God’s Spokesman on Anthropogenic Climate Change?

Last night we watched a CBS 60 Minutes program about the changes Pope Francis is making in the Catholic Church, a rebroadcast of previous segments, while noting his recent accomplishments in diplomacy. The Pope was cited by President Barack Obama as a key player in the thawing relations between the US and Cuba. The Argentinian pontiff has been lecturing his cardinals on the need to clean up Vatican politics, and focus more on the needs of the poor.

Now he has decide to take on climate change and use it as tool for wealth distributions, which was the original purpose of the global warming initiative when it was crafted by global environmentalist organizations in the 1990s.

The UK Guardian has some details:

. . . In 2015, the pope will issue a lengthy message on the subject to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, give an address to the UN general assembly and call a summit of the world’s main religions.

The reason for such frenetic activity, says Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, chancellor of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is the pope’s wish to directly influence next year’s crucial UN climate meeting in Paris, when countries will try to conclude 20 years of fraught negotiations with a universal commitment to reduce emissions.

“Our academics supported the pope’s initiative to influence next year’s crucial decisions,” Sorondo told Cafod, the Catholic development agency, at a meeting in London. “The idea is to convene a meeting with leaders of the main religions to make all people aware of the state of our climate and the tragedy of social exclusion.”

Following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, the pope will publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology. Urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds, the document will be sent to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners.

According to Vatican insiders, Francis will meet other faith leaders and lobby politicians at the general assembly in New York in September, when countries will sign up to new anti-poverty and environmental goals.

Apparently Pope Francis has discovered how easy it is to extort wealth from the left and in come cases from the right for a global cause to save the planet from destruction, but in fact is nothing more than a wealth distribution scam.

In recent months, the pope has argued for a radical new financial and economic system to avoid human inequality and ecological devastation. In October he told a meeting of Latin American and Asian landless peasants and other social movements: “An economic system centred on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain the frenetic rhythm of consumption that is inherent to it.

As God’s spokesman, Pope Francis thinks the free markets economic systems is flawed and we need to move away from that system, and create universal poverty, by transferring wealth from the rich to the poor, destroying the system that created the welath in the first place.  Then we can all be poor.

“The system continues unchanged, since what dominates are the dynamics of an economy and a finance that are lacking in ethics. It is no longer man who commands, but money. Cash commands.

“The monopolising of lands, deforestation, the appropriation of water, inadequate agro-toxics are some of the evils that tear man from the land of his birth. Climate change, the loss of biodiversity and deforestation are already showing their devastating effects in the great cataclysms we witness,” he said.

God’s spokesman has decided to use anthropogenic climate change as a tool for economic change. We are back to the original purpose for promoting anthropogenic climate change wealth redistribution.

Advertisements

About Russ Steele

Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.
This entry was posted in Analysis, Climate Change, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to God’s Spokesman on Anthropogenic Climate Change?

  1. Brian H says:

    The Pope is like another successful Progressive statesman, a community organizer promoted far beyond his level of incompetence.

    Like

  2. stevefrisch says:

    Another source:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2014GL061940/asset/grl52351.pdf?v=1&t=i4ery4zx&s=aa4c70249198c4ffef2d84288008b2079ea54181

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – A comprehensive, 21-year analysis of the fastest-melting region of Antarctica has found that the melt rate of glaciers there has tripled during the last decade.

    The glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment in West Antarctica are hemorrhaging ice faster than any other part of Antarctica and are the most significant Antarctic contributors to sea level rise. This study by scientists at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), and NASA is the first to evaluate and reconcile observations from four different measurement techniques to produce an authoritative estimate of the amount and the rate of loss over the last two decades.

    “The mass loss of these glaciers is increasing at an amazing rate,” said scientist Isabella Velicogna, jointly of UCI and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. Velicogna is a coauthor of a paper on the results, which has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.”

    http://news.agu.org/press-release/west-antarctic-melt-rate-has-tripled/

    Like

    • Russ Steele says:

      You have given me lots of reading to do and an opportunity to validate the results of the research. I will post the results on the Next Grand Minimum, and we can restart the discussion. The problem I am having is the satellite temperature data shows Antarctica is slightly cooling, while it is melting, and there has to be a reason. Vulcanism is increasing around the world, there are active volcanos on the West side of the Antarctica and an undersea one was recently discovered off to the coast.

      I will be able to post some charts showing the satellite temperature decline and some surface temperatures and maps showing were the volcanic activity is taking place.

      We can re-engage the discussion when I post my findings.

      Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        Happy to do it Russ. I am glad I found some new reading for you.

        I would be the fist to admit that some or all of the melting measured in the west Antarctic ice sheet MAY be related to geothermal activity.

        I think one of the issues with the Antarctic ice sheet melting is that there is a less certain set of potential causes than there is for example on the Greenland ice sheet [not to mention that the amount of loss is less certain than in Greenland].

        There is also the distinct possibility that there is a combination of causes, such as legacy melting from Ozone depletion and increased solar radiation, warming of ocean currents adjacent to the west Antarctic ice sheet in the Amundsen Sea which has been more reliably measured than it has been off the eastern Shackleton Shelf area, soot deposition leading to more heat absorption, geothermal activity, etc.

        Reading quite a bit of climate science I can reliably say that climatologists would be the first to admit that uncertainty exists, and I have never seen a generally accepted peer reviewed report that does not address the uncertainty issue, with varying degrees depending upon the reliability of the data, or refer to another study that addresses levels of certainty.

        Like

      • Russ Steele says:

        Yes, those closing statements about uncertainty often contain a plea for more grant money. Climate change uncertainty has kept a lot of scientist employed for over 2 decades, and as long as the uncertainty continues, they can plan on some long term employment. The only one who is going bring this argument to a close is Mother Nature and that end solution is a generation away. We are at the top of the climate change roller coaster gliding toward the plunge down as PDO and AMO turn cold and the sun goes quiet for 20-30 years. PDO is cold now, AMO is on the cusp as is the sun.

        Check out this graphic and you can see the historical cycles, and where we are today.
        http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

        Like

      • Russ Steele says:

        Steven,

        It is beginning to look like there is some vulcanism, or at least heat flow responsible for some of Greenland’s melting. Here is a paper that explains part of the problem.

        Heat flux variations beneath central Greenland’s ice due to anomalously thin lithosphere
        Abstract:
        At the Earth’s surface, heat fluxes from the interior1 are generally insignificant compared with those from the Sun and atmosphere2, except in areas permanently blanketed by ice. Modelling studies show that geothermal heat flux influences the internal thermal structure of ice sheets and the distribution of basal melt water3, and it should be taken into account in planning deep ice drilling campaigns and climate reconstructions4. Here we use a coupled ice–lithosphere model driven by climate and show that the oldest and thickest part of the Greenland Ice Sheet is strongly influenced by heat flow from the deep Earth. We find that the geothermal heat flux in central Greenland increases from west to east due to thinning of the lithosphere, which is only about 25–66% as thick as is typical for terrains of early Proterozoic age5. Complex interactions between geothermal heat flow and glaciation-induced thermal perturbations in the upper crust over glacial cycles lead to strong regional variations in basal ice conditions, with areas of rapid basal melting adjoining areas of extremely cold basal ice. Our findings demonstrate the role that the structure of the solid Earth plays in the dynamics of surface processes.

        In a review of the paper James Edward Kamis a Geologist writes:

        “The area of greatest and most recent glacier retreat is located in the northeastern portion of Greenland and is associated with a very linear NNE trending bedrock valley termed the Jacobshavn Glacial Valley (see locator map above).

        NASA’s Study shows that this glacier was flowing very slowly down the valley and at the same time started gaining ice mass until 1998. At that point, it quickly started flowing down the valley while simultaneously losing large amounts of ice mass.

        It is clear that the Jacobshavn Valley is geologically fault bounded, and has recently become geothermally active. All the data and observations fit this notion, so a sudden increase in fault-related heat flow would cause bottom melting of the glacier.

        Also of significant relevance to the geologically induced geothermal heat flow of Greenland is a recently published research project by the GFZ German Research Center for Geosciences.

        “… the oldest and thickest part of the Greenland Ice Sheet is strongly influenced by heat flow from the deep Earth. We find that the geothermal heat flux in central Greenland increases from west to east due to thinning of the lithosphere, which is only about 25–66% as thick as is typical for terrains of early Proterozoic age5. Complex interactions between geothermal heat flow and glaciation-induced thermal perturbations in the upper crust over glacial cycles lead to strong regional variations in basal ice conditions, with areas of rapid basal melting adjoining areas of extremely cold basal ice.”

        The recent discovery of two Sub-Glacial Freshwater Lakes beneath the Greenland Continental Ice Sheet is highly significant.

        Although not interpreted as being related to geothermal heat by the authors, it is clear that geothermal heat is the most likely cause. The two lakes are located in the north central portion of Greenland beneath 1500 feet of ice and 30 miles from the ice-free edge. They each cover an area of five square miles, and most importantly, are oriented in the NNE linear trend, a fault-riddled area.

        The evidence for geologically induced geothermal heat flow on the Greenland continent shows that recent reports from NASA on Greenland ice melt from global warming are premature and ill informed.

        Something else to consider.

        Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        So tell me Russ, how do you think we can resolve the Catch 22 you have set up. If a scientist acknowledges uncertainty they are a shyster grant seeker, if they don’t they are lying about the conclusions that can bedroom fro their research. Seems like you are trying to get them coming and going.

        Like

      • Russ Steele says:

        I think if you read closely both sides use uncertainty as an opportunity for more grant funds. It is just part of the academic funding scheme, the only difference is who is providing the funds Big Green or some Big Conservative contributor. These pleas of uncertainty useless come in the closing paragraphs indicating more study is needed to resolve issues raised in the paper.

        It is not a catch -22 it is just part of a academic process to insure they have status in the University Board Room and Academic lounge, they get bragging rights and promotions for being in the big grant. So fart Big Green as give $6.9 billion in climate research grants. All to prove that humans are responsible for global warming and the need for wealth distribution. Think how much water and electricity that $6.9 Billion could have bought for African villages.

        Like

  3. stevefrisch says:

    Bremerhaven, 20th August 2014. Researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), have for the first time extensively mapped Greenland’s and Antarctica’s ice sheets with the help of the ESA satellite CryoSat-2 and have thus been able to prove that the ice crusts of both regions momentarily decline at an unprecedented rate. In total the ice sheets are losing around 500 cubic kilometres of ice per year. This ice mass corresponds to a layer that is about 600 metres thick and would stretch out over the entire metropolitan area of Hamburg, Germany’s second largest city. The maps and results of this study are published today in The Cryosphere, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).

    “The new elevation maps are snapshots of the current state of the ice sheets. The elevations are very accurate, to just a few metres in height, and cover close to 16 million km2 of the area of the ice sheets. This is 500,000 square kilometres more than any previous elevation model from altimetry”, says lead-author Dr. Veit Helm, glaciologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven.
    For the new digital maps, the AWI scientists had evaluated all data by the CryoSat-2 altimeter SIRAL. Satellite altimeter measure the height of an ice sheet by sending radar or laser pulses in the direction of the earth. These signals are then reflected by the surface of the glaciers or the surrounding waters and are subsequently retrieved by the satellite. This way the scientists were able to precisely determine the elevation of single glaciers and to develop detailed maps.
    On the basis of further CrysoSat-2 the scientists also documented how the elevation has changed over the 2011–2014 period. Ice sheets gain mass through snowfall and lose it due to melting and accelerating glaciers, which carry ice from the interior of the ice sheet to the ocean. “We need to understand where and to which extent the ice thickness across the glaciers has changed. Only then can we can analyse the drivers of these changes and find out how much ice sheets contribute to global sea level rise”, says Veit Helm.
    The team derived the elevation change maps using over 200 million SIRAL data points for Antarctica and around 14.3 million data points for Greenland. The results reveal that Greenland alone is reducing in volume by about 375 cubic kilometres per year. “When we compare the current data with those from the ICESat satellite from the year 2009, the volume loss in Greenland has doubled since then. The loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has in the same time span increased by a factor of 3. Combined the two ice sheets are thinning at a rate of 500 cubic kilometres per year. That is the highest speed observed since altimetry satellite records began about 20 years ago,” says AWI glaciologist Prof. Dr. Angelika Humbert, another of the study’s authors.
    The areas where the researchers detected the largest elevation changes were Jakobshavn Isbrae (Jakobshavn Glacier) in West Greenland and Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica. Since February 2014 scientists know that the Jakobshavn Isbrae is moving ice into the ocean at a record rate of up to 46 meters a day. The Pine Island Glacier hit the headlines in July 2013. Back then AWI scientists reported that a table iceberg as large as the area of Hamburg had broken off the tip of its ice shelf. (Link to the AWI press release from the 9th July 2013)
    But whereas both the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula, on the far west of the continent, are rapidly losing volume, East Antarctica is gaining volume – though at a moderate rate that doesn’t compensate the losses on the other side of the continent.

    Like

  4. stevefrisch says:

    By the way, thanks for correcting the misquote of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences working group report. I am sure it was just an oversight on your part and you in now way intended to imply that the Pontifical report implied it would burn heretics at the stake.

    Like

  5. Todd Juvinall says:

    I listened to a lamestream media report that the ice caps were melting. Russ, how can this be?

    Like

    • Russ Steele says:

      Todd,

      The Greenland ice cap has experiences some melting due a pulse of warm Atlantic waters that promoted some melting in the southern half of the island. However the pulse has been slowing since 1990 and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is expected to turn cold real soon now, and we will have 30 years of ice accumulation in Greenland. The correlation between warm/cold phases in the Eastern Arctic and the AMO are clear. More details here:

      http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/arctic-ice-and-the-amo/

      The AMO will turn down in the next few years, and we will then be in for 30yrs of increased sea ice and much lower temperatures in Greenland.

      The Antarctic ice has been setting records and the Arctic ice has returned to normal. You can see the combined results here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png

      What the lamesstream press does not understand, and they really do not want to learn, there are multiple multidecade long warming and cooling cycles. How those cycles interact has a big influence on the our local climate. The PDO is cold and the AMO is turning cold. When that happend in the past, the planet caught a cold in the Northern Hemisphere for about 20 years. In the past this Multidecadal Oscillation cold was amplified by a quiet sun and the next solar cycle is going to be the lowest in 200 years. Keep your warm coat handy.

      Hope this answers the question. Yes, there was some ice melting and it coming to a halt, according to the data. The lamestream is just listening to the global warming hysteria crowd. Change happens on generational boundaries. The next generation will grow up cold and wonder what the hell was current generation was thinking.

      Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        Hey Russ, correct me if I am wrong, but that linked graph on Antarctic ice above is for sea ice correct?

        I just have to point out that there is a big difference between sea ice and land ice. Sea ice forms and melts every year. Antarctic land ice is laid down over centuries.

        I am sure you are well aware of the difference between sea ice and land ice, so I must wonder why you would post a misleading graph?

        There are a number of reasons sea ice could be expanding in the Antarctic, including freshening of the waters around Antarctica due to land ice melt. As the land ice melts and freshens the water the freezing point in the surrounding ocean rises.

        http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

        Might want to start here on Antarctic land ice:

        http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

        Like

      • Russ Steele says:

        Steven, Here is an update from 2014 for your 2010 paper:

        New paper finds West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat below

        Via the Hockey Schtick – A paper published today in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds evidence that one of the largest glaciers in West Antarctica, the Thwaites Glacier, is primarily melting from below due to geothermal heat flux from volcanoes located along the West Antarctic Volcanic Rift System, i.e. not due to man-made CO2.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X14005780

        Abstract

        Thwaites Glacier has one of the largest glacial catchments in West Antarctica. The future stability of Thwaites Glacier’s catchment is of great concern, as this part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has recently been hypothesized to already be en route towards collapse. Although an oceanic trigger is thought to be responsible for current change at the grounding line of Thwaites Glacier, in order to determine the effects of this coastal change further in the interior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet it is essential to also better constrain basal conditions that control the dynamics of fast glacial flow within the catchment itself. One major contributor to fast glacial flow is the presence of subglacial water, the production of which is a result of both glaciological shear heating and geothermal heat flux. The primary goal of our study is to investigate the crustal thickness beneath Thwaites Glacier, which is an important contributor to regional-scale geothermal heat flux patterns. Crustal structure is an indicator of past tectonic events and hence provides a geophysical proxy for the thermal status of the crust and mantle. Terrain-corrected Bouguer gravity disturbances are used here to estimate depths to the Moho and mid-crustal boundary. The thin continental crust we reveal beneath Thwaites Glacier supports the hypothesis that the West Antarctic Rift System underlies the region and is expressed topographically as the Byrd Subglacial Basin. This rifted crust is of similar thickness to that calculated from airborne gravity data beneath neighboring Pine Island Glacier, and is more extended than crust in the adjacent Siple Coast sector of the Ross Sea Embayment. A zone of thinner crust is also identified near the area’s subaerial volcanoes lending support to a recent interpretation predicting that this part of Marie Byrd Land is a major volcanic dome, likely within the West Antarctic Rift System itself. Near-zero Bouguer gravity disturbances for the subglacial highlands and subaerial volcanoes indicate the absence of supporting crustal roots, suggesting either (1) thermal support from a warm lithosphere or alternatively, and arguably less likely; (2) flexural support of the topography by a cool and rigid lithosphere, or (3) Pratt-like compensation. Although forward modeling of gravity data is non-unique in respect to these alternative possibilities, we prefer the hypothesis that Marie Byrd Land volcanoes are thermally-supported by warmer upper mantle. The presence of such inferred warm upper mantle also suggests regionally elevated geothermal heat flux in this sector of the West Antarctic Rift System and consequently the potential for enhanced meltwater production beneath parts of Thwaites Glacier itself. Our new crustal thickness estimates and geothermal heat flux inferences in the Thwaites Glacier region are significant both for studies of the structure of the broader West Antarctic Rift System and for assessments of geological influences on West Antarctic Ice Sheet dynamics and glacial isostatic adjustment models.

        The melting is not from CO2 but thermal activity.

        Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        Hey Russ, you actually did not answer my question, you posted an alternative cause of Antarctic land ice loss. I already knew that there was some evidence of geothermal activity and posted it on my FB when the study came out.

        I asked you why you would post a graph on SEA ICE when the issue is land ice?

        But if you insist that the west Antarctic Ice shelf is melting due thermal activity I would say it’s pretty cool that we started planning for sea level rise from AGW and it paid off so handsomely be preparing us for the same natural disaster from another cause.

        Like

      • Russ Steele says:

        I just over looked the land verses sea ice. My error. There is more ice in the Antarctic than has ever been recorded, and yes much of it is sea ice.

        Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        By the way, I did not say that land ice was melting SOLELY due to AGW. There are a number of reasons land ice could be diminishing in the Antarctic, including thermal activity, increased solar absorption due to soot, changes in ocean currents, changes in solar radiation due to atmospheric Ozone, amongst others in addition to increased GHG emissions. I am saying that the incremental contribution of melting due to GHG emissions is something we should be conscious of and attempt to mitigate the impacts of.

        Like

      • Russ Steele says:

        Steven,
        Can you please provide more information, data if you have, it on greenhouse gas emissions increasing Antarctic ice melting. As I understand melting the temperature has to be above freezing. It is a large continent, where is the GHG melting taking place. Does not look like any melting at the South Pole. http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=90098

        Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        Well first we could establish that Antarctic land ice is shrinking:

        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.full

        Registration may be required but it is free.

        Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        Then we could discuss the fact that glaciologists agree that climate change is a major contributing factor:

        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1138.summary

        Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        By the way, did you just actually post the temperature readings at the South Pole and the point that the temperatures are below freezing year round as ‘proof’ that ice mass is not declining across the entire continent? One temp reading from one place on a continent that at 5,400,000 square miles is roughly twice the size of Australia? There is the little factor of solar radiation to deal with as well, Antarctica receives more solar radiation than any other place on earth, the earth is at perihelion during the Antarctic summer thus closer to the Sun than any other place on the planet at any time of the year.

        Like

      • Russ Steele says:

        No read the whole post I said it was a large continent with lots of places there it could be melting.

        Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        No, actually Russ you did not say there were, ‘lots of places there it could be melting.’

        You said: “As I understand melting the temperature has to be above freezing. It is a large continent, where is the GHG melting taking place. Does not look like any melting at the South Pole.”

        That is not the same as stating that there are ‘lots of places there it could be melting’, it is asking me to show you where it is melting, and reinforcing the impression it is not by posting south pole data [where the elevation alone would indicate few days above freezing].

        I consider this just another example of your semantic sleight of hand. When forced to actually take issue with peer reviewed science it always devolves to ‘the scientists are biased’. When someone cites a source you change the subject. When someone discusses a consequence of AGW you shift to the ideological argument that it is ‘socialism’ somehow, and rely on ideology to trump science. You regularly cite only part of the truth in order to hide the untruth in what you present.

        I know you are a very smart man so I can only surmise that this is intentional on your part.

        A classic example of this tactic on your part is the ‘CO2 is good for tree growth’ nonsense. Sure it might be good for SOME tree growth, but SOME trees do not exist outside of an ecosystem, and you never take into account any of the ecosystem impacts.

        I posted peer reviewed scientific studies showing where it is melting in the Antarctic—they are in the links–if you looked at them you would not have to ask the question.

        But your strategy is ask the question, imply ulterior motives and corruption, deploy ideology and fear, and count on human nature to prefer inaction over uncertainty to delay having to address a problem.

        In my book that strategy is the ultimate in denying personal responsibility.

        Like

  6. stevefrisch says:

    I find it utterly hilarious that you guys would critique the Pope for making a statement about climate change while on another blog George Rebane is quoting scientists on the existence and nature of God.

    Don’t you see the irony in this?

    It is almost as though someone who agrees with your point of view has standing, whether they be scientific or ecumenical, and someone who does not agree with your point of view has no standing regardless of station. What is even more ironic is that George is touting quotes by scientists on the nature of God when they very existence of God within the scientific community is a decidedly minority position and the Pope is expressing concern about climate change when its anthropogenic element is a decidedly majority position within the scientific community.

    Now I am sure the POPE must be an idiot. I mean, what does the POPE know about economics, commerce or science? I get it though, you are saying the Pope ain’t no scientist, and has expressed concern about the ability of capitalism to meet its moral obligations, so he must be a backward, mystical, atheistic, communist.

    Nevertheless the POPE does seem to have some resources at his disposal to think about these things. After all he is the head of a church with 1.2 billion followers in existence for more than 1700 years that spends roughly $170 billion per year on operations [$150 billion of which go to health care and higher education]. Now if the Catholic Church were a corporation, and lets say they drilled for oil or built missiles, they would have standing in your eyes. But the Church is just a bunch of hospitals, schools and colleges around the world, so what standing could they possibly have? And what could an entity that is the function equivalent in annual spending to APPLE of GM [not to mention some pretty impressive assets] possible know about economics? or capitalism? or science?

    I am sure that the process of issuing a papal encyclical is functionally the same as some local guys on his porch pulling ideas out of his ass. I bet they put these things together with zero thought. That is after all how an idea survives 1700 years.

    Of course if a Catholic scientist was waxing poetic about intelligent design we would quote them as source right?

    I am so glad I have a strong body of local know it alls to tell me when the Pope is fallible….I much prefer the infallibility of a bunch of local cranks with an axe to grind over the POPE.

    Like

    • Russ Steele says:

      It seems the Pope’s new-found enthusiasm for green issues was the result of a workshop of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held in the middle of last year.

      “The proceedings of the workshop have been published online and they make interesting reading. For example, the list of attendees tells a story in itself, with familiar names such as Naomi Oreskes, Peter Wadhams, Martin Rees, Hans-Jochim Schellhuber, Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph Stiglitz. There was also Daniel Kammen, the editor at Environmental Research Letters who is threw scientific integrity out of the window in a bid to prevent John Cook’s fictions from being exposed.

      Needless to say, there were no familar names who could be put in the “global warming not a catastrophe” camp.”

      So, we learn that the Pope did not get an opportunity hear the other side of the climate change story, only the doom and gloom side of climate change hysteria. If the Pope is as a know as you say, he will soon lean that he has been snooker by his staff and a group of discredited environmental wackos.

      Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        Yeah, I am sure the only exposure to climate science the Vatican has had is this one workshop at a Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting. They probably never thought about the issue before this meeting, never considered the link between climate change and poverty, or climate and extreme weather events, or climate and health care. Because climate has not been addressed in any of those communities that they are active members in. They have never been involved in any other international science or policy symposia or never studied the data through any of the more than 500 Catholic universities they support around the world.

        Like

      • Todd Juvinall says:

        Hey I thought you were an atheist Frisch? If so, why should anyone give you a look when you now say the Pope is right?

        Like

    • Russ Steele says:

      Pontifical Academy of Sciences working group 1632:
      “The idea that the Sun is central to the cosmos, and has an effect on the Earth is heretical, ridiculous, and we shall imprison the man advocating this theory for life without remission or medical attention.”

      Pontifical Academy of Sciences working group 2011:
      “The recent changes observed in glacial behavior are due to a complex mix of causal factors that include greenhouse gas forcing together with large scale emissions of dark soot particles and dust in ‘brown clouds’, and the associated changes in regional atmospheric energy and moisture content, all of which result in significant warming”

      Edited- The sentence below many not be in the report, it was a comment about the report.

      “If anyone tries to say it’s the sun, then they should remember how we deal with people like that” they added.

      Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        I’ll tell you what Russ, the next time George argues that Christianity is the religion of love and that Islam is the religion of hate, you can tell him that both are the religions of hate, that the Catholic Church of 2011 is no different than the Catholic Church of 1632, and that you stated that here today.

        By the way, I am trying to find that last sentence, “If anyone tries to say it’s the sun, then they should remember how we deal with people like that” they added”, in the Pontifical report.

        Can you point me to it please?

        I do see the Pontifical Report referenced here at Watt’s UP With That:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/09/the-vatican-gets-involved-in-climate-change/

        with that paragraph quoted, but not the sentence.

        The sentence above appears in quotation remarks in the COMMENTS section, not the quoted paragraph. Which one do you think is correct, or did you just intentionally ,mislead your readers to believe that that sentence is in the Pontifical Report?

        Like

    • Russ Steele says:

      Steven, I fixed the quote. It should not have been included in the quote, it was about the report, not in the report.

      One thought to consider it that many of the proponents of AGW are also promoters of population reductions, and this runs counter to the Church’s teaching. This may be a problem going forward.

      There are many Catholics that are skeptic and they are not going to go quietly into the night. I look forward to discussing the Pope’s role in convincing the world that human CO2 emissions are a danger to humans, especially the poor and the hungry. So far the increase in CO2 have accelerated tree growth and resulted in bumper crops in Africa, India, US and Canada. I am researching the numbers now. Stay Tuned.

      Like

      • stevefrisch says:

        I look forward to you posting scientifically vetted studies showing that increases in atmospheric CO2 are good for the planet because they promote tree growth. Such reports would have to take in to account the total systemic impact of increases in atmospheric CO2 and calculate the other impacts of increased CO2 stimulating plant growth, such as increases in desiese vectors, changes in weather patterns, the impact of invasive species, impact on water supply, effects on nutrient cycling, etc.

        Like

  7. Sean says:

    I wonder who is more morally troubled by this turn of events; atheist scientists for relying on a prominent religious figure to push the acceptance of their “scientific” theory through a papal encyclical or will it be devout Christians seeing a religious leader seeking counsel from atheist scientists to push a political agenda. It’s hard to see how this short term alliance improves the standing of either party. At best this is the Newt and Nancy couch trip re-enacted with religious pomp and ceremony. As I recall, Nancy made no progress in selling the AGW proposition to the American people because of that PSA made with her antagonist and lost her Speakership within 2 years; Newt was never taken seriously by Republicans again and regretted the impact the PSA had on his presidential ambitions. I predict similar outcomes

    Like

    • Russ Steele says:

      I think that his position on AGW was a big negative for Romney. He was for it, then almost maybe against it. Then after the election he when back to being a warmer. I never thought he as sincere during the campaign. Three million other voter did not think he was sincere either, on this or other issues.

      Like

  8. gjrebane says:

    What better spokesman to interpret for us all about matters of economics, commerce, and science than one who is innocent of all three.

    Like

    • Russ Steele says:

      As I recall the Catholic Church was once very anti-science during the Dark Ages. Now Pope Francis is pushing the Catholic Church to a new Dark Age with his climate change hysteria.

      Like

Comments are closed.