you mishandle the item, then apply the cooling gel cover for an alternate 10 to 20 minutes, to permit recuperating to happen and to chill the zone.
Alright, let me say what i meant by that. I meant that global warming is NOT an issue because it does not exist. I am open to discussing it, but from what I can tell, the science of global warming faulty. But his general his pro environment stand is good. Enviromental friendliness is a great topic, but climate change itself is really not an issue.
Well, until well into the 17th century the Church and its theologians and philosophers backed a geocentric explanation of the universe, " In 1664, Pope Alexander VII published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus (Index of Prohibited Books, published by order of Alexander VII, P.M.) which included all previous condemnations of heliocentric books.
In the mid-eighteenth century the Church’s opposition began to fade. An annotated copy of Newton’s Principia was published in 1742 by Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims, two Catholic mathematicians, with a preface stating that the author’s work assumed heliocentrism and could not be explained without the theory. In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books. Pope Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome. "
And until well into the 19th century even scientists themselves were convinced that there was a mysterious substance called " aether. " " According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The truth is there is no proof that man causes " climate change " or that man can do anything to change it.
Quotes are from Wikipedia but well documented.
What do you think is more likely? That the Vatican sent Cardinal Parolin to address the climate summit not as well-versed in the science as CAF posters? Or that those CAF posters just have it wrong?
And it should be noted that he left the solution to these problems up to the prudential judgment of Catholics. He said nothing about needing higher taxes, more regulation, banning fracking or any are the other drastic solutions AGW alarmist promote.
Did he present evidence that there had been warming in the last 18 years?
Obama preaches junk science at UN
Professor Rossiter defects
Cal Thomas features the Depot
Yesterday President Obama presented a junk science laundry list to the UN General Assembly.
The President attributed naturally occurring floods, wildfires, hurricanes, drought and sea level rise to climate change, apparently ignorant of the fact that all of the above have been occurring at historically normal, to even below normal rates.
I wonder if President Obama knows that there has been no warming this century?
Dr. Caleb Rossiter, on the other hand, is a liberal Democrat who understands that science is science – no matter what your political persuasion.
Dr. Rossiter granted an exclusive interview to Marc Morano for CFACT’s Climate Hustle film project in which he told Marc:
“My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe.”
“Obama has long been delusional on this issue.”
“Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves.”
For daring to present his findings about the climate, Professor Rossiter was booted out of a 23 year association with the Institute for Policy Studies. This is the kind of retaliation academics who speak honestly about the climate have come to expect. The global warming campaign is well aware of the chilling effect such actions have on the debate.
Marc has extensive excerpts from the interview and background at Climate Depot.
Cal Thomas has been following CFACT’s activities at the New York climate summit and cited Climate Depot’s reporting when he explained that the media has largely ignored the crazy, hard Left rhetoric that was everywhere on display at the “people’s climate march.” Watch now.
I’m proud of the work CFACT’s team has been doing in Manhattan.
The more people learn the facts about global warming, the less they accept it.
That is what the global warming propaganda machine fears most.
For nature and people too,
A false choice.
I don’t know any more than you do, what was in the Cardinal’s mind. Nor do either of us know who, if anyone, in “the Vatican” dispatched him or knew precisely what he had to say. “Vatican spokesmen” have a way of speaking their own minds at times.
What I did intend to suggest is what I said:
a. That we really don’t know what his sources of information are, but that if he truly believes there are no significant contrary studies or opinions, he’s not as well informed as he could be. I daresay that anyone who has followed the endless competition of opinions, charts and graphs for years on CAF is likely to have seen more competitive views than has the cardinal. Had he seen them, I doubt he would be asserting that there are essentially none. Undoubtedly he was telling the truth about his information level. But if he thinks there are no significant competing views, he is simply not sufficiently informed.
b. That since the political outfall from the MMGW doomsaying can harm people (and is virtually certain to do so) a churchman ought to consider how those chips might land before jumping on any highly politicized bandwagon, however well-meaning the leap might be. Support for a political movement is support for the political measures that follow.
Likely the good cardinal did not consider that any more than the churchmen did who promoted Obamacare before realizing the evil that was going to be done with it.
Let me add that the people who are pushing MMGW remedies do not necessarily care at all how much they harm people. Certainly, their lives (e.g. Obama, Gates, Kennedy, Gore, Buffett) suggest that either they don’t believe in MMGW themselves or, believing in it, do not care what happens to others as a consequence of “mitigation” strategies they have in mind which serve them politically or financially. There is no reason to believe the cardinal was aware of that.
That does not answer my question.
I see where Robert Kennedy Jr called for criminalization of those who are skeptical of MMGW. The left is inherently totalitarian because it wants people to act in ways that are contrary to natural instinct or reason. Likely Mr. Kennedy is far from being the only MMGW proponent who would jail those who oppose his views. His inability presently to do so undoubtedly discomfits his ruminations as he travels the world in his private jet.