JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Pope’s popularity fall 17% — preaching the climate change religion not so popular?

Pope Francis put out his pro-climate encyclical eight weeks ago, getting mass media attention, but the latest Gallop poll shows the people were not so enthused:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Pope Francis’ favorability rating in the U.S. has returned to where it was when he was elected pope. It is now at 59%, down from 76% in early 2014. The pontiff’s rating is similar to the 58% he received from Americans in April 2013, soon after he was elected pope.

Is this about “climate change” — the encyclical has 245 paragraphs, 16 mentions of “climate”, 7 mentions of “carbon”, and more than 100 mentions of the “environment”. Moreso it reported around the globe as a “coup” on the climate issue by groups who normally think the Pope is wrong, silly and anachronistic. Furthermore,  the biggest change has come among Catholics, Protestants, and especially conservatives. But he’s less popular among liberals too.

The drop in the pope’s favorable rating is driven by a decline among Catholics and political conservatives, two groups that have been ardent supporters of the modern papacy. Seventy-one percent of Catholics say they have a favorable image of Francis, down from 89% last year.

Favorable Ratings of Pope Francis, 2014 vs. 2015

h/t to Heartland who deserve some credit here, having sent a team to the Vatican to draw attention to this issue.

The poll was a random survey of 1,009 people in the US. The margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The question: “Please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Pope Francis — or if you have never heard of him”.

Did everyone miss the papal decree against Carbon trading?

During the orgy of papal-enthusiasm I noted that few people mentioned that the Pope was against carbon trading. Not the preferred prophesy?

190. Here too, it should always be kept in mind that “environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces”.[134] Once more, we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals. Is it realistic to hope that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental damage which they will leave behind for future generations? Where profits alone count, there can be no thinking about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention. Moreover, biodiversity is considered at most a deposit of economic resources available for exploitation, with no serious thought for the real value of things, their significance for persons and cultures, or the concerns and needs of the poor.

The Pope was not able to explain why “market forces” were not the answer. He didn’t mention that sometimes free market forces work just fine with environmental problems, but they don’t when it’s a ubiquitous molecule central to life on Earth. In this case a free market is an impossible fantasy because most players can’t play — they are dogs, cats, yeast or the Pacific Ocean. Also it isn’t a real free market, because no one is “free” not to buy and governments control both supply and demand.

Anyhow…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (70 votes cast)
Pope's popularity fall 17% -- preaching the climate change religion not so popular?, 9.3 out of 10 based on 70 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pqrndtz

161 comments to Pope’s popularity fall 17% — preaching the climate change religion not so popular?

  • #

    Climate change is a religion afterall and shoving religion down people’s throats can have a negative effect.

    302

    • #
      aussieguy

      You’d think Climate Change would be the last thing on the Pope’s mind; given the falling numbers in the Catholic faith. Instead of preaching principled values, morals, and bringing back his flock with common sense and leadership; he jumps on the trendy Leftist bandwagon of Climate Change!

      I got no problem with religion when its a personal endeavour and lays down practical values which produces good results for the individual. I just have a serious problem when religion (and even science), is used as part of someone’s toolkit to push a political-based agenda!

      110

  • #
    Ceetee

    I was going to say something similar. Religion and Politics are not fit for polite discussion. Combine the two and people will escape through the windows as if there were a fire. The Catholic Church are not going to like what this Saatchi & Saatchi pope does to their church.

    170

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Caught in a perfect storm of scandal and relevance, Francis appears prepared to capitulate to the neo-Marxist paganism that underlies the Deep Green ideology of the global environmental movement and assume a vanguard role in constructing a global welfare state, established to mitigate the alleged effects of climate change.’

    Merv Bendle / Quadrant

    280

    • #
      me@home

      Much of Western civilisation has gone from Christianity to atheism to paganism in little more than a generation.

      80

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well reading this you can see several things at once that mark him as part of The Esbalishment – calling for a New World Order, and drinking the Socialist-green kool aid :

      http://www.smh.com.au/world/pope-francis-calls-for-new-economic-order-criticises-capitalism-20150710-gi9cip.html

      “In Bolivia during his tour of South America, Pope Francis on Thursday urged the downtrodden to change the world economic order, denouncing a “new colonialism” by agencies that impose austerity programs and calling for the poor to have the “sacred rights” of labour, lodging and land.”

      Up the workers!! ( remeber those Internatinal Socialism posters we used to see at uni all those years ago? )

      “His speech was preceded by lengthy remarks from leftist Bolivian President Evo Morales, who wore a jacket adorned with the face of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara, who was executed in Bolivia in 1967 by CIA-backed Bolivian troops.

      “Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change,” the Pope said, decrying a system that “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature”.

      “This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, labourers find it intolerable, communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable. The earth itself – our sister, Mother Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable,” he said in an hour-long speech that was interrupted by applause and cheering dozens of times.”

      “The earth itself – our sister, Mother Earth”

      - sounds like eco-paganism….

      “Real change” – sounds like marxist Obama.

      Speaking from a Biblical point of view, Francis displays all the hallmarks of being the Bible’s False Prophet, especially as he wants to unite all world religions as well ( which is ecumenicalism ).

      FYI – Bible believing Christians wont unite with other faiths.

      10

  • #
    Ceetee

    “neo-Marxist paganism”, perfectly apt that. Easy fit for a modern day religious crusader. Annointed by God, who dare challenge him. What better than to meld that with the modern day existentialist angst of the crime of being human. Suits the Catholic mindset of guilt and absolution to a tee. I feel a Monty Python coming on…

    220

  • #
    Susan Fraser

    Having only just finished apologising to Galileo, it seems incredible that the Church is so keen to repeat the mistake of preferring the ‘consensus’ science of the day.

    In the end, the truth stands.

    471

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘A clear majority of voters in the crucial presidential election swing states of Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia agree with Pope Francis’ call to action on the issue of climate change, according to the results of a new Quinnipiac University poll.

    ‘When asked, “Do you agree or disagree with the message from Pope Francis calling on the world to do more to address climate change?” a substantial majority of voters in all three states indicated that they agreed.’

    Bloomberg

    41

    • #
      Ceetee

      “Action on the issue of climate change”, the mind boggles. The stupid, it hurts, I thought we did global warming and God was in charge of the climate change thingee. Holy hell I’m confused!

      131

      • #
        TFH

        It would appear that the leaders of the Catholics and Anglicans don’t actually believe in God.

        When Moses first came down from the Mount he had the tablets that contained a higher law,when he saw the people were worshipping false idols he broke them and got God to give them a lower law,it seems that people no longer worship the Son of God but they worship the weather,so instead of Jesus, God has now given us Mohammad,and that is going down a treat!

        40

    • #

      Opinion polls are slanted. If the question included clauses about harming American jobs, reducing living standards, along with the near certainty that policy will be completely useless in making the future better than doing nothing (from the climate theory perspective to the useless policy initiatives and the lack of any policy response from most countries) then the response would have been completely different.

      180

    • #

      Iowa laps up subsidies for wind turbines and ethanol. They also plowed under acres and acres and acres of virgin prairie to grow corn. Wiped out thousands of pheasants and other game birds.

      Colorado loves green. Mostly a bunch of nature lovers high on legal marijuana. They consider themselves to be the enlightened crowd. Watch out for Philip Anschutz—he’s running his Foundation for a Better Life ads constantly. I fear he’s about to really, really stomp all over people’s lives and hopes this will absolve him. (He’s the idiot trying to put 1000 wind turbines along I-80 in Wyoming—for his better life, not anyone else’s.) I’m really surprised Colorado people knew who the pope was…..

      Virginia—Blue state all the way.

      Maybe try checking with some of those unimportant states like Montana or Alaska.

      70

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        They also plowed under acres and acres and acres of virgin prairie to grow corn. Wiped out thousands of pheasants and other game birds.

        A bit confusing – this, insofar as the prior sentence mentions turbines and ethanol. The virgin prairie was long gone before the commercial turbines and ethanol production began. Early windmills pumped water and early ethanol consumed. The pheasants are an alien introduction but your point is valid.

        About the Ringed-neck (Chinese) pheasant:

        http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8444

        30

        • #

          Call it native grassland or CRP parcels, which are reclaimed as prairie rather than growing crops. (Women can have their virginity restored—can’t the prairie?)

          Many animals that we think of as belonging in the US are introduced. I have European starlings (1890), English sparrows (house sparrows-mid 1800′s maybe) and cheat grass everywhere (mid 1800′s also). Then there’s needle and thread grass (Hesperostipa comata) that people were shocked to find out is a native grass that should be allowed to continue to grow on the prairie. In a way, this is proof of how changing things in an ecosystem just results in a new “balance” and does not destroy the entire system as some alarmists seem to think will happen.

          50

  • #
    Manfred

    As a Jesuit, The Pope should have done much, very much better. Sadly it seems he is more the product of his own country, the Argentinian shambles that is a socialist paradise of economic ruin. There was an opportunity here to slice through the clouds of Green eco-marxist confabulation but it seems El Papa couldn’t bring himself to depart to wider, saner scientific and social counsel.

    301

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Manfred. Do you think his background in “Liberation Theology” with its deep Marxist roots is the primary cause of his green/global warming statements. They too are rooted in Marxism

      90

      • #
        Manfred

        LL, definitively characterising the man who is Pope is tricky. I have typically associated intellectual rigour with many of UK Jesuits I have known, particularly and unsurprisingly in those who may have ascended to significant secular positions of authority, science or policy. I think, given his obvious earlier ability he might have been more rigorous and left less stones unturned upon venturing into the confabulation that is Green climate politics. The timing of the encyclical and the judgement that an encyclical was required smack loudly of political manipulation.

        In the case of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, there is an interesting earlier article that covers a range of personal potential influences. It is interesting because it can now be read in a context after the fact. I was looking for a cognitive dissonance, a tension if you will, between his intellectual ability and his pastoral vocation with its various philosophical and experiential biases. I detected none sadly. There appeared no small hour wrestling or anxious dwelling over nuance, balance, rigour, intellectual integrity and pastoral mission. The encyclical has somewhat of a ‘kommittee’ feel to it in my jaundiced and limited view.

        Born in Buenos Aires in 1936, Bergoglio’s father was an Italian immigrant and railway worker from the region around Turin, and he has four brothers and sisters. His original plan was to be a chemist, but in 1958 he instead entered the Society of Jesus and began studies for the priesthood. He spent much of his early career teaching literature, psychology and philosophy, and early on he was seen as a rising star. National Catholic Reporter

        Doubtless, Liberation Theology (LT) permeates his thinking when he speaks distribution. Nevertheless,he has a demonstrated focus on the impoverished and less fortunate, and he appears to have a disdain for hypocrisy. This is good. However, perhaps his care for the poor and his South American (and Italian) LT conditioning, become inevitably conflated within Marxist tradition of redistribution.

        Regrettably, an eco-marxist view of the World may resonate at a more primal level within El Papa’s limbic system than the more demanding intellectual scrutiny that might be found in his cortex.

        30

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          “kommitee feel”?

          One would expect that such a work would be written by a number of people. However my feel here is that it may have been written by just one. I haven’t read it all, and what I did read was heavy going. Lots of ink but not much substance. It would be interesting to see it in another language to gauge what licence has been applied in the translation to English.

          In Chapter 2 paragraph 5 he quotes JP2 : ‘Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in “lifestyles, models of production and consumption’. To this I ask, yours or mine? Then 2:6 ‘the natural environment has been gravely damaged by our irresponsible behaviour’. Again I say, speak for yourself. I have spent my life trying to improve my environment.

          That seems to sum up the story so far. The notion of sin is way overdone.

          20

    • #
      sophocles

      Pope Francis has done what popes seem to do best in their encyclicals, which is being more or less right. The ‘more’ parts seem plausible and are mostly right but the ‘less’ parts can be definitely wrong. Pope Francis is following firmly in the footsteps (sandal-prints?) of a predecossor, Pope Leo XIII who published an ecyclical called Rerum Novarum or The Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour. (May 15, 1891).

      The pope was taken to task by Henry George, an American social and economic commentator and author of the time. George’s critique The Condition of Labor–An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII and the object of its correction, Rerum Novarum, are both worth reading.

      30

  • #
    el gordo

    This insightful little piece may only be an amusing yarn, but it rings true.

    https://harvestingthefruit.com/pope-francis-hates-the-catholic-faith/

    30

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Mammon?

      Individual wealth is not per se a problem for society. What is important is how the individual applies wealth.

      10

  • #
    Dariusz

    At the risk of offending some people let me say JC was the first socialist. He was against the rich and preached to the poor, divided the bread, performed miracles for the lepers, saved jezebels etc. The Pope tries to replicate what JC did through the GW crap.
    Expanding a little, this is why we have tax in the western societies that attempts to equalise the divide between the working and the sponging.
    Why M……. have generally no tax and the communist ideas of equality do not sit well despite the best efforts of the soviets in Afghanistan. Because the P…… did not approve.

    513

    • #

      JC was NOT a socialist. He also was not “against the rich”. I’m pretty sure JC was bright enough to realize that you can’t help the poor if you are all equally poor. He divided bread after first mulitiplying it. Socialism is generally a forced government entity. JC was into voluntary charity because one cared. Not anywhere near the same thing. (How do miracles and saved sinners fit in with socialism?)

      I thought Western societies had taxes on the working to pay for the sponging.

      191

      • #
        TFH

        Jesus first worked for his step-father Joseph and then for himself as a carpenter,his group of close associates were fishermen who worked for themselves,plus they employed others.
        Jesus taught that men should willingly give to others of their free will not to be forced,socialism on the other hand requires compulsion in all things.

        Jesus taught that men should render unto Caesar that which was Caesar’s and unto God that was God’s.
        Jesus was not interested in politics only what was in a persons heart.

        50

    • #
      Monna Manhas

      I’m not offended by what you said, but your understanding of the Bible and Christ’s message is just wrong. Christ was not “against the rich” – but He did preach against the pride, arrogance and greed that so often accompany wealth. When money (or some other idol) is the most important thing in your life, you have no room for God.
      And Jezebel was not a prostitute, as you imply. She was a supremely evil queen in the Old Testament, whose pride and arrogance led to her destruction. She would never have humbled herself to be saved by Christ.

      81

    • #
      Dariusz

      Guys I am sorry that I have offended but with the quotes like the one below I can,t help thinking the obvious.
      ” for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to gain eternal life”.
      This is black white to me.

      71

      • #
        Monna Manhas

        Dariusz, as I said, I am not offended. As I also said – if money (or some other idol) is what you love above all, then there is no room in your heart for loving the God of the universe.

        50

      • #

        Dariusz: Black and white if you look at it from a purely humanist point of view. Humans are incapable of passing a camel through the eye of a needle. God is not. The passage merely says rich people need the grace of God to get to heaven also. It is true that many rich people decide God is frivolous and they reject God, but not all do. Richness in itself is not evil. Just when money replaces God.

        110

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        (1) The word in the original was probably not camel but the similar word for rope. (2) Jesus didn’t advocate stealing from the rich; he exhorted them to give of their excess of their own free will. (3) Theft from one group against their will never constitutes Charity towards another; the end does not justify the means.

        90

    • #

      Dariusz
      “He was against the rich and preached to the poor,” or did he invite the rich to assist with helping the poor to help themselves?
      When he came to two brothers who were in the commercial fishing buisiness with employees what did he do? “He immediately called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.” One of these men who owned a second home (John 19:27)had been well mentored already by his cousin who wore clothing made of camel hair rope (Mathew 3:4). So he would have been familiar with instructions about helping the poor to work for themselves like ” When you reap the harvest of your land, you are not to reap all the way to the edge of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the foreign resident; I am Yahweh your God”
      Leviticus 23:22

      40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Darius, my friend,

      You should avoid saying that Jesus “saved Jezebels”. It makes it sound as though He collected them, like postage stamps.

      30

    • #
      TFH

      Nowhere does Jesus preach against the rich!
      Jesus preached against gaining material wealth as your goal when spiritual wealth should be your aim.
      It wasn’t mammon that was the root of all evil but the love of it.

      60

    • #
      llew Jones

      One area where Jesus differs from this Pope and all his predecessors is that he did take his bible seriously. That of course was the Protestant Reformer’s complaint against the Church of Rome in that it was not governed by scripture and was in fact syncretistic e.g. mixing Paganism with Christianity.

      My suggestion is that Protestant England, the great driver of the Industrial Revolution, also like Jesus took the bible seriously when they read a passage like “…have dominion over the Earth and subdue it…”.

      (Incidentally contemporary nature worshipping Pagans abhor that passage as of course do many of those associated with the UN’s CAGW religion. That passage importantly tells us that whatever one’s view of the origin of the bible is that well over 3000 years ago the writer of that passage was no Pagan and saw the Earth as imperfect for human habitation and that thus humans needed to take steps to make it a better home for all of us. There is little doubt that all the benefits we enjoy such as greatly increased longevity and infinitely improved lifestyle stem from the implementation of that passage in the IR.)

      The current Pope obviously, unlike Jesus as well as those Protestant Brits who, drawing on the scientific revolution started the IR, either doesn’t read his bible or does not take it too seriously.

      31

    • #
      gai

      Dariusz, I suggest you read Matthew 25 where Jesus gives the parables of the ten virgins, the talents, and the sheep and the goats.

      Foolishness (The Parable of the Ten Virgins) is not rewarded.

      Sloth and laziness (The Parable of the Talents) is not rewarded.

      Unkindness to those in genuine need (The Final Judgment) is condemned.

      The socialists forget that the first two Parable COME FIRST so the last parable is made possible.

      Unless there is wisdom and industry to produce wealth there is none to share with those in genuine need.

      Notice I use the words genuine need since it is clear from the first two parables that Jesus condemned human parasites.

      60

  • #

    The Pope has a contradictory role. As head of the Roman Catholic Church he takes a leadership role in maintaining and developing the doctrine and morals of the Church. The Pope also has a role similar to Queen Elizabeth II – that of being a figurehead around which people can identify and admire. The two can conflict. There are doctrinal issues where there exist differences of opinion across the globe. A leader needs to enforce the doctrine without driving people away. By going into an area well outside of core doctrine that is highly controversial and is viewed by many as being partly based on belief systems that are alternative and even antagonistic to Christianity, the Holy Father could alienate some of its members.

    80

    • #
      JLC

      “A leader needs to enforce the doctrine without driving people away.”

      He has got off to a bad start then.

      130

    • #

      Thanks for that insight. At the time the serious press (i.e. not greenspin “environment” journalists) printed the news as if it were something they had to do, but without any particular wish to do so.

      There were very clearly two types of reporting “Guardian” – eco-bandwagon “isn’t this wonderful now everyone has to accept it” and the religious ones who didn’t take to it at all.

      There clearly was a very different way these two types of journalists behaved There were the normal environmental zealots and then there were the “religious” journalists who covered the encyclical who were almost rigidly impartial and didn’t themselves express much of a view. And it occurred to me that this would be because there are obviously so many competing religions and if the journalist took sides, they’d quickly find themselves in hot water and out of a job.

      Perhaps the feeling I got from these journalists was that they already had far too much controversy in the religion and the last thing they wanted was to start having to report political controversy just because one religious leader had a bee in their bonnet on the subject.

      60

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Any religion who preaches against birth control and fossil fuels is telling the poor that they have to stay poor, or else.

    I am not even sure if the Catholic Church is really sorry for the huge amount of abuse on young children carried out by its priests and nuns over the past century.

    Climate change is not a subject for organised religion, especially if they have no clue what they are talking about.

    Anyone know what ISIL’s stance is on global warming? Perhaps they want to ban it by beheading it. Well, that’s no more stupid than the Pope’s encyclical.

    143

  • #
    Dennis

    It really was a silly call

    70

  • #

    The “Encyli-folly” was a bit of a disaster – not sure how unusual that is but this one seems to have have no effect – or indeed as the poll suggests, it may actually have reduced support for the Pope and for “global warming”. Because according to Google trends, if anything the Pope’s encyliccal reduced interest in “global warming” afterwards.

    Just how much difference did the Pope’s encycli-folly make? Not much!

    70

    • #
      Soarer

      Well, Mike, I remember Humanae Vitae – the encyclical on birth control in 1968. That one was so influential that 97% of Catholics in the West ignore it entirely.

      50

  • #

    St. Peter’s Rock has survived worse than him, and I mean worse. eg The Borgias. People with a true faith have their priorities right, and those begin with people, not some graven image like Gaia.

    https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/the-sickening-encyclical/

    Pointman

    81

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    I understand the impulse to resort to science by opinion poll. Alarmists use it all the time. It’s even heartening news to learn that opposition to rational evaluation of the climate prophecies results in electoral backlash.
    You are not crossing the line of pretending that summing opinions amounts to scientific evidence. But with this article and the one about the demographics of climate concern, I fear we are coming close to that line.
    It’s heartening news, it’s good to know, it’s essential that politicians know- but let’s make sure we don’t lose the moral high ground by crossing that line.

    71

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    I’m not sure why Dogs should be discounted from the free market or placed level with cats, or yeast, but it’s clear even to this Beagle that on this issue the Pope’s hats are far too big for him and the Bishop of Chester has better ideas on the subject…
    http://archbishopcranmer.com/bishop-of-chester-papal-encyclical-laudato-si-is-shrill-naive-unclear-unconvincing-exaggerated-scaremongering/

    150

  • #

    As a Catholic I am embarrassed by the pope’s position on global warming, amongst other things. I believe in separation of church and state as well as science and religion. I can care less what the pope’s opinion is on global warming any more than I care about his opinion on baseball.

    Most skeptics are conservatives and many conservatives are catholic. Many on the skeptics’ side have resorted to ad hominem attacks on catholicism in general and the pope in particular. Is it wise to alienate a good portion of your most ardent supporters and staunchest allies while being engaged in a struggle with the climate change machine for the future of the planet?

    Jo’s post was well written and demonstrates that an appeal to a religious authority is no more effective a means to sway public opinion than any other appeal to authority. I have always admired Jo for her intelligence, integrity and tenacity. I have never heard or read of an anti catholic slur attributed to her. I wish I could write the same for all the skeptics that run blog sites or post comments on the various sites I frequent.

    Instead of lowering ourselves to bigotry, as many skeptics have, shouldn’t we focus on the science instead of the public’s opinion of a religious leader? After all, science is about the search for the truth and is not based on consensus or opinion, right?

    160

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Eddy Lord Monckton has given 2 addresses in my hometown and on both occasions his Catholicism was attacked by local media, CAGW zealots and left wing activists, after hearing and talking to him many wondered if they had met the same man that was portrayed so negatively by the aforementioned, in the end his true nature shone through but sadly it won’t be seen by people that accept what’s aired in media as close enough to the truth.

      As an atheist I look past what people choose to believe and judge them on what person they have become, I’ve met good and bad people over the years finding no correlation to religious beliefs vs personality, in science I consider Theology perhaps the greatest strawman to use when your evidence fails but your ego doesn’t.

      83

      • #

        As an atheist I look past what people choose to believe and judge them on what person they have become, I’ve met good and bad people over the years finding no correlation to religious beliefs vs personality, in science I consider Theology perhaps the greatest strawman to use when your evidence fails but your ego doesn’t.

        Amen to that! ;-)

        41

      • #
        Manfred

        Dariusz, no offense perceived, no apology necessary. Bar the odd erythematous thumb, we’re all friends here. In any case, I’ve always thought that the thumb of disdain should be green and the approval thumb blue. It would be fun to observe the confusion as trolls became used to that!

        However, I am not so sure socialist absolutism applies to wealth and the teachings of JC.

        More obviously, he loathed hypocrisy (Parisees et al.) likening them to ‘white-washed sepulchres’. He didn’t care for their token robe-ripping. He certainly loathed the money changers in the Temple, whom he angrily evicted. Both these groups could be construed as wealthy. Neither was he averse to a good pizz-up (wedding at Cana) where he obligingly changed water into wine. He also appears to have had a lot of time for the prodigal son who returned to his obviously wealthy father, who generously organised, yes you guessed it, a pizz-up upon the son’s return.
        He also argues strongly to cultivate one’s talents, grow one’s personal wealth and attributes, as opposed to lazily burying them.

        Then of course, there’s the annoying admonishment from JC when the apostles expressed their dislike for the tax collectors, with the immortal: ‘Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s’

        One wonders what he would have thought of ‘decabonising taxes’ and this New Age Green eco-marxist impoverishment with its utterly unnecessary infliction of suffering upon the poor, while the Gore worshiping Green elite grow more elite.

        The idea of a tithe comes from scipture I think, one philanthropic idea that would seem sound. I cannot think OTTOMH of any other examples that clearly characterise ‘redistribution’ in the soul crushing manner advocated by socialists in general and eco-marxists in particular. JC does not come across as anti-wealth in my view.

        41

        • #
          Dariusz

          Manfred and all
          I came from a strong catholic family, even considering to be a priest at one stage. All of it happen under communism. What I saw was a relentless attack of communists on religion and hence instinctively I was draw to the underdog. At the same time I was subjected as kid to religious indoctrinations. Religion was not about love but about control, control through fear and being poor. As being poor is easier to control. Being poor means that you don,t travel and get infect by other ideas. Also despite poverty because you are scared you pay to the church regardless of your financial position.
          I see similar tactics applied by left wing thinking. Why would you want people to get rich if all they do is to abandon you and move to the right.
          In Poland (where I emigrated from) you have a Christian party (PIS) that identifies itself as being right but in fact it is a true left wing Christian party. In fact the supposedly left wing is more right wing that the Christian party. As a result the whole contry has no right wing party. The whole country after suffering for decades under communism still did not move to the right. Why? Because of deeply entrenched Catholicism that is dead against wealth creation for control reason.
          Experiencing this it is easy to make a leap from catholic to JC and formulate an opinion that god is about control. As a result of this control it took me “only” 10 years to get out of god fear and became a free independent thinker (at least someone that I aspire to).

          31

          • #
            Mark A

            Dariusz

            You make one significant mistake, you compare the church and its ministers, who are human, to JC.

            20

          • #
            gai

            Dariusz

            Religious priests/shaman of various flavors have often been the mind control agents of the overlords. (With islam, Mohammed combined the two in one person.) The duty of the religious leader was to give the overlord legitimacy — The divine right of kings for example.

            This is the reason the US Constitution separated church and state, to completely remove European control over our country.

            00

          • #
            Manfred

            Dariusz I admire your strength of spirit. Faith is an extraordinary gift. I think it is worth nurturing. It is one of the few things we have that enable us to transcend the present moment. Jung considered it an important aspect of our humanity. As a cradle catholic, and then catholic agnostic, I eventually found the New Testament again even after a PhD in the biosciences and, avoiding The Church, find life with faith a richer experience than life without. As grave risk of sounding patrician, seek out the like minded.

            00

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal in Oz

      Dear Eddy,
      I found your reply at #17 interesting except for the last paragraph, which sounds as if you want us to just shut up. Which we won’t do.
      Your question “…shouldn’t we focus on the science…” denies the fact that Jo’s site does just that. But it has also shown that the IPCC has misrepresented the science for political reasons, so we do explore the political motivations of people and organisations who refuse to allow dissenting voices.
      And the way some people react is more akin to religious fervour than to science.
      So to my mind, nonreligious as it is, when the Pope (someone whose opinion is highly influential) makes an official statement so far at odds with known science, he should be challenged.
      And yes, science is about the search for truth. But I don’t see that search in your post.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      21

      • #

        I found your reply at #17 interesting except for the last paragraph, which sounds as if you want us to just shut up. Which we won’t do.

        No one asked you to shut up. You have a vivid imagination.

        Your question “…shouldn’t we focus on the science…” denies the fact that Jo’s site does just that.

        A straw man argument. I never said that Jo doesn’t focus on the science.

        And yes, science is about the search for truth. But I don’t see that search in your post.

        Then improve your reading skills. “I believe in separation of church and state as well as science and religion.” And, …”shouldn’t we focus on the science

        Spare me your tribalism. I have been visiting and commenting on this site for years!

        10

  • #

    Here’s a UK minister claiming that the left dominates the warming movement, and that there’s a market approach to tackling climate change:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11759619/Climate-change-debate-dictated-by-left-wing-anti-capitalists-says-Amber-Rudd.html

    20

  • #
    mpcraig

    If the Pope’s popularity went up 17% among elites and power brokers, which figure do you think matters more to him?

    40

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    I’m in the oil and gas business. We definitely have a cost-benefit relationship to the environment. Our benefit is that we are allowed to operate – local, not just regulatory, organizations can shut us down if they are unhappy (though it may take time). Our cost is what we must do (more if there is a PR aspect).

    I’d agree with the Pope that market forces do not provide the BEST result. They provide a socially-determined “reasonable” result. For those who want no fossil-fuel activity, this is, of course, less than inadequate. But it does let the general social order and economy move forward.

    The Pope is pushing for a moral order. Again, I’d agree with him – in principle. If there are things we really shouldn’t support – child pornography, for example – the only acceptable way of dealing with it is by decree based on moral principles. Market forces could work to some extent – extreme punishment is a “market force” in a social context. But that would not be acceptable.

    Our so-called leaders have abandoned moral principles as instruments for guidance. Generally this is a good thing if you want a secular society but it creates a society based on commercial pluses and minuses. We now have gambling machines in bars that cause families to fall apart, whereas previously you had to fly to Vegas to ruin your household, which did reduce the overall damage. I’d go for the moral issue in this case.

    So, if you want to protect the environment completely in some way, you would have to rule by moral principle. Just look at clearcutting as a forestry practice that is market driven but does NOT work well for the local environment. However, clearcutting is economically feasible in many areas that would be uneconomic otherwise. So a ban here will have big social/economic costs. Are they worth it? That is the question.

    Fossil fuel usage, according to the eco-greens, is only slightly less horrible than nuclear energy. They want to ban it on moral principles. The Pope is saying that the environment needs the no-holds-barred protection based on moral principles. In some places, absolutely. Everywhere? Don’t think so. Just as fossil-fuel and nuclear are not for everywhere (Japanese fault-lines and tsunami zones, whodathunk?). The moral principle is difficult, if not impossible, to argue, though. Unless you use some absolute authority like the Bible …. or the Koran.

    I don’t agree with the Pope on his fossil-fuel or CAGW posture. But I agree that the moral principle should be considered. Just because something CAN be done doesn’t mean it SHOULD be done. That is where leadership comes in. Good leadership is not just about making things happen that economically are positive, but also about not doing things that are socially negative.

    Not an easy task. But we don’t need “leaders” who are afraid or unwilling to take on the difficult tasks.

    52

  • #
    Reed Coray

    I’m not a Catholic; but I can imagine more than a few Catholics thinking:

    Here we go again. It took us hundreds of years to put the Galileo religion-versus-science fiasco to rest, and now our leader wants to start another one. Santayana had it right–’Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ Apparently Pope Francis has forgotten the past.

    It’s no surprise to me that the Pope’s popularity has fallen. What does surprise me is that the fall isn’t greater than 17%.

    131

  • #
    Glenn999

    He also called capitalism the dung of the devil. Where does he think all of that money to help the poor comes from?
    I think he’s just a leftist and possibly bought off by the powers that be…

    110

  • #
    michael hart

    The problem with zealots is that they always seem to actually believe that they are the first people to discover whatever lies on any particular piece of moral-high-ground. Like nobody else ever thought of it or might approach it from a different direction.

    In this case, though, I just suspect the Pope has been advised that “the kids on the street really love this stuff, and we need to put more young bums on seats.”

    40

  • #
    Ruairi

    Were I asked about Francis the Pope,
    Having offered the world renewed hope,
    His recent alliance,
    With climate-change ‘science’,
    Would earn him a definite nope.

    191

  • #

    The Pope’s US popularity decreased by 17 percentage points, it didn’t decrease 17%. It fell from 76% to 59%, or 17 percentage points; but 17 divided by 76 is about 22%, so his popularity fell 22%. With the +/- 4 percentage points uncertainty, it actually fell between 17 and 27 percent.

    The office of the Pope is the number one error in Roman Catholicism. It amounts to being the “King of the Catholics”, much as Jesus was childishly styled the “King of the Jews” by the Romans who crucified him, because the people had been looking for a Messiah who would conquer the earthly kings, especially their persecutors, by force; but Jesus turned such beliefs around by teaching them, not about a physical Christian nation, but about the spiritual “Kingdom of God” (they believed in kings, so he taught them about a higher “kingdom”, which is focused on the eternal, not the things of this physical world per se, which he showed could be changed–e.g., the wine, the loaves, the fishes, and all manner of miraculous healings–by faith in God, whom he called his father). Kings and Popes and priests and mullahs — they’re all holdovers (and all essentially dictators) of ancient times and ancient fears, in what was a generally lawless, morality-challenged world divided by the belief in many gods. Mankind needs to grow up and get over this supposed need for a physical overlord, who is always just a man (or woman) elevated above all other men and women to serve as a “god” they can see and touch, as little children need. Even the pagans had some wisdom; they killed their king, after a time, and brought in a new one — the first electoral system (which of course was soon rigged, so that the king’s eldest son would rule after him, and this dynastic racket was known as “the divine right of kings”, which again childishly confused the king with God).

    81

  • #
    TedM

    However as the pope did not speak ex cathedra (I think that’s the correct term), his statements on this subject are just an appeal, they are not considered to be binding on Catholics or a message from God. Which I might add to the latter part of the previous sentence, they are clearly not.

    20

    • #
      el gordo

      Oh right, it was off the top of his head then?

      20

      • #

        No, it just means it is not a statement of church doctrine and is not considered infallible. It obviously was not off the top of his head as it had writers and took months to finalize.

        20

        • #
          el gordo

          Keep in mind I’m a lapsed Catlick and hold a particular contempt for the organization.

          What he says, formally or informally, is still the word of the deity’s man on earth.

          21

          • #

            Since you are a lapsed religious person, you are no doubt aware that virtually all of the deity’s men on earth erred, some more than once. Infallibility belonged only to the Son of God and God, not their human followers.

            It would be nice if all popes thought things out carefully, avoided using possible reactionaries and bad science, etc before speaking but that seems unlikely since they are human beings. The history of religion is littered with people who thought they were doing “God’s work” while actually doing things for their own glory. Religion, like science, is made up of human beings. It’s fine to point out that the Pope is straying into areas beyond his expertise and that he might want to reconsider some of the people he takes advise from. It is wrong to condemn a religion because the Pope is not behaving very Pope-like. Your contempt is also not grounds.

            20

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘It is wrong to condemn a religion because the Pope is not behaving very Pope-like.’

              That’s what the Protestant Revolution was all about, a step in the right direction.

              Care to discuss intelligent design?

              10

              • #

                El Gordo: The Protestant Revolution was in the past. It may or may not have been a step in the right direction. The Pope is the Catholic church’s problem. If he alienates people, then he does. Every religion eventually offends someone who decides to start their own church. It’s why we have so many denominations in the protestant camp and why we have so many different religions worldwide. Losing followers may or may not indicate a problem and the change may or may not improve the church.

                No, I do not care to discuss intelligent design unless we’re jumping over to religious beliefs. Care to discuss evolution?

                10

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Care to discuss evolution?’

                I don’t mind, once the open thread goes up.

                Stephen Hawking quoted Pope John Paul as saying, “It’s OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God.”

                10

              • #

                I look forward to it. I agree with Pope John Paul—the begining of the universe is generally believed to be religious in nature, outside the scope of science.

                10

            • #
              el gordo

              Branes are within the scope of possibility, which takes the argument beyond religion.

              00

  • #
    handjive

    Man cannot destroy “Creation.”

    It is not within his power.

    Nor is “Creation” a willful entity with Doomsday on its mind.

    Francis sullies his office by using demagogic formulations to bully the populace into reflexive climate action with no more substantive guide than theologized propaganda.
    . . .
    This quote is from “FirstThings.com”, America’s most Influential Journal of Religion and Public Life
    The article is titled, “Francis and Political Illusion“.

    30

  • #
    TedM

    Because they are wrong.

    00

  • #
  • #
    TdeF

    It is amazing that the Greens/communist/socialist political parties now call themselves ‘progressive’. Even the Nazis were socialists. It could not be more wrong. The are the People Against Everything, all change. That now includes the weather. However it is no suprise if religions are against change. Science has always been the deadly enemy of religion and so it continues. What is interesting about Scientologists and the Greens is that the least scientifically capable people have chosen to worship science, but their own crazy science. You will have heard of the man who worshipped exhausts. He was a Catholic converter.

    91

    • #
      gai

      TdeF,

      They are PROGRESSING toward world wide Socialism/Communism. The Fabian Society purpose is to advance the principles of socialism via gradualist and reformist means instead of revolution. Their symbols are the turtle for slow but steady and the Wolf in Sheep’s clothing.

      The goal was stated by Co-founder George Bernard Shaw:

      “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

      George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

      “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

      Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.
      http://westside912.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/the-real-george-bernard-shaw-–-fabian-socialist-and-hitlerian-advocate-of-mass-murder/

      Any doubts that the actual goal is the return to serfdom and neo-feudalism?

      Remember the Holy Roman Empire existed for 1000 years. In December of 800, Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as Emperor. Emperor Francis II dissolved the empire on 6 August 1806, after its defeat by Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz.

      Karl Marx had this to say about the Aristocracy and Priesthood.

      The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

      The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

      The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.”
      ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

      The ‘enemy’ is not the wealthy aristocrat but the jumped-up peasant entrepreneur who challenges the “feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors” through his intellect, industry and wealth accumulation.

      When you think about it all Pope Francis is doing is resuming the historic Aristocrat/Church of Rome relationship and the poor can go hang though no one will ever come out and say that.

      10

  • #
    Michael Hammer

    I have no doubt the pope in the days of Galileo believed that beyond doubt the earth was the center of the universe and Galileo was preaching blasphemy. There is more harm done in the name of beliefs than from any other cause. If the pope wants to use his office to push a point of view he first should make genuine determined effort to find out the truth but he clearly has not done so. If he had, he would have accepted input from both sides of the debate and documented the basis for his position. If you want to pronounce on matters of objective science then you have a responsibility to explain the justification for your views. Instead he has allowed himself and his office to be degraded into a mouthpiece for the radical left.

    I suspect this is actually worse than the Galileo situation. At least there the pope of the day spoke for himself. With power and influence comes responsibility. The pope has abandoned his responsibility, demeaned his office and regressed his church.

    50

    • #
      TdeF

      I was amazed to read that it was not Galileo’s observations of the planets and theory of a sun centred solar system alone which led him to this situation.

      Galileo’s telescope was a hand held rudimentary device based on hearsay of telescopes in Holland. What he did do was observe the sun itself and saw blemishes, dark sun spots. For this he did not need a special device to hold the telescope steady and track along the ecliptic with an axis parallel to the earth’s axis. None of this was known. He plotted these sun spots and could prove the sun rotated. This was enough to seriously challenge orthodoxy.

      Behind the Catholic religion was the worship of the sun god Sol, the major Roman religion before Christiantiy. Sol followed similar religions like that of Egypt’s Ra and Greece’s Helios. The early saints were depicted with golden suns behind their heads, which were later adjusted to rings or Apollo/Helios. The sun was held to be perfect and even today, the source of all life on earth. They were right but it was not perfect, it had spots. Galileo was the first to plot the sun spots and to prove that the sun was not perfect and that even the sun rotated.

      I guess the only puzzle in life was that of the moon which did not rotate at all, like a ball on a string. Even so, the concept of a less than perfect sun had Galileo in total conflict with the conservatives in the church and although he had the permission of the Pope himself to publish, eventually they had the numbers to censure him. So the whole thing is much more complex and the people against everything won in the end. Let us hope this attack on Western democracy, liberalism and even consumerism is going to fail. It remains to be seen. What is certain is that it is not about climates or warming. CO2 driven Global Warming is being pushed as Scientific orthodoxy. It isn’t. It never was. It was a wild theory become belief, known as ‘The Science’ and supported by many whole interest groups and pushed by a newly Communist controlled Green political machine funded by well meaning people.

      51

      • #
        TdeF

        You might notice the Sun crown on the head of the Statue of Liberty, an image copied from these earlier religious depictions of a radiant sun. Every society has seen the sun as the source of heat, the controller of the seasons. Even in Stonehenge. Only today with our modern science do we see a tiny gas as being the entire source of temperature change on planet Earth. These carbon haters are a new breed. Who before even know tiny CO2 existed. After all, it is invisible.

        31

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Don’t forget the (4) moons orbiting Jupiter that he could show viewers. That alone made the Ptolemy’s system untenable.

        I do like the observation of Alphonso X “The Wise” of Spain who, when told of the 57 spheres/ epicycles etc. of Ptolemy’s system, said “If I had been present at the Creation, I would have given the Almighty better advice”.

        Even then, hundreds of years before Galileo, astronomers knew there was something wrong with it, but they clung to their belief until Copernicus. What other group of ‘scientists’ can you think of who cling to out-moded discredited ideas?

        40

        • #
          TdeF

          Copernicus also delayed publication until his death and dedicated it to Paul III. You cannot challenge orthodoxy, especially from within the church. What is amazing is how CO2 driven Global Warming is presented as science orthodoxy even by the Pope and the Synod of the Church of England. ‘The Science’ is a now ridiculous fabrication. It was always a wild theory, a series of wild theories and now defeated categorically by all the evidence, but still the IPCC and the Greens insist it is true. This is a cult. A powerful and profitable one.

          31

        • #
          Dariusz

          In the 19th century Poland Ptolemy,s system was thought in schools unaware of the Copernicus discovery next door.

          20

          • #
            TdeF

            Or just ignoring it. People teach what they know, what they were taught. Or they could have been taking the pth.

            10

  • #
    pat

    Harry Dale Huffman -

    you are right – the headline should read:

    “Pope’s popularity falls 17 percentage points”

    a bit of fun:

    24 July: Breitbart: James Delingpole: You Don’t Have To Be Venal, Weird And Creepy To Work In Climate Science. But It Certainly Helps…
    Apologies for the lack of posts over the last couple of weeks but I’ve been busy interviewing for the job of chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It’s not the money and the jet-setting lifestyle that attract me – no, I lie: they attract me a lot – so much as the freedom it will afford me to behave as wantonly and disgustingly and shamelessly as I like with few apparent consequences and next to no media scrutiny.
    It’s almost as if the mere fact of being a prominent climate change believer is such a powerful get-out-of-jail-free as to render you immune to all criticism, let alone appropriate punishment for your bad behaviour.
    Here are a few examples of the kind of thing I mean…
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/24/you-dont-have-to-be-venal-weird-and-creepy-to-work-in-climate-science-but-it-certainly-helps/

    21

  • #
    pat

    24 July: UK Telegraph Editorial: Fiscally sustainable energy: abolishing Green Deal is a victory for common sense
    Telegraph View: Scrapping the Green Deal is sensible, since taxpayers cannot support such schemes
    The end of the Green Deal scheme is a victory for common sense, albeit an overdue one. For some time, it has been clear that the complex system of loans and subsidies for household energy efficiency measures was not working.
    Uptake figures have consistently fallen short of Government expectations, and there have been suspicions that the scheme was simply handing public money to householders who would have carried out their improvements anyway, a clear waste of money.
    Celebrations over the end of the scheme are thus tempered by the knowledge that more than £140 million of taxpayers’ money has already been spent on it…
    To be clear, the objectives of the Green Deal were the right ones. Our homes should be more energy-efficient…
    Yet there must be better ways of achieving that goal than handing large sums of public money to a small number of households canny enough to navigate the application process.
    The decision to end the Green Deal – taken by Amber Rudd, the impressively sensible Energy Secretary – has inevitably drawn complaints from so-called green groups, already unhappy about the withdrawal of subsidies from inefficient and unpopular energy sources like wind turbines and solar panels…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11758746/Fiscally-sustainable-energy-abolishing-Green-Deal-is-a-victory-for-common-sense.html

    like the ABC, BBC goes to all the usual CAGW suspects for a response!

    23 July: BBC: Green Deal funding to end, government announces
    The Department for Energy and Climate Change said it took the decision to protect taxpayers, citing low take-up and concerns about industry standards…
    Roger Harrabin, BBC environment analyst
    Today’s decision has caused anger – not because anyone really likes the Green Deal, but because it is being scrapped without a replacement in sight.
    Campaign group the Energy Bill Revolution says …
    Green MP Caroline Lucas accused the government …
    UK Green Building Council chief executive Julie Hirigoyen said …
    Greenpeace UK head of energy Daisy Sands, head of energy at Greenpeace UK, said …
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-33638903

    01

  • #

    Dear Ms Nova, I note that you have a BSC in microbiology, but that others with whom you’ve been affiliated, e.g.. Fred Singer, have made inaccurate claims about your qualifications in climate science – that you have a PhD in Meteorology. This must be very embarrassing for you, as you are clearly a champion of Truth in the battle against climate science Falsehood, and misinformation of this sort must sicken you to the very core. Can you please clarify?
    [My first reaction was to suggest you take this up with Fred Singer, since your accusations of lying, are aimed at him. But on reflection, I think that I will keep it in moderation for Jo to see, and possibly respond to.] Fly

    17

    • #

      Stewart, Embarrassed? Not at all. I’d be more embarrassed if I was citing 4 year old minor proof reading mistakes instead of citing scientific research, Hmm? I’m not responsible for other sites, but I correct errors (what do you do?). So thanks, I just searched and found one site across the whole global Internet in the last 4 years with that error and I’ve written to the site to notify them.

      Scientific errors matter, but last time I looked biographies don’t change the climate. Perhaps you have a paper on that?

      131

      • #

        Thanks for your response, and I’m glad you’ve corrected the error. I’m surprised that this error doesn’t embarrass you as it would embarrass me if my qualifications were misrepresented in that way. I’m also surprised that this was the only error about you across ‘the whole Global internet’ (how can you possibly know that?) because I found it immediately when, on looking at your site and quickly realising that it was mis-named as a ‘skeptical’ site, I did the briefest of searches about you and this error, pointed out by the owner of the site, came up on the very first site I looked at. I’m far too lazy to go around doing ‘minor proof-reading’!
        For the record, I made no accusations of lying, and I do strongly believe a person’s claims should stand or fall on the evidence they present, not on their educational background, though with climate science being such a fiendishly complex subject, a PhD in meteorology would certainly help!
        Anyway, this appears to be a right-wing ideological-cum conspiracy theory blog, and most amusing at that. So do you really think AGW isn’t happening, or that it is but it doesn’t matter, and that fossil fuel CO2 emissions are OK, and that clean energy is a waste of time? What do you say about the future? More of the same? It seems this blog is essentially designed to rubbish climate science.

        05

        • #

          Stewart, get ready to be shocked! :- ) I’m not responsible for The Internet. I am curious (but only in the mildest possible nano kind of way) that you assume I might feel some “embarrassment” about mistakes other people made. As it happens, there are hundreds of mistakes about me on the net. People (usual ones that don’t like the message) write error after error. They rarely fix it. Perhaps you’ve come to this blog knowing more mistakes about me than real things?

          Dare I suggest if you read “this blog” before commenting, you’d know something about it. It’s not right wing. I’m not right wing. The only party I’ve ever been a member of is The Greens. And polls show 48% of meteorologists are skeptics, though you may not know that. Start with “First Visit” and “The Evidence“. If you are into bio’s, you could even read read “About Jo“.

          And since I am not “Dr Joanne Nova” I don’t search the internet for “Dr Joanne Nova”. Weird eh? — But thanks for letting me know there was a mistake. I’m glad it’s fixed.

          Don’t take this the wrong way, if you are here for an honest conversation, and you are genuinely interested in helping the environment, stopping corruption in science or helping the poor, I’m delighted you’re visiting. If you think I’ve made mistakes about the science, I’ll be all ears.

          30

        • #

          Stewart: You make the same mistake many in the climate change field do and assume it must be political why people question global warming. However, politics are not needed, just a firm understanding of the science or lack thereof. It’s not blogs that hurt global warming advocates, it’s the poor science and the refusal to give up a belief when the evidence clearly shows it’s wrong. Unless you are willing to question the evidence, it’s best you stick with the other believers. It can be upsetting to find your closely-held beliefs can be wrong. Only a very dedicated scientist is willing to question his/her long held beliefs. For these people, the truth is more important than the belief. Is it to you?

          30

      • #
        James Bradley

        I note the absence of ‘Detective Inspector Henderson’ who was responsible for starting this thread – must be having trouble closing the ‘Penske File’.

        20

        • #
          Peter C

          The Penske File?

          00

          • #
            Reed Coray

            Peter, James Bradley can correct me if I’m wrong. I think “Penske File” refers to a Seinfeld episode where George Constanza went to work for a new company and was assigned to work on the “Penske File.” Immediately after being hired, George’s boss left for a week or so during which time George sat on his hands doing no work whatsoever. When his boss returned and examined George’s work (or lack thereof), George was fired for doing nothing.

            20

    • #
      James Bradley

      stewart henderson,

      A better task would be for you to ask John Cook (you know the 97% Consensus) why he used the identity of Professor Lubos Motl without Professor Motl’s knowledge or permission, to post comments on a UWA experiment he was involved in?

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/

      62

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That is a good point, James.

        Stewart Henderson is obviously somebody who cares about such things, and obviously has an enviable attention to detail.

        He would be the ideal person to get to the bottom of how, and why, the name of a well known, and well respected, academic came to be used, with possibly embarrassing results, in what appears to be a totally unrelated psychological experiment.

        42

      • #
        Peter C

        I have just read the post about John Cook at WUWT!

        On the face of it, it seems a very serious matter.

        Impersonating another person and deliberately misrepresenting them in the public sphere by publishing your own writings under the name of that other person could be slanderous or criminal.

        However I am not sure when the comments referred to occurred, nor in what context. Are they still there?

        22

        • #
          Peter C

          The comments might not have been in the public sphere. They might have been on the SkS private forum. I have forgotten how that came to light. I think John might have forgotten to place a password on it.

          11

          • #
            James Bradley

            Peter C,

            What ‘John’ was doing was flicking between identities to comment on an experiment in order to bump the comment count up artificially for the experiment, he appealed to other SkSers to also comment to assist his score:

            “For the record, if just one or two of you SkSers jumped over to the Technical Forum and posted some comments to the 4 Experiment Conditions, I’d get my 10 comments and wouldn’t have to log in as Lubos anymore. Only one or two more comments required to get the quota. Just some incentive for you :-)

            31

            • #

              If you check The Reference Frame, there is a complete write-up there by Lobos. The comments were apparently on the “private” forum. I have noticed that SkS does not seem to be very adept at passwording or hiding forums from Google or anyone else for that matter. There was reportedly no hacking required—just a bit of searching.

              The Reference Frame has many of the comments posted on the SkS forum.

              00

    • #
      James Bradley

      Yeah, so, Detective Inspector Henderson,

      While your putting aside the Penske File, you might just do Jo the courtesy of looking into the Cook matter, it has far bigger implications and I think all here would like to know the result of your investigation into that one.

      Over to you stew.

      62

    • #
      TdeF

      Which of the prominent promoters of CO2 Global Warming actually has a degree in Meteorology? Or a BSc in any hard science? (Do not count economics, business administration or even zoology, botany, ecology, psychology, farm management, theatre, dance… The London School of Economics offers B.Sc’s in most subjects while Oxbridge universities offer mainly BAs.)

      31

    • #
      Manfred

      Stew, given your prodigious range in blogging, there are many I feel sure who are looking forward, possibly with unreserved relish, to your grand and comprehensively dissecting blog around the tenuous and nebulous subject of CAGW, aka. Climate Change. Thank you. We wait.

      10

  • #

    Don’t find much substance in Francis, and I doubt he’s put much thought into his green/left waffling.

    It’s more like he has a bit to live down and planet hugging is the easiest way. While the conservative Archbishop Romero had his life on the line, Bergoglio was concerned with making a career, under a junta or anywhere. He is cunning and ambitious, but once he stops the manic grinning he looks bored and uncomprehending. Bit of a brute, even.

    71

  • #
    pat

    24 July: HollandSentinel: AP: Nicole Winfield: Mayors endorse UN sustainability goals at Vatican
    Conservatives have criticized the Vatican for cozying up to the U.N. on the sustainable development agenda since some of the goals include ensuring reproductive health care for girls, which means access to contraception and abortion.
    To that criticism, the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, responded: “The United Nations is not the devil! Rather quite the opposite.”
    http://www.hollandsentinel.com/article/20150724/ENTERTAINMENTLIFE/150729500

    24 July: WaPo: Ex-UN climate panel head accused of stalking loses India job
    by Nirmala George , AP
    NEW DELHI — The former chairman of the U.N. climate panel has been removed from his job as head of a top energy institute in India following allegations of sexual harassment.
    The governing council of The Energy and Resources Institute announced late Thursday that Rajendra Pachauri would be replaced as director-general of the renowned environment think-tank by Arun Mathur, an energy efficiency expert.
    Although no reasons were given for Pachauri’s replacement, the council said the decision was taken keeping in view the interests of the private institute and its 1,200 employees working in different parts of the world…
    Pachauri’s removal Thursday follows protests after a Delhi court last week allowed him to return to work at the institute…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/former-un-climate-panel-chief-removed-from-delhi-institute/2015/07/24/73320270-31c0-11e5-a879-213078d03dd3_story.html

    21

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      “The United Nations is not the devil! Rather quite the opposite.”

      The Devil’s henchman would say that, if there was a devil, and if the devil had a henchman.

      40

  • #
    pat

    the Indian perspective:

    24 July: EconomicTimes India: Raghav Ohri: Rajendra Pachauri finally sacked, TERI does not cite the sexual harassment
    allegations as reason for exit
    “More than a removal it appears to be a send-off. It is not clear as to whether my complaint or the ICC’s indictment prompted the Governing Council to replace him. I would like to know the reason for this decision”, the complainant told ET. The statement by the GC said that the “Council of TERI respects all court proceedings and abides by its direction”. However, it claimed that the “interests of TERI and its talented staff are paramount”.
    When contacted, Deepak Parekh, Chairman of HDFC and a member of the GC refused to speak on the removal of Pachauri. He told ET that a detailed press statement has been released by the TERI Board. On the other hand, another GC member Kiran Shaw Mazumdar, Chairman
    and MD of Biocon Ltd told ET that she has been informed by the TERI Board that “Pachauri will not continue”. The GC members have faced criticism for not removing Pachauri two months after he was indicted by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in May…
    It is pertinent to mention here that a dozen TERI employees had written a letter to the members of the GC on Wednesday, seeking “immediate” removal of Pachauri.
    The TERI officials said that Pachauri’s “return impacts the reputation of TERI as an organisation and also questions the integrity of not only the organization but all those associated with it”. The letter further reads “It also does not inspire confidence in women employees that future cases of harassment by colleagues will be dealt with firmly”. The letter concluded “there is an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion in the organization; employees are unsure about the consequences from voicing their opinions. Such an atmosphere has reduced the morale and confidence
    of the employees”.
    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/rajendra-pachauri-finally-sacked-teri-does-not-cite-the-sexual-harassment-allegations-as-reason-for-exit/articleshow/48191080.cms

    23 July: Times of India: Vishwa Mohan: Sexual-harassment case: Teri sacks RK Pachauri
    The move comes as many existing employees of the institution strongly resented Pachauri’s decision to resume his work as its chief this week after getting a court order for the same on last Friday…
    Pachauri’s removal from Teri has come nearly five months after his resignation from the IPCC as its chief and also as one of the members of the Prime Minister’s council on climate change — a body which advices the government of INdia for all issues relating to adaptation and mitigation measures in the country to deal with the challenges posed by global warming…
    Noting that the interests of Teri and its talented staff are paramount, the statement said that the governing council members also expressed deep confidence in their dedication and the leadership of the institute…
    Times (of India) View
    The exit of R K Pachauri as TERI chief ought to have happened much earlier. His continuing in the position had become untenable in view of the charges of sexual harassment and the evidence showing prima facie that they needed to be thoroughly investigated. What is revealing about the episode is how long it has taken for matters to reach this pass…
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sexual-harassment-case-Teri-sacks-RK-Pachauri/articleshow/48189670.cms

    21

    • #

      Here’s a few twists that you might have missed Pat. As I had noted in an update to my Pachauri recycling rapidly rescinded (my bold -hro):

      [...] The committee had held Pachauri guilty of sexual misconduct and abuse of his position as director-general and recommended action against him. But Pachauri had contended, besides other things, that the complaint against him might be backed by “climate sceptics” (those who do not believe in human-induced climate change).
      […]
      At the time of going to press, the public relations agency working for Pachauri did not reply to queries about why it was handling communication on behalf of the governing council of Teri.

      00

  • #
    pat

    pdf: 64 pages: The Economist Intelligence Unit: The Cost of Inaction: Recognising the value at risk from climate change
    Sponsored by Aviva (Insurance)
    (From Summary) The world’s current stock of manageable assets is estimated to be US$143trn. The resulting expected losses to these assets identified in our findings, in discounted, present value terms, are valued at US$4.2trn—roughly on a par with the total value of all the world’s listed oil and gas companies or Japan’s entire GDP. This is the average (mean) expected loss, but the value-at-risk calculation includes a wide range of probabilities, and the tail risks are far more serious.
    Warming of 5°C could result in US$7trn in losses – more than the total market capitalisation of the London Stock Exchange – while 6°C of warming could lead to a present value loss of US$13.8trn of manageable financial assets, roughly 10% of the global total…
    Asset managers cannot simply avoid climate risks by moving out of vulnerable asset classes if climate change has a primarily macroeconomic impact, affecting their entire portfolio of assets.
    In effect, total global output will be lower in a future with more climate change, rather than one with mitigation, and accordingly the size of the
    future stock of manageable assets will also be lower.
    Thirty years is a common time frame for pension funds and other long-term investors. But if investors wait until these risks actually manifest themselves, then the options they will have to deal with them will be significantly reduced…
    If investment managers are aware of the extent of climate risk to the long-term value of the portfolios they manage, then it could be argued that to ignore it is a breach of their fiduciary duty. Indeed, fiduciaries arguably have an obligation to reduce the climate risk embedded in their portfolios…
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    This research endeavour was sponsored by Aviva and supported by the Mlinda Foundation and KPMG; it builds on an original proposal by Steve
    Waygood at Aviva Investors. The Economist Intelligence Unit (The EIU) bears sole responsibility for the content of this report. The findings and
    views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. Christopher Watts was the author of the report, and Brian
    Gardner was the editor.
    The experts below have been kind enough to review the work conducted during the course of this research programme…
    INCLUDES
    3 members of Carbon Tracker Initiative
    Jonathon Porritt of the Forum for the Future
    Alex Bowen of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics
    Nick Robins of the United Nations Environmental Programme, Inquiry into the design of a sustainable financial system…
    2 Members of KPMG etc
    The Economist Intelligence Unit would like to thank the following experts (listed alphabetically by organisation name) who participated in the
    interview programme:..
    Allianz, AXA, Al Gore & David Blood etc
    http://www.aviva.com/media/upload/EIU-cost-of-inaction.pdf

    20

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Insurance companies do not assess science. They assess expected human behaviour, regardless if the prevailing science is fact or fiction.

      20

    • #

      I’m not actually concerned about Insurance Companies.

      I keep seeing rooms full of lawyers rubbing their hands in glee at what might eventuate here.

      Situation One
      If there is an edict which comes out from the UN to immediately shut down all CO2 emitting power plants, and a generating entity agreeing with the need to close because of the alleged results of those CO2 emissions takes the decision to close down, I can see State Governments taking legal action against that power generating entity. You see, they have a legally binding contract to supply a minimum of (X) GWH of power a year for the life of the Plant as part of their Licence to operate. When the State descends into anarchy, the State will sue the generating entity for breach of contract, plus heaps extra.

      Situation Two
      If the State orders the plant to close down, then the generating entity will take legal action against the State for compensation equal to the cost of the power for the remaining duration of their contract to supply.

      Either way, it’s a win win for the lawyers, They’ll get business no matter what.

      Can you gain an inkling now as to why those plants have not been ordered to close down.

      Still, a final decision from Paris that power plants close immediately is about as likely as the Sun rising in the West.

      Tony.

      21

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Tony,

        There will be no edict out of the UN to immediately shut down power plants. Power is critical for safety and protection of life.

        Think of rows of babies in a hospital with all of the monitoring equipment and access to specialised life support systems.

        Think of all the tens of thousands of aircraft that are in the air, all over the world at any given instant, and how reliant they are on radar and communications equipment, backed by a 24/7 international air traffic control network.

        Think of all the military satellite surveillance that goes on, to maintain what passes for peace, and the amount of redundant electronics that is deployed to ensure that somebody cannot press the wrong button, by mistake.

        Ok, that last example is a little extreme, but you get the gist. The West is totally dependent on electrical power. Without it, society as we know it, will collapse, quickly followed by local and central government, and there will be anarchy and no rule of law.

        In such a scenario, the UN can sit in New York, wondering how to put it all back together again, only to find that they are powerless to do anything because there is no communications, and no transportation because you can’t get petrol out of tanks without electricity to drive the pumps.

        In a previous career, I was involved in scenario planning, and there are no scenarios that let you sleep comfortably, at night. Our civilisation is actually very fragile. The only good thing is that the politicians and bureaucrats in the UN know that very well. They can afford to posture and frighten, and run simulations, but it goes no further than that, because there is no up-side for them, if it becomes real.

        10

        • #

          Rereke,

          yeah thanks. I knew all that.

          However 97%, sorry 99.9% of the general public do not, because no one will tell them. They need those power plants demonised for their CO2 emissions for only ONE reason.

          The money they can make out of it.

          THAT is the ONLY reason.

          Tony.

          31

        • #
          Manfred

          Also all too well aware RW.
          Now wouldn’t it be lovely (paraphrasing a well known song) to bring the political focus to bear upon intelligence, imagination and optimism, on building societal robustness, resilience and adaptability? That would necessarily exclude most irrational, threat based political posturing, which would probably result in the exclusion of the lions share of the political populous. Dang. No wonder we’re stuck in a quagmire of societal narcosis.

          00

        • #
          gai

          Here is just one scenario that was recently shown to the US Congress.

          “Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is the executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a Congressional advisory board dedicated to achieving protection of the United States from electromagnetic pulse and other threats.”

          STATEMENT OF PETER VINCENT PRY, CONGRESSIONAL EMP COMMISSION, CONGRESSIONAL STRATEGIC POSTURE COMMISSION, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL AND HOMELAND SECURITY

          ….Natural EMP from a geomagnetic super-storm like the 1859 Carrington Event or the 1921 Railroad Storm, a nuclear EMP attack from terrorists or rogue states as practiced by North Korea during the nuclear crisis of 2013 are both existential threats that could kill 9 of 10 Americans through starvation, disease, and societal collapse.

          A natural EMP catastrophe or nuclear EMP attack could black out the National electric grid for months or years and collapse all the other critical infrastructures, communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water, necessary to sustain modern society and the lives of 310 million Americans.….

          Wiping out the electrical grid (plus sensitive electronics) will KILL 90% of the US Population according to this report. Yet this is EXACTLY what the US government is planning to do only they are going to do it in slow motion.

          November 25, 2009 Administration Announces U.S. Emission Target….

          …the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030….

          (Now you know where Labor got the 50% renewable idea from.)

          The President’s goal hasn’t changed much.

          November 11, 2014

          FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation
          President Obama Announces Ambitious 2025 Target to Cut U.S. Climate Pollution by 26-28 Percent from 2005 Levels

          Building on strong progress during the first six years of the Administration, today President Obama announced a new target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025….

          The new U.S. goal will double the pace of carbon pollution reduction from 1.2 percent per year on average during the 2005-2020 period to 2.3-2.8 percent per year on average between 2020 and 2025. This ambitious target is grounded in intensive analysis of cost-effective carbon pollution reductions achievable under existing law and will keep the United States on the right trajectory to achieve deep economy-wide reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050.

          …The United States will submit its 2025 target to the Framework Convention on Climate Change as an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” no later than the first quarter of 2015…
          https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c

          …………

          What does reducing CO2 by 83% actually mean?
          The average for the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person. (wwwDOT)nuicc.info/?page_id=1467
          (Total population: 246,081,000)

          The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu. (wwwDOT)bu.edu/pardee/files/2010/11/12-PP-Nov2010.pdf
          (Total population: 5,308,483. 2% of the current US population.)

          If the USA reduces its energy consumption by 83% it equals 57 million Btu. per-capita. The rest would have to be non CO2 producing energy and nuclear and hydro are the only real options. Given the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 you can forget hydro — the greenies are destroying dams not building them. That leaves nuclear and the greenies blocked the recent Duke Energy North Carolina nuclear plant proposal. Meanwhile Duke blew-up the Cape Fear North Carolina coal plant.

          20

          • #
            gai

            The real fly in the ointment is the coal plants are closing down much faster than anticipated.

            …The EIA provides several reasons for the retirements, but the largest factor affecting coal-fired generating units are new regulations recently imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For example, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards require the addition of costly environmental equipment, which will result in the retirement of the older, smaller units that are not used heavily because it is not cost effective to make the additional investment….

            The question, of course, is whether these retirements are a detriment to the reliability and security of our national generating grid? The North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) most recent long-term assessment found that existing and proposed environmental regulations affecting fossil fuel plants in the United States may significantly affect bulk power system reliability.

            NERC, the nation’s leading authority on electric reliability, evaluated four major regulations now being proposed or implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency and found them to expose the United States to significant energy vulnerabilities. NERC estimates that nearly a quarter of our coal-fired capacity could be off-line by 2018 and that as many as 677 coal-fired units (258 gigawatts) would need to be temporarily shut down to install EPA-mandated equipment.[ii] These EPA regulations must be implemented within a 3-year window and the mandated equipment takes about 18 months to install. Because EPA’s three year timeline is so tight and the regulations affect so many units, utility companies are not sure that they can meet the standards and ensure reliability of the electricity system at the same time.

            http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/generating-companies-are-shuttering-coal-plants-at-record-rates-eia-reports/

            But not to worry, The Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 million rounds of amno to put down any civil unrest that might result from prolong blackouts.

            10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Thank you gai,

            That was the information I had been given (more or less), but I had to sign an ECA to get it (I hate that).

            It is now in the public domain

            00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      pat:
      Thank you for the laugh.
      IF others read that item carefully they will see why I never buy the Economist. I mean, starting with a temperature rise of ℃ when even the IPCC is talking of 0.6℃ by 2100. Then they segue into 6℃ by when?
      They don’t allow for human adjustment during ANY temperature rise, nor do they explain where that fabulous amount of heat comes from? Have they calculated the amount of heat needed to melt all the ice, and the time it would take? HINT to Economist readers – ice is a temporary insulator.
      MPBW (mutant pigeon brains at work).

      11

    • #
      TdeF

      This is a blantant scare piece, devoid of any facts. A pompously named Economic Intelligence Unit talking about 100 years in the future? Who expect +6C when it has taken 115 years to get +0.8C and that is disputed.

      Is this the amazing group of economic experts who predicted the Global Financial Crisis, something actually in their actual alleged field of expertise? Oh, missed that did they? About as much use as Penguins against Supersonic Flight.

      41

  • #
    Angry

    The Pope has just confirmed that belief in global warming is actually a RELIGION after all !

    This current Pope is anti Christian as he believes in Earth Worship which is a Pagan belief ie worship of the mountains, trees, rivers.

    This is NOT what Jesus or the Bible teaches.

    It is about time that he read the Bible !

    To Catholics he is an embarrassment and a divisive infulence.

    A Useful Idiot Leftist from Argentina !!

    80

    • #
      Len

      The Three things the Holy Spirit does no know:
      1. How many Franciscan Saints there are.
      2. How many orders of Nuns, and
      3. What Jesuits are thinking :-)

      10

  • #
    ROM

    The word floating around on Paris is that an agreement will be reached!
    ———
    The agreement to be signed will require the “Parties” to agree to reduce emissions but they will not be mandated to do so as a set or binding requirement on any “Party”.
    Each signing “Party” will be at liberty to set its own emissions reduction programs and the timing and scope of those emission reductions without a mandated requirement that would require a program of fixed reductions in emissions being imposed on the participating “Parties”.

    ————

    And so you have your international agreement and a complete success emerging out of the very successful Paris COP [ Conference Of Parties ]

    The agreement being everybody can do what they want to do, when they want to do it, how they want to do it, if they want to do it and if they can figure what it is they are supposed to do!

    A great success indeed.

    Now with that out the way , I have a very nice little bridge to sell if you are interested!

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    It is entirely appropriate for the Pope to make pronouncements about “Climate Change” because, as others have alluded it is a matter of religious dogma. It has nothing to do with science.

    Scientists should stay out of the religion business and so drop work on Climate Change and leave it to the theologians.

    40

  • #
    gai

    An interesting article on the Pope’s alignment with the Malthusians CAGW pushers. (See Dr Tim Ball’s Overpopulation: the Fallacy behind the falacy of Global Warming )

    Someone else sees religion could be used to give legitimacy to the UN thugs masquerading as bureaucrats. Do not forget that Claire Foster a representative of the Church of England not to mention Trevor Evans of the US Embassy were part of the The Secret 28 Who Made BBC ‘ Green’ (See WUWT The ‘secret’ list of the BBC 28 is now public – let’s call it ‘TwentyEightGate’)

    INFALLIBLE PAPAL IMPONDERABILITY: FRANCIS THE FIRST’S INSIPID AND PERNICIOUS MALTHUSIAN AGENDA FOR GLOBALONEY

    You’ll recall that Carlin lampooned the whole technique of “linguistic avoidance” of reality in what was probably the most non-politically correct comedy routine in history: “death” became a “terminal medical event,” “crippled” or “handicapped” people become “handi-capable,” “toilet paper” became “bathroom tissue,” and so on. Similarly with “de-population,” the “soft” term for genocide, be it by “slow” and “soft” means such as involuntary and covert sterilization regimes, or by the more tried and true Soviet, Maoist, and Nazi methods. “De-population’s” real meaning is genocide, plain and simple.

    It is therefore with a great deal of sadness that I note that now Francis I has thrown his mitre into the ring of the Malthusians and appears to have infallibly bought into the whole globaloney agenda (in reality, I think he’s simply showing his true “colors”), including not only calls for “de-population” but for a “global government” to address such issues….

    Then we come to the ultimate and typically papal mystification, the attempt to “declare, define, and pronounce”(to paraphrase the words of Boniface VIII from Unam Sanctam) any opposition as “blind faith in technical solutions” while the pope conveniently and blithely ignores his(and the globalists’) own blind faith in global bureaucracy and global governmental solutions. In other words, no countervailing arguments or data are – in the pope’s infallible charism – of any merit whatsoever; by papal definition, to argue against the proposition is to be obstructing the proferred governmental and regulatory solutions. To believe otherwise is, by implication, a kind of socio-political heresy…

    And we know what the papacy’s response to heresy has been from its gruesome, murderous, genocidal, barbaric, brutal and inescapable historical track record have been: imprisonment, torture, murder, and an “index of forbidden books”, and hence ideas and notions, running contrary to the infallible whims and caprices of whatever occupant the See of Rome decides to champion at the moment.

    And if you think it could not happen again under the auspices of this institution with its trendy “people-friendly” guitar masses and Saturday afternoon “quickies”, think again, for that alignment of the papacy with the Mathusian agenda is what the international oligarchical mafia has perhaps been seeking: a religious “sanction” for all manner of tyrannous methods, regulations, and an infallible quashing of anyone who dares raise a voice in protest over the data and their interpretation of it.

    Thus the papal call for a global government to “deal with” the “over-population problem” could be the modern equivalent of the medieval practice of handing over convicted “heretics” to the secular authority for execution, a wonderfully casuistical sophistry designed to avoid having to commit murder itself. The claims have not changed, only the methods have, and the “older methods”, so long as the claims remain, could come roaring back, and with a vengance. And this encyclical – whether intended to or not – could be laying the groundwork for it.

    The return of witch hunts has always been the danger for ‘Den1ers.’ Unfortunately we are not that far from those witch hunts as Jo’s next essay shows.

    40

    • #
      gai

      Who is Claire Foster who represented the Church of England at the BBC secret meeting that imposed censorship on science?

      Westminster Abbey

      After reading theology at Balliol College, Oxford, Claire developed expertise in medical ethics as a Research Fellow at King’s College, London. She published The Manual for Research Ethics Committees (KCL, 1995, republished each year) and later The Ethics of Medical Research on Humans (CUP 2001) and became a national expert in research ethics committees, developing and teaching an intellectual framework for the ethical scrutiny of medical research and working with the Department of Health to create a comprehensive network of ethics committees across the UK. Claire then moved to work for the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England as policy adviser in medical ethics and also environmental issues.

      She led the efforts to shift the Church’s thinking on environmental issues, offering a sound theological basis and practical guidance to change minds and hearts across the country. She published Sharing God’s Planet (CHP 2005); How many lightbulbs does it take to change a Christian (CHP 2007), and; Don’t stop at the lights (CHP 2008). During that time Claire became a lay Canon at St Paul’s Cathedral and in 2003 co-founded St Paul’s Institute, where she co-edited a book of Rowan Williams’ dialogues on global issues The Worlds We Live In (DLT 2005). In 2008 she left the Archbishops’ Council to found a charity, The Ethics Academy, and published Hero’s Journal (The Ethics Academy, 2009), a programme teaching moral strength and courage to young people and adults through the story of the ‘hero’s journey’. The programme was offered in schools of every kind…

      Claire has been a member or chair of numerous public and advisory bodies, including the Royal Society’s Science in Society Committee, the 10 Downing St coalition on climate change, the Sustainable Development Education Panel of the Department for Education and DEFRA, Central Oxford Research Ethics Committee, the Banking Code Standards Board and the Royal College of Paediatrics Ethics Committee. She is currently member of the British Medical Association’s Medical Ethics Committee, Unilever’s Central Research Ethics Advisory Committee and the McDonald Centre for public theology and ethics, Christ Church, Oxford.

      Claire has certainly been a busy little beaver hasn’t she? Especially for someone WITH NO SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS!!!

      Bookmark this for the next time a warmist tosses argument from authority at you.

      40

  • #
    el gordo

    Lord Donoughue said:

    “Wood and dung fires may be renewable energy sources but their disastrous impact on human health is undeniable. We would have liked to have seen the encyclical address moral dilemmas like this head on. We would also have liked to have known Pope Francis’s view on the bans on development aid for fossil fuel plants that so many western governments have put in place.”

    GWPF

    50

    • #
      David Maddison

      The bans by the West on fossil fuel electricity development in Africa are going to keep them impoverished essentially forever. Yeah, right, you are going to develop Africa with a 20W solar panel, a battery and a single LED light in every house… Although that certainly helps the education of children, people continue to die prematurely due to inhalation of smoke from indoor cooking fires.

      20

      • #

        I don’t believe the pushers of the global warming mantra care about people dying. If the Pope does, he really needs to work on his encyclicals because it’s certainly not showing. Believe it or not, these people care only about themselves. I really am convinced they care nothing about their children or grandchildren. It’s all about them and punishing people for whatever wrongs the people are perceived as having committed while condemning them to life in the stone age. As one of my blog posts notes, it’s “I’ve got mine, who cares about you?” with these people.

        40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Sheri,

          Pope Francis comes to his papacy from a long career of trying to help others in Latin America. Unlike his predecessors he’s been down in the trenches getting his hands dirty doing the work that counts toward bettering peoples lives. So I argue that his position isn’t one formed from lack of care about other people, rather it comes from his ignorance of what will happen if what he preaches is made to happen.

          00

          • #

            “Trying to help others”? Isn’t that the mantra of the progressives, who like the Pope, just want to do something whether or not it’s the right solution. If you really care about people, you put a lot of research into policies and so forth before declaring we need to suddenly embrace a certain science idea. Not bothering to fully research or to fully consider the ramifications of what one is recommending shows a lack of true care for people. It’s that feel-good, make it worse solutions the progressive and the Pope now push that do so much damage. Good intentions do not excuse really bad policies and proclamations.

            20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Pope Francis, like so many others, falls for the the fallacious argument from authority and being the “shepherd” for a flock of literally millions, opens his mouth and speaks the consensus line he’s been fed. He has no (and I mean zero) incentive to look into the matter for himself so he preaches the gospel of global warming. After all, who will challenge him from within the Catholic Church? What does he have to worry about?

    It’s been argued here on Jo Nova that the Catholic Priesthood is well educated in science. And I agree, they are well educated in all the classical theoretical science you could ever want. But it ends there. They have no experience from which to judge what they’re told and no incentive to be skeptical of authority figures, whoever they may be.

    Thus we have Pope Francis speaking to millions of Catholics with a voice that has huge perceived authority behind it. That many seem to be skeptical of his message is perhaps more due to the fact that so many Catholics are skeptical of much of the doctrine of the Catholic Church in general rather than skepticism about global warming. For example, how many Catholic couples do you expect are actually following their church’s doctrine about birth control? I have heard it lamented publicly that it appears not many do. So if there’s skepticism or disbelief about the Pope’s global warming position, what would be the cause of theat?

    We are lucky that the authority of the Pope has eroded over time. But he still carries a lot of weight with millions of people on this Earth of ours and I have no idea how to counter him effectively. And that the Vatican maintains a science advisor to the Pope means about as much as the fact that President Obama has a science advisor.

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Just my personal evaluation of the situation from observation. So if you disagree, I’m fine with that.

      Certainly Pope Francis will disagree, so you’ll be in good company.

      00

      • #
        gai

        Roy,

        There are many well meaning ‘socialists’ who actually care for people but their basic philosophy is still flawed.

        Munzenberg and the soviets cynically called them “useful idiots” or “Innocents’ Clubs

        SEE: Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Munzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals

        AND

        Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I have many complaints I could make about the Catholic Church if I wanted to. But that they want the kind of control you imply isn’t one of them. The one most important thing Jesus told his disciples to do was to be evangelists, tell the whole world about him. This is the one thing the Catholic Church does not do in any significant way. Instead they have become a closed group, almost cult like. The Roman Catholic Church grows by indoctrinating the children of Catholics. But if I wanted control as you imply, I would be busy trying to bring outsiders into my sphere of control, doing evangelism. But the Catholic Church doesn’t do evangelism.

          The Roman Church has many faults but I cannot see them wanting control over anyone who is not already Catholic.

          00

          • #
            gai

            I lived for years in Boston, a Catholic city and my experience was different. We were MADE to tithe to the ‘charities’ the company designated we would and if you were not a catholic, you did not get promoted or a raise worth beans. (There were three token non-catholics in my department.)

            Also it was an open secret that Boston Catholics were buying bullets for Ireland.

            As far as not going after converts — Ya right. You were not sitting at the table at lunch fending off the preaching.

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              gai,

              Sorry I could not get back to read your reply until now… …however, what you’re talking about isn’t quite the same as the church wanting control over you. It looks more like the same old, you better agree with me philosophy of life that I’ve seen before, only in the Episcopal Church. It’s more common than you might think as far as I can see. I’ve had numerous Catholic friends and neighbors and have seen not a single sign of what you describe. It looks more like a universal human failing to me. In Boston in particular, the Catholics stood together for a long time and became an almost inbred society. But I will admit that the Catholic Church exhibits a certain superiority complex that would encourage the behavior you describe.

              I remember the same pressure brought to bear on me as an enlisted soldier to contribute to the Army’s favorite cause. But I believe it went no higher than the company commander who wanted to look good to his superiors. Military politics are the worst kind there is. They cannot legally force anything of the kind nor can they do any form of retribution if you don’t conform.

              I’ve lost track of any links to it but one of Pope Francis’ predecessors made a definitive statement that the Catholic Church would evaluate other branches of Christianity and in so many words, said that the Catholic Church would determine who was saved and who was not. I rather enjoyed watching the Catholic Priest who is a contributor on Fox News trying to alibi his way out of the plain meaning of the words his boss had said in public, in writing for all to read. It was comical.

              00

  • #
    Mervyn

    As a Catholic, as I have little respect for this Pope. The Pope has clearly forgotten what his role is … a bit like WWF … opting for the Church to play a role as a climate change activist organisation. Big mistake!

    30