Don’t Lose Sleep Over Climate Change Encyclical

Pope Francis

It’s official. Progressives love Pope Francis. Their magazines, from Think Progress to Mother Jones, are abuzz with excitement in light of the recent rumor that the pope is going to issue an encyclical on climate change sometime in the next few months.

As a politically conservative American Catholic, I’m expected to throw a fit about this, and I hate to disappoint people. So even granting that this is still just a rumor, I’ll go ahead and admit that I would not welcome an encyclical that made carbon emissions a much-discussed topic. It would smack of intellectual faddism, and it’s always depressing to feel that Church authorities are more focused on trendy social controversies than on the fundamental business of saving souls.

Having said that, I’m not going to lose any sleep over a (possible) Church document on climate change. Nor should you.

As a political conservative, I care somewhat about political issues such as this. But as a Catholic (which is much more important), I mainly care about fundamental Church teachings on faith and morals. Climate change is only very distantly relevant to any of these, so nothing the Holy Father says about it is likely to muddy doctrinal waters to any great extent. The deposit of faith is safe. Frankly, we should probably be grateful if the talking heads chatter a lot about Catholicism and climate change. After the recent, literally scandalous debates over divorce and family issues, it might be a relief to see the Holy Father devoting his energies to environmental concerns, rather than stirring up doubt and division over central doctrinal or moral questions.

I understand of course why progressives are so excited over an anticipated row between the Roman Pontiff and their conservative enemies. But there’s really no reason why this should happen, because when it comes to climate change, none of the controversial questions are of the sort that the Holy Father could definitively answer anyway.

Most of the time, the figures tarred as “climate deniers” are simply people who insist on parsing the relevant ecological, economic and prudential questions with a carefulness that runs contrary to the zealous, unthinking activism that liberals would prefer to foster. Progressives love to promote a narrative wherein they are on the side of science, while conservatives (and religious people especially) are sticking their heads in the sand and wishing away the mountains of empirical evidence that run contrary to their views. On top of that, climate-change panic harmonizes with many secularists’ sense of drama and impending doom. We might see it as the apocalyptic side of the progressive’s tendency to “immanentize the eschaton.” Liberal sensitivities are most appeased when they feel that political forces are about to usher us all into a new, shining utopia … provided nature doesn’t obliterate us first. We may achieve the paradise of the perfect political order, but only if we can escape being damned for the sin of inventing civilization in the first place.

Climate change, in other words, fits nicely with the pseudo-religious sensibilities of progressives. This is why people who understand nothing about the science will lobby aggressively for measures to reduce carbon emissions: because “science says so,” but also because it feels intuitively right to them that humans are on the verge of destroying themselves through environmental folly. Meanwhile, within the scientific community itself there is an army of public rent-seekers (not to mention providers of alternative energy, and Democratic politicians) who have everything to lose and nothing to gain from a relaxation of public concern over climate change. They are quite happy to stoke their acolytes into an activist frenzy. Taking all this together, there is plenty of reason to be cautious about jumping on the “science is settled” panic-wagon.

Of course it doesn’t follow from this that climate change isn’t a real concern. It probably is, to some extent. But when we dig into the details, it turns out that “climate change” is a far more complex issue than environmental activists like to admit. Even identifying what the relevant questions are with respect to climate change is a challenging task. Answering those questions is even more difficult.

Let’s start by considering the most basic of questions. Is climate change a real thing? On the most basic level, the answer is clearly “yes.” No intelligent person is actually a “climate denier,” because we all understand that it is entirely normal for the earth’s climate to change. Climate stasis would be the real aberration; climate change is the norm. The fact that it’s normal of course doesn’t mean that it’s not cause for concern. Changes in climate can cause all sorts of problems for human populations. But we shouldn’t act as though changes in climate represent some unique or unprecedented situation. Human civilizations have always had to adapt to changing weather patterns.

Our harbingers of climatory doom are of course not satisfied with this answer. They suggest that the climate is changing more than it normally does, or ought to, or more than it would but for the adverse effects of human civilization. This is certainly possible, but the issue is hard to settle because of course we really don’t know what our climate would look like without human civilization. Would Hurricane Haiyan still have hit the Philippines in a cleaner-energy world? Would it have been as bad as it was? Any answer we might give to that question will be highly speculative. And for all we know, there may have been other terrible natural disasters that didn’t happen, owing to human impacts on climate. Once again, it would be unreasonable to dismiss entirely the possibility that humans are impacting their climate in an undesirable way. But we also should not forget that weather has always been unpredictable, changeable, and occasionally deadly.

Even insofar as we can identify a likely connection between human activities (most especially carbon emissions) and climate change, further questions remain. Are the changes in climate negative for humans? And if so, are the economic costs of any recommended policy changes worth the climatory benefits?

I suspect that Pope Francis’ remarks, assuming he does offer some, will center around two points. First, he will likely offer some general observations about the importance of exercising good stewardship over the natural world. And second, he will remark on the injustice of the wealthy continuing to live in comfort at the expense of the “most vulnerable.” This is a favorite theme of his, and climate change may seem to fit the narrative since developed nations have higher “carbon footprints,” while poorer nations have greater difficulty adjusting to climatory change. But before concluding that there is a clear moral imperative to restrict the use of fossil fuels, we should keep in mind that the “most vulnerable” will also suffer from rising energy costs. Without cheap fossil fuels, many more people will be hungry and cold. Abundant energy also tends to fuel job growth, which the Holy Father has highlighted in the past as a vital concern for modern societies.

It’s reasonable for the Holy Father to use his moral authority to address ethical issues relating to climate change. However, he cannot claim infallibility, or even great expertise, in all the relevant empirical, economic and prudential questions that play into the controversies surrounding climate change. There is no reason for this issue to precipitate a standoff between the Holy Father and American conservatives. We should save our worrying for more important matters.

(Photo credit: AP)

Rachel Lu

By

Rachel Lu, a Catholic convert, teaches philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota where she lives with her husband and four boys. Dr. Lu earned her Ph.D. in philosophy at Cornell University. Follow her on Twitter at rclu.

  • Harry

    Hello Rachel,

    You make many good points. Even so, Catholics who are orthodox still have cause for concern.

    The possibly dire consequences of climate change are mere speculation. The contemporary assault on traditional morality regarding human sexuality has already been and will continue to be lethal to innocent human beings by the billions worldwide, as the children of God are dismembered and disemboweled through surgical abortion, or simply delivered and left to die in “induced labor” abortions, or killed by abortifacient “contraceptive” pills and various abortifacient drugs. This is a matter of fact, not speculation.

    The Pope’s addressing climate change in an encyclical only exacerbates a situation that is already lethal to innocent humanity by the billions. This is due to the fact that it most certainly will not actually be read by millions who will simply accept the media spin on it as its true meaning and significance.

    No matter what the Pope says in that encyclical, it will be spun as his blessing of the state’s assumption of even more authority over every detail of the behavior of its citizens in order to save them from the climate change bogeyman.

    We already are living under a self-deified state that has claimed for itself the authority to overrule God’s command, “Thou shalt do no murder,” and insists it is a mother’s right to take the life of her own child if he/she still resides within her. We have minors being counseled by state-authorized strangers to get “legal” abortions without the knowledge or consent of their parents. Sometimes these abortions are botched, taking the life of the daughter as well as the grandchild of parents who only find out about all this with the news of their daughter’s death. Such is the extent of the state’s unjustifiable invasion of the personal affairs of its citizens.

    The Pope shouldn’t take any actions that will further legitimize the state’s outrageous usurpation of authority that rightly belongs to God alone, or belongs to lesser institutions and/or the people themselves according to the principle of subsidiarity inherent in Catholic Social Teaching. An encyclical on climate change will do just that, whether that is intended or not.

    Anti-life, anti-traditional morality, authoritarian, self-deified statists will be claiming they have the Pope’s blessing on some issues as they campaign in preparation for the November elections. A climate change encyclical spun by their media allies will give them even more material to work with. The contemporary self-deified state has become the most dangerous threat to humanity in the history of the world, not climate change.

    The Pope should know that. So why would he publish a climate change encyclical when no matter what he says in it, it will be used to exacerbate an already terrible situation?

    • Don

      I’m with Harry on this. The Church will survive no matter what the Pope says, but that doesn’t me that messy messaging can’t have harmful consequences.

    • Azygos

      This is by far the best comment that I have read here. God bless.

  • Zephaniah

    The Holy Father should stay out of this issue! No matter what he says the liberal media will spin it to suit the Liberal Elite and support increased government interference in our lives.

  • C.Caruana

    Rachel, the Pope is going to write about ‘human ecology’, not just environmental matters. That means that ethical and moral questions will be raised, and these might have doctrinal implications. Remember, he has primed us for surprises, and with fear and trembling let us hope they are good ones. In any case, the thought that it will be a written document might perhaps mitigate our anxieties. Or not?

    • Like the synod on the family would be about the family and not just homosexual and heterosexual perversions?

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    The worst thing about this encyclical, when it comes, will be that it will give dissenting “catholics” another issue on which to hang their Catholic credentials: “See, I’m with the Pope on climate change. That’s at the heart of the Gospel, too. It’s pro-life, too! Not just abortion, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, etc. etc.” The is the most confused pontificate in my lifetime, and it could not come at a worse time for the Church.

    • Allan Daniel

      Well said.

    • I’ve noted that too. Pope Francis has no intellectual discipline. He rambles about jumping from issue to issue. he’s the complete opposite of Pope Benedict XVI. What a disappointment.

      • On this issue, he’s with Pope Benedict XVI, who made the Vatican the first nation in the world to be carbon neutral.

        • M

          That is a good point, Theodore Seeber. And China, as a result of investing in education in the sciences and technology, has recognized the problem of climate change and its causes, and is attempting the transition to a clean energy economy. China still produces a great deal of dirty energy and is a prime contributor to greenhouse emissions, but one must give the nation great credit for good intentions. Baoding, an industrial Chinese city of about a million people once plagued with illness caused by filthy air and filthy energy sources, has become “carbon positive.” thanks to clean technologies like wind, solar, biomass, photovoltaic, and others (http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=view&nr=245&type=99&menu=20 .) Carbon air pollution remains on of China’s leading health threats and causes of premature death, but clearly the nation is taking steps in the right direction.

          • Somehow, among the combox readers here, I don’t think you’re going to get any points for mentioning China.

            One man’s greenhouse gas emissions, is another man’s free fertilizer for his roofless greenhouse.

            • M

              Believe me, i would be an anti-Catholic fool to be looking for points among some of the combox readers here, especially on this subject:-) I was merely making two points: 1) With a little imagination and tech know-how, clean technology can provide ample energy to a large, industrial city, and 2) carbon emissions are causing premature death.

              • St JD George

                It would be fun to rebut you with facts all afternoon long for sport, but I have more important work to do now to go and save the planet from the dark prince of this world.

              • fredx2

                China is not getting their power from clean energy. They open a new coal fired power plant every week or something like that. It is not a matter of imagination and know how. It is a matter of economics. Carbon dioxide emissions are not creating premature deaths.Smoke and filth are.

                • M

                  China is home to 24% of the world’s renewable power capacity. it gets about 260 gigawatts from hydropower. China aims to have 20% of its total energy demand sourced from renewable sources by 2020. In the meantime, they’re still using a lot of coal power, their air is filthy, and China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

            • robnbc

              water is also good for plant growth but too much – not so much – ask Noah 🙂

              • St JD George

                You didn’t get that from the movie did you?

          • GG

            Is that climate change or just a corrupt country that pollutes and does not care?

          • ” but one must give the nation great credit for good intentions. ”
            Nonsense.

            • M

              Not every person or nation is all bad or all good. That is the thinking of someone with borderline personality disorder. It is in fact possible that the Chinese government cares about the health of its citizens. It is also possible that China doesn’t care one iota but understands the economic value of a healthy populous. Whatever their motivation, nefarious or honorable or something in between, China is proving that it can produce improve public health and create jobs through clean energy.

              • St JD George

                China is still moving from 3rd world into the modern world with only a tiny fraction enjoying the fruits of their prosperity (granted growing rapidly) and much of it’s energy infra structure aged, even more than ours. They also are about the only ones who manufacture anything in the world anymore on an industrial scale. China cares most about bad press and when people can’t breath in Beijing or it overshadows the Olympics they do something about it, like stop manufacturing until it’s over.

                • GG

                  Exactly!

                • Glenn M. Ricketts

                  In Tsarist Russia, I think they used to call it Potemkin Villages, didn’t they?

              • GG

                Um, yea you can really tell how much they care about their people by their abortion policy and how they treat the Catholic Church. That is really wonderful.

                Which type of personality disorder is that?

                • M

                  I would think there is some narcissism and sociopathy in every totalitarian government.

              • fredx2

                China is proving that it must clean up a filthy environment. It has nothing to do with creating green jobs. which are a myth.

              • Ethan

                Excellent point, M!

                • M

                  You mean about China? That country fascinates me! So backward in some ways; so progressive in others. They’re at the cutting edge in many areas of technology, their modern architecture is amazing, and yet they have such problems in the area of civil rights.

            • robnbc

              Actually at current efficiencies only a very small proportion of the earths surface would be required to meet modern energy needs. There are enough south facing roofs to make America fossil fuel free many times over. The current technological problem is storage and there is lots of progress being made on that.

              • St JD George

                Rob, there’s nothing inherently wrong with what you are saying and of course it is good to study alternative forms of energy. There should be an all the above approach and let the merits of each source dictate regional needs and infrastructure, etc. The real problem most of us have is the outright dishonesty, name calling (Alinski protocol), and the rabid chicken with it’s head cut off, sky is falling, alarmist rhetoric that make the purveyor’s peddling it look like fools hiding behind an agenda rather than sane human beings. If it weren’t so sad it would be comical. I am an engineer and in my entire life I have never seen anyone defend anything as flimsy as this with a life as we know it is going to come to and end mentality attempting to destroy anyone in the path who disagrees. I myself have investigated both solar and wind and have concluded that neither has a satisfactory ROI where I live, even with your subsidizing me. With our current carbon phobia I have no doubt that over the long term energy costs will sky rocket, technology will get better and prices for panels will come down which will give me pause to rethink and consider again in the future.

                • Glenn M. Ricketts

                  Imminent catastrophe has been a staple of the environmentalist movement for quite some time, if you recall the frantic hysteria of Paul Ehrlich in the wholly discredited Population Bomb or the slightly less hysterical Closing the Circle, by the late Barry Commoner.

                  That’s too bad, because some good practical things were done to clean up rivers or minimize further air pollution. And though there are some scientifically credible people – such as Nobel Laureate physicist Freeman Dyson or Princeton physicist Will Happer – the movement has long been dominated by ideologues and bogus science. Unfortunately they seem to be the ones the Pope is listening to.

                  • St JD George

                    The absolute certainty of the unknown and high pitch hysteria is almost laughable if not so predictable and sad.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Exactly. Also, I just corrected my post to indicate that Dyson and Happer are both dissenters from the Chicken Little approach, which is no doubt why the media ignore them. They pay attention to scientific heavyweights such as Leonardo DiCaprio instead.

                    • St JD George

                      Agreed, most dissenters like I mentioned to M earlier about Dr. Lindzen, are actually rationale human beings who just say whoa, something doesn’t quite look right here, let’s study it and try to understand rather than make premature, rash judgments. However, that’s now how the mind of an alarmist or one with a hidden agenda works. Facts are only relevant when they support a position and are to be ignored, dismissed or ridiculed when they don’t. Hardly the scientific method.

                    • M

                      Firstly, you have completely understood Lindzen’s position. He does support AGW. Secondly, if you want to learn more about the science, a good place to start would be to drop the paranoid conspiracy theories and do some honest hard study.

                    • M

                      Sorry — meant MISunderstood. Not wearing my glasses.

                    • St JD George

                      Hardly. In fact Dick and chatted about it this
                      morning and he reminded me again to be wary of people like you. He laughed out
                      loud again telling me how absurd the latest claims in the IPCC report were
                      stating that man was to blame for global warming with 95% certainty. He said
                      that “the report has sunk to the lowest level of hilarious
                      incoherence” and “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their
                      models as the discrepancies between their models and observations
                      increase.” I should have but I didn’t take him up on his bet that in
                      20 years global average temperatures will be far lower than they are now.
                      Probably the wisest thing he said that you of all people who claim to be
                      involved in science should take heed of is “You have politicians who are being told if they question
                      this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is
                      never anti-science.” I know, according to you he’s old and senile at
                      the age of 74 despite being educated at Harvard and a Sloan Professor at MIT
                      who has devoted his entire life to studying Meteorology. He told me not to only to listen to him, to
                      call his good friend Ivar Giaever the Nobel Prize winner in Physics (that kind
                      of stuff impresses you I know) so I did.
                      We had a good laugh too at your expense unfortunately and he also warned
                      me about people like you before going on to repeat himself in saying “this
                      climate change orthodoxy has become some kind of a new religion for so-called
                      scientists, and reminded that the data isn’t nearly as compelling as it should
                      be for this kind of conformity”. He had
                      to run, but told me to call Will Happer to get his thoughts which I did. You know Will don’t you, the physicist from
                      Princeton? His office is down the hall
                      from where Albert Einstein used to reside.
                      He laughed too and said you know “this anti CO2 crowd reminds of the
                      prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th amendment?. He wasn’t entirely mocking though and said
                      that they have good intentions and that their heart is in the right spot even
                      if their minds aren’t. His final
                      comments before having to leave for a meeting were that the influence of CO2 is
                      vastly overstated and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it would be negligible. He also said hey, don’t just take my word for
                      it, give Dr. Alan Carlin a call over at the EPA. You know Alan don’t you, he also used to be a
                      leader of the Sierra Club and is an ardent environmentalist. I tried but he told me he was under house arrest
                      for daring to have contrarian views to the agenda so I had to look him up. I wondered why the EPA would try to silence
                      such a brilliant mind because he dare to criticize the extremist views held by
                      his administrative overlords that he said were not supported by the science. Hopefully someday the gag order will come off
                      and he’ll be able to talk freely again.
                      And so I continued to search and found speeches given by Professors Ian
                      Plimer, Patrick Michaels, Kiminori Itoh, Bjorn Lomborg, Freeman Dyson, and on,
                      and on. A common thread began to emerge
                      from all these highly respected, world renown and professional scientist … that
                      the SCIENCE IS FAR FROM SETTLED and that it appears to have been taken
                      over by some agenda driven maniacs who have abandoned their scientific
                      principles to grovel at the alter of this new age religion. They all seemed to be alarmed too that
                      scientists appear to be losing their minds in behaving like politicians trying
                      to destroy anyone who dares speak out against or are neutral on this subject,
                      entirely the opposite of the way good scientists are supposed to react when
                      defending their theories to be sure that they are indefensible and welcoming constructive
                      criticism. What kind of scientist are
                      you M, objective, or bought and paid for?

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      It’s strikes me -as a non-scientist – to be at least as much about ideology as it is science. The Climategate business in 2009 illustrates how low and dirty “leading” AGW enthusiasts are willing to play. More recently is the case of climatologist Lennart Bengtsson:

                      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

                      But it’s hard to top the tactic of Michael Mann, of “hockey stick” fame, who simply sues any critics for libel. I’ve noted elsewhere in this thread that AGW enthusiasm is a new secular religion, but more and more it’s starting to resemble a cult.

                    • St JD George

                      Yeah, I read that earlier in Spiegel this week too and should have included MM in my list replying to M. Cult is the precise word to describe this behavior. As a scientist who is trained to try and maintain a sense of objectivity observing things I find it deplorable. Let’s face it, nobody likes criticism, but as scientists we are also trained to welcome it amongst colleagues because the more our theory withstands it generally the more it becomes accepted. When you hide or act in a non transparent way warning bells go off all over the lab. What’s really sad to me is thinking that M is in some position of education where is forcing this pseudo science onto impressionable minds as fact. Believe it or I’ll ridicule you, that’s the way professional behave.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      You actually run in to something similar where evolution is concerned, although I think I’ve got something of a handle there at least. I have no problem with it from a faith perspective, since, as I can never convince some people, Catholics have believed since Augustine that God can work through secondary processes. Beyond that, I do think there remain some significant empirical and conceptual problems, especially since you have to take the measure of things that have already happened.

                      Witness, though, the panic and shrill hysteria when Tom Nagel, a lifelong atheist and philosopher of science, published Mind and Cosmos several years ago, in which he concluded that Darwin’s materialist approach to the development of species doesn’t stand up to scientific and logical scrutiny fundamentalist and religious obscurantist were among the milder epithets he had to endure.

                      The reason, of course, is that some secularists have always seen evolution as a silver-bullet God killer, and for that reason it must always be squeaky clean, perfect beyond any conceivable doubt, since it makes belief in any deity impossible. I’m not yet sure what’s at work with AGW – perhaps not so much to kill God as to replace Him. Oh well, that’s enough for one night. I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of this.

                    • St JD George

                      The same with those that believe the Big Bang explains (thanks Fr Lemaitre) the origin of the universe. No one is honest to admit that they will never have a comprehension of the infinite temporal, spatial and material dimensions of how things came to be, or will end. Or minds are gifts but finite, God’s love and power is infinite, and the universe he created for us is beautiful.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Amen.

                    • M

                      As I briefly scanned this, I saw the claim that Dr. Alan Carlin, who has a doctorate in economics, not climatology, and has never been assigned to work on climate change, was under “house arrest.” I assume you have confused an opinion piece that equated Carlin to Galileo, who was in fact placed under house arrest. Carlin was never placed under house arrest. After his spat with his supervisor, which was over whether a report he wrote should be included in EPA findings, Carlin remained employed by the EPA and was free to speak to the media, which he has done. Carlin has himself admitted to shoddy scholarship in producing the report. I didn’t get through much of the rest of your post, but obviously I distrust its credibility after the Carlin faux pas.

                    • And you have no doctorate. Economics Phds are often very skilled at advanced Mathematics, and often have technical u

                    • St JD George

                      Your bias filter is set to distrust anything that doesn’t fit into your preconceived basket of belief. A great quality in someone who professes to be a scientist.

                    • M

                      Seriously, if a post contains a falsehood (such as Alan Carlin being “under house arrest”,) would you take the rest of it seriously?

                    • St JD George

                      In addition to lacking objectivity, I see you also are deficient in having a sense of humor. Would reprimand suit you better?Also, dismissing economics as a variable in equation is rather ignorant of you. I understand that you might be threatened by someone removing your grant and so a natural position is to cower to protect ones livelihood, either that or afraid to be independent in front of your colleagues. Good luck Capt. M, go save the world while you still have time.

                    • St JD George
                    • Eamonn McKeown

                      So unfair of you to impugn Leo’s caviar and champagne clubbing carbon (dioxide) footprint with his chubbiness. Oh wait, his intellect. LOL.

                    • I hear he’s a maritime expert, as well.
                      I always found it fascinating and depraved that in that movie, when the old lady died, she wasn’t sent to eternity with her husband, but to a resurrected dead ship to spend eternity with the random dude she got naked for (with).

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Yes, it almost makes me want to be an environmentalist, they seem to live so well.

                    • robnbc

                      You seem to say that with a high degree of certainty 🙂

                    • St JD George

                      I appreciate the smiley face – that tells me you are able to recognize uncertainty when you see it and laugh about it, ha.
                      There is nothing more certain than the uncertainty of a man who claims to be absolutely certain and will punch you in the nose to prove his point.

                  • Julian Simon made Erlich into a piñata.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Yes, it was like shooting tuna fish in a bath tub.

                  • M

                    Actually Freeman Dyson never won a Nobel Prize. It is also misleading to call him a “dissenter.” In reality, he does NOT disagree that climate change is real or that it is caused by greenhouse emissions. He just thinks that humans will figure out workable solutions. I hope he is correct. Note that he also said, “I know a lot about nuclear weapons and nothing about climate change.” (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post/freeman-dyson-and-the-irresistible-2009-04-30/?id=freeman-dyson-and-the-irresistible-2009-04-30)

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Thanks, my mistake. He’s won a number of high prestige awards, but not that one.

                      I still say, though that he is a dissenter by the absolutist standards that currently inform AGW advocates, enough that the editors of the Atlantic went after him with this rather shrill piece, taking him down for his dissent:

                      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-danger-of-cosmic-genius/308306/

                      Elsewhere, he’s also complained about the intolerance of the environmentalist movement and the extent to which it has become a fire-in the-belly religious movement. Sorry, my citation isn’t handy for that one, but I’ll find it if you like. But thanks again for the correction.

                    • M

                      You are welcome. Dyson is a lot of fun, but he describes himself as a contrarian who knows nothing about climate change (link above) who enjoys stirring things up.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      I would say he knows more than most of us, and is entitled to a “scientific” opinion on that basis.

                      Sometimes it’s seemed that credentials don’t matter as long as a particular scientist supports the AGW “consensus,” But when, like James Lovelock, he changes his mind, his background – Lovelock’s Ph. D was in a medical research area – it suddenly becomes an issue. No one had previously mentioned Lovelock’s age (95?), either but suddenly that seemed to be an issue. For that matter, James Hansen was originally an astronomer, before gaining a reputation on climate change. Anyway, it was very “scientific” of you to call be on that error, since we need to get it right, whatever our opinions.

                      Stick around, it’s been fun.

                  • M

                    Climate change, while it effects the environment, is the purview of scientists more than “environmentalists.” While climate change certainly effects the environment, the scientific studies focus on statistical likelihoods, not “imminent catastrophe.”

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      i don’t think I take the point here, M. Certainly, popularizers like Al Gore, the BBC, and various high-profile, but very silly, people in Hollywood have played the catastrophe theme pretty regularly, as do many routinely on college campuses – just look at the list of guest presentations or course syllabi in scads of places to see illustrations of what I’m saying. James Hansen has also gone over the top a few times as well. Not to nitpick, but I think that “affect” is the word you want here.

                      Are familiar with Judith Curry’s blog? If not, you might want to take a look at a site that regularly features articles and opinions by AGW “dissenters” who have pretty bone fide scientific credentials:

                      http://judithcurry.com/

                    • M

                      I know Judith Curry. I have opinions:-P Yes, there are a small number of scientists who still disagree with the conclusions of the wider community. Most of them disagree in very specific and narrow areas. Often narrow statements about specific issues are taken out of context. And, yes, there are “popularizers” on both sides of this issue — people with no scientific background but very strong opinions. Unfortunately, because some people have injected ideology into this issue, the topic is clouded with prejudice and outright lies. Some will reject anything Al Gore supports — on principle and independent of the facts. Some, unfortunately, outright lie. The producers of “The Great Global Warming Swindle” unfortunately misrepresented the views of certain scientists and made them appear to oppose positions they actually support. Carl Wunsch was so upset by the way his views were distorted that he issued the following public response in a letter to the UK Channel 4:

                      “What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which

                      there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
                      many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
                      accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
                      it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
                      a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
                      a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
                      infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning
                      meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
                      are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
                      not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
                      piece of disinformation.

                      An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
                      I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
                      carbon dioxide than it absorbs — thus exacerbating the greenhouse
                      gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
                      was used in the film, through its context, to imply
                      that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
                      therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
                      are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.”

                      One has to distill the science from the hot air and look at that exclusively. The science is becoming more compelling and a fairly large number of former skeptics are changing their minds as the knowledge base grows. The consensus amongst experts in the field is massive. One can look at that in four ways. One can claim that there is no consensus, but that would be a lie. The consensus is overwhelming. Then one can claim that the consensus is an enormous conspiracy, Well, there are people who believe the moon landing was faked. Thirdly, one can say that consensus is unimportant, but that would show a lack of understanding of the scientific process. All scientific theories and laws are based on consensus. Fourthly, a consensus can be wrong. Such periods of scientific revolution are very rare. In the area of climate change, discrepancies are diminishing, not increasing, and agreement is growing. Time will ultimately tell, but the theory is rapidly gaining momentum as knowledge and evidence accumulate. I’m naive enough to believe that progress is ultimately reality driven.

                      Thank you for correcting my mistake. You are correct — I should have used “affect.”

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Well, for what it’s worth, my own impressions and conclusions don’t derive from any of those defective sources.

                      As I observed in another post in this thread, a “consensus” – whether of scientists or sportswriters – usually represents what is believed, not what is known. I recall a “consensus” on marijuana use back emerged in the mid-late 1960’s, when people such as Lester Grinspoon of Harvard medical school reflected a powerful social and current – but hardly scientific – that, tut, tut, marijuana is harmless, and really, what’s the big deal? There you are: if someone with an endowed chair at Harvard Medical School says that pot is harmless, why are you still complaining?

                      Of course, after actual research and experimentation, we now have a somewhat modified picture. If you visit Curry’s page for what’s being discussed there now, as opposed to the 2007 article you cited, you’ll see much vexed discussion about the authority with the non-scientific public about the “consensus” that is supposedly so compelling. They’ve also lamented the harsh treatment and ostracism that’s been meted out to apostates, such as James Lovelock. Why was his age never an issue prior to his shift? If there’s a single difficulty I have with your posts here and those of others with your outlook elsewhere, it’s that you write much more like a passionate believer than you do a scientist. There’s an intensity that I believe is what Dyson had in mind when he noted back in 2008 that environmentalism had taken on the attributes of a very doctrinaire and sectarian religious movement, and that continues to trouble me a great deal. it strikes me as very “unscientific,” if you will.

                      Full disclosure: I am no scientist, just an interested layman. Thanks for the discussion, in any case.

                    • M

                      Thank you, too, for the discussion. You sound intelligent and reasonable. Yes, scientific consensus is to a large extent about belief because there is always more to be learned, but that belief is an informed belief. What else is there to go on? The opinion of two or three contrarians? Or a journalist with an ax to grind? When the consensus among practicing climatologists that the earth is warming and that greenhouse gas emissions are driving most of that warming is at almost 100%, one has to accept that this is the best current assessment of the situation. One would have to have very solid grounds for dismissing that claim. Scientific consensus is not the same as public consensus, often expressed by the media, or the claim of a single expert (such as Lester Grinspoon) or even of a small group of experts, however proficient. At present, even climatologists that dissent from mainstream views do not challenge the fact that Earth is warming due to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Instead they squabble about, for example, the exact degree of negative radiative forcing caused by black carbon aerosols. If climatologists are sometimes oversensitive, it may be because of experiences they have had. Some have been subjected to death threats by extremists, many have their findings misrepresented by ideologues, most have been accused of being bribed by (fairly small) grants to lie, and they no doubt feel frustrated when, after decades of study, people who know very little about the topic blithely dismiss their views with very little understanding (hence the “it’s the sun,” “it’s been cooling since 1998” type of arguments.) No doubt too, climatologists, like the rest of the population, have their share of difficult people, and money and politics add fuel to the fire. I simply hope that strategies implemented to address climate change will be humane, prosocial, and reality based.

                    • M

                      Mr. Ricketts, I have areas of disagreement with Judith Curry (for example, she attributes only 50% of global warming to man-made causes,) but she is not as off-base as some might think. I offer this opinion piece that she wrote for the Washington Post for your perusal. In it, she makes clear that she is not a climate skeptic — merely that she has some fairly subtle disagreements with mainstream science. Please note that she makes it clear that the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to this warming. She goes on to say that the current debate is not about this, but about the risks global warming presents to us all. She concludes, “But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.” I think you’ll agree that she is distancing herself from climate “skeptics.”

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html

                • robnbc

                  St G – The problem for those of us you would call “alarmists” is the willingness of some to simply ignore or dismiss the science that points to the adverse effects of a 3 to 6 degree increase in average global temperatures. All science is “debatable” but when you have an ebola crisis you need to respond with the best current data. You state that the data for climate change is flimsy yet 50 years of research on this topic is pretty consistent. As parents we need to consider the possible futures for our children and some of us do find the predictions of the climate models “alarming.” The predictions of ebola pandemics without adequate interventions are also alarming – thats why most nations agreed to do something sooner rather than later. The costs of alternative energies have to be weighed against the costs of catastrophic and irreversible climate changes caused by the continued use of carbon fuels. What are your children worth ???

                  • St JD George

                    Their souls and their faith in Christ, not men with political agendas. Why do you ask such a question, don’t you?
                    Really, consistent? How can you say that with a straight face. Within the span of 50 years when gone from ice age alarmists to we’re all going to drown hysteria. And facts just seem to get in the way with an ever evolving rationalization of how to explain why the latest data doesn’t fit the prediction models, like 2 decades now of virtually no change. That’s certainty you can believe in.
                    As an engineer I can tell you that no good scientist tries to hide their data, manipulates it to try and get it fit preconceived notions, and fights with their life to discredit those that disagree with them. Any time I see people behave that way my immediate instinct it observe with total distrust because the behavior smells of agenda, like a caged animal that feels threatened by questioning.

                    • robnbc

                      If you are serious you will know that scientists tend to understate their research. If you are committed to your opinion that it is all a hoax there is nothing that would likely dissuade you from that view. That the pope takes it seriously though should give you some pause. That scripture calls us to be “stewards” of what God has given us should also give you pause. Good scientist know that the strength of an opinion is not evidence of its validity. If you do not accept the research that has been done, can you think of a better research design that would be a fair test of the AGW hypothesis ??? Would you accept data from the ARGOS ocean buoy system that is recorded automatically? Would you dismiss it before you know what has been recorded over the last 50 years ???

                    • St JD George

                      If you knew me you would probably be surprised to learn how conservative I am, and I don’t mean (just) politically. I go to pretty great lengths to be a good steward and invested considerable time looking into solar/wind energy for my home. I am a scientist well versed in the scientific method and have done a fair amount of reading on this subject. That anybody could say that this is certain science with all the flaws and call people names – if that doesn’t make you suspicious of motives then you are not a scientist. Scientists approach theories with skepticism to ensure that their theories are iron clad. People that try to ram things down your throat and tell you that it’s settled science or else be damned have agendas and/or feeding at the trough of grants.

                      In some ways I hope they are right, there are days where I feel like the second coming of Noah actually might be a good thing.

                    • Faith in quotes but not science. Telling.

                    • GG

                      There is big big money involved here. Do not be so credulous.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      It’s still good to take a look at Spring 1975 Newsweek article heralding the new Ice Age that was imminent, the “science” was conclusive, and that we’d better take drastic measures quickly, etc., etc. The constant through all of this, of course, is alarmism and hysteria, something I think is also not good for children.

                    • St JD George

                      I can’t quite put my finger on it Glenn, but I’m convinced that it’s just the way different minds work, or have developed. The occasional lunatic is easily dismissed, but people with a background in science and who have taken positions in education where they can more easily indoctrinate young minds with this garbage really concern me though. The hysterical tone alone should make any sane person stand up and take notice that “something ain’t quite right”.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      I’ve been trying to do the same with my finger for some time as well.

                      Completely apart from the scientific reliability of the AGW position, I think it presents people drawn to centralized, planned and often coercive mega-solutions just the angle they’re looking for. The “sustanability” movement on college campuses has exactly such world-saving tendencies and, although it marches under the banner of environmental repairs, has some pretty ominous imperial ambitions. Something like Naomi Klein’s recent book, This Changes Everything which, surprise, surprise, finds environmental degradation – along with everything else in the world that’ wrong – attributable to capitalism. Sounds familiar, something like Barry Commoner’s thesis in his 1971 book, The Closing Circle, which attributed everything from racism to social inequality, to you-name-it, to capitalist degradation of the environment. What’s the solution? Why getting rid of capitalism, of course, which will require big-time social transformation, very strict (coercive?) regulations on energy use and everything else, etc., etc., etc.

                      No wonder my initial reaction to the claims of AGW enthusiasts was “Here we go again.”

                    • fredx2

                      It seems to attract people who are weak in science and math, and who are overly influenced by those they view as “scientists”

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      And who also have a burning desire to “transform” our present circumstances via massive social engineering.

                    • The appeal to authority fallacy is very old, George.
                      By the way, I took a swipe at EMD today in the interest of fairness.

                    • St JD George

                      Do you really think the virus fueling this epidemic is just a strain of authority fallacy? Maybe, but there isn’t one face on this one such as exists with ordinary personality cults like those who get a tingle up their leg (well, not anymore) with our current occupier in chief. I think the ingredients of their witches brew include a sprinkle of pride in thinking they are the saviors of the world, with two heaping cups of self-righteousness for believing they alone possess the wisdom to save mankind from their own folly (kind of like Dr Gruber), a binder of group think because you know dissent and contrarian views are dangerous, all together in a base of fear and loathing lest the funding for their broth be skimmed and the stew thickened.

                      I think Glenn Ricketts was spot on in his reply too.

                      Glad to see you showed some fairness in your discourse on EMD, now I have to go search for it.

                    • It seems to be prevalent among leftists-they are constantly quote some “expert”, as if regurgitation was the highest intellectual activity.

                    • St JD George

                      Only experts who align with their agenda, and they are quick to stab them in the back if they have a change of heart studying the data, as well as dismissive or outright hostile of other experts in their field who never drank their kook aid.

                    • St JD George

                      Where did you post, I didn’t see it. It wasn’t that they are only good for pulling a bawdy caravan like a circus come to town was it?

                    • NS announced today that it completed two GP33 ecos at public expense. As much as they are the beneficiary, so is EMD.

                    • musicacre

                      Yes and you only have to look at what the privately owned media is hyping; it’s a political movement that tolerates no dissent. Has been exposed many times to be fraudulent but there is ( media) absolute silence on that. Predictable to see where they are going with this; diminished rights in a democracy…oh surprise! Wrapping a large-scale political movement in ( pseudo) science is nothing new (look at Nazi Germany) it’s just bigger and all-encompassing this time.

                    • St JD George

                      The cunning and deceit is so blatant, and in plain sight (for those that care to look beyond what the MSM propaganda apparatus is putting out) that it’s frightening to watch others get absorbed into it like a cult for those of this world.

                    • musicacre

                      Yes, just as the old saying goes, “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for everything…”

                    • fredx2

                      The Newsweek article got written because we were in a cold period then. The source for that article is now a famous global warming alarmist. As soon as the cycle changed and things began to get warm for a while, he switched and began telling us we were all golng to fry.

                      They have news articles from 1880’s noticing how the seals have moved north, that say “The rivers don’t freeze over like they did in Grandpa’s day”. Then, 30 years later, the cycle changes and things were getting cold again. Then, it switched back again.

                      There are two big cycles – the Pacific decadal oscillation, and the same thing in the Atlantic. These operate over periods of 30-40 years and cause the swings.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Cold or warm, alarmism seems to be the constant, don’t you think?

                  • What was the global temerature during the Carboniferous period? What was the temperature during the Pleistocene. How did those changes occur?
                    I can’t even get a decent weather report for Friday and I’m supposed to believe these necromancers can see decades into the future, and distinguish between natural and unnatural variations?

                    • robnbc

                      And if they warned you that a hurricane would approach your area in five days what would you do ???

                    • I’d laugh. It’s January and I’m in Pennsylvania.

                    • robnbc

                      You have an odd sense of humor.

                    • And you have none.

                    • GG

                      They get that wrong plenty of times too

                    • Ethan

                      Good point. Or even if they said “20% likelihood” of a hurricane in the next five days. The IPPC are very careful with their statistical boundaries, but the risks of ignoring them are extreme.

                    • You have pom poms for that cheerleading?

                    • Ethan

                      You have facts?

                    • There’s no facts that support or refute clapping. (yours),

                    • M

                      Or climate changed denial.

                    • Or climate alarmism.

                    • M

                      “Climate alarmism” is one of those politically loaded, non-scientific terms. The actual risks are carefully documented. To ignore them is what the Church calls “vincible ignorance.”

                    • I rather imagine you are an expert on politically loaded non-scientific terms, having treated us to gems like “dirty oil”.

                    • “Climate changed denial” is one of those politically loaded, non-scientific terms. The actual accuracy of the models are carefully documented. To ignore them is what the Church calls “vincible ignorance.”

                    • fredx2

                      You mean like when the IPCC told us that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 – based on a simple article taken from a hysterical environmentalists publication, with no peer reviewed science at all to back it up?

                    • JP

                      The IPCC doesn’t make hurricane forecasts. They have made general projections. And each one of them have been incorrect.

                    • Discussing carbon emissions with Liberals is exhausting!

                    • The weather service here told us to expect a drop in temperature and rain last night. It did not rain and the temperature went up. Now for those who are believers and not deniers … I have a great bridge over the Hudson River that I can sell you for just a few thousand …

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Hold it: I bought that bridge from someone else just last week……..

                    • That’s too bad. I was going to give you a really good price! :o)

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Now you tell, after I can’t get my money back………….

                  • SWF77

                    “Your children”? These so-called Catholics should be worried about children they have never met, children that haven’t been born yet.

                    • fredx2

                      At least we still believe in having children

                  • fredx2

                    The research is pretty consistently wrong. There has been no global warming now for more than 18 years. However, according to their theories, it should have continued on unabated – if they knew what they are talking about. Obviously they have no idea what they are talking about. My children are worth not screwing up their lives based on flaky, poor science that seems to be pushed only by those on one side of the political spectrum.

                    • robnbc

                      And you have done a lot of your own research that has been peer reviewed by reputable experts in the field of climate research ???
                      The strength of your convictions is not evidence of their accuracy.

              • Really? How many watts hits each square meter (on a bright sunny day)?

                • robnbc

                  Direct sunlight on a cloudless day produces about 1000 watts/sq metre. Solar panels are approaching 30% efficiency = 300 watts. I leave it to you to calculate the area required to allow substantial reduction in fossil fuel use. Its not the technology its the political will that is the problem. Germany is doing fine with alternate energies.

                  • St JD George

                    Are you for real, do you really believe everything you read in whatever filtered sites you go to. They are in panic mode because they realize that they have been sold a bill of goods that isn’t worth the wind it’s supposed to blow them to prosperity. They are in scramble mode trying to figure out to reverse the damage, at least for now with regard to shutting down their nuclear reactors prematurely. Granted there’s not a lot of press about it because there’s a bit of egg on their face to deal with, but seek and you will find. They are also tremendously jealous of our fracking and energy independence success which occurred despite their best efforts to prevent (here and there).

                  • That energy is at noon in the summer on the equator, down to 0W at sunrise and sunset. Roughly, the energy from the Sun is 6kWh per day on the equator, down to 3kWh per day on temperate latitudes.

                    • And Augustine wins the prize.
                      “Doing fine” is beyond meaningless.

                    • robnbc

                      Germany. a heavily industrialized nation, gets about 75% of its energy from solar sources despite being a northern, cloudy environment. Solar panels are now available at about $1 / watt from Chinese sources. The problem is not technology, the problem is that the fossil fuel industry has a strangle hold on American politics.

                    • According to Wikipedia, “solar power in Germany consists mostly of photovoltaics (PV) and accounted for 6.2 percent of the country’s net-electricity generation in 2014”. (v. http://bit.ly/1AndtWw ) Not surprisingly, solar energy decreases by 80% during winter in Germany. (v. http://bit.ly/1AnbEJs )

                    • JP

                      Actually, Germany gets the majority of its energy from fossil fuels. It tried Green energy and it was a complete disaster. As it stands Germany is the number customer of our coal industry. Because the Greens forced Germany to shut down their nuclear power plants, Germany will be is forced to rely heavily on coal to generate its electricity. Their solar and wind farms are useless during the winter months.

                    • robnbc

                      You are correct – Germany gets 80% of is electricity from renewable sources but still burns substantial fossil fuels. It has, however, significantly reduced its carbon emissions and is committed to further reductions. It recognizes the problem and is attempting to solve it. Don’t you wish that we were doing the same? (I have nothing against nuclear energy as an alternative to coal – sadly Fukushima was badly timed for that industry,)

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    I don’t think anyone here is opposed to alternative energy sources – I liked the idea of solar power when I was in high school, far back in the day. But I think we are also agreed that there’s far more ideology than “science” in the AGW imminent catastrophe scenario. It’s been a staple of some environmentalists for some time.

                    • I love solar devices, but I know their limits.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      As I said, I was in high school. It’s gotten a bit more complicated since then.

          • fredx2

            But China is changing because they don’t like living in a filthy environment. Not because they are concerend citizens and want to do their part on global warming.

          • Paddy

            They’ll gladlycheck in with the rest of the Earth in 2030?

          • fredx2

            You have to realize that China is changing because it was killing its citizens every day with filthy air, not because of global warming. They are in the same place the US was in the 1970’s, when we cleaned up the air in our large cities.

        • Jacqueleen

          Was this change all that difficult if there is no manufacturing done in the Vatican? The only pollution that exists in the Vatican is the SMOKE THAT HAS INFILTRATED THE CHURCH!

          • St JD George

            And occasionally when we elect a new Pope every so often.

            I spent the last year researching and trying to rationalize installing solar or wind on my farm and concluded that the ROI wasn’t worth it, even after all of you would have subsidized nearly half of it for me. Of course, if the alarmists get their way and electricity costs double or tripe more I might rethink.

            • I tried to rationalize geothermal for my 1/2 acre grass farm. The contracter told me $30,000 -$35,000 to re-duct my 1950’s era house to make it compatible. My next oil burner, he estimated would be at least 30% more efficient than the present unit (a smiliar BTU capacity unit now comes with a .6 gal/m nozzle, rather than 1.0).
              Since we use about 1800 gallons per year, even IF I needed no supplemental heat souce, the ~$50,000 installation cost required to install geothermal produces a payback period of 9.26 years @3.00/gal, not counting the time value of money. Now home oil is LESS than $3.00 gallon. If I figure the alternjative against 1100 gallons per year, the payback is 15.15 years.

              I think as energy prices increase, in response policies enacted, I’m going to consider a portion of my payments as “social justice”. Since there’s only so much money, I guess the Church will have do accept some of some of my energy payments as an in lieu contribution.

              • St JD George

                I’ve got you beat by about 100 years, my farm homestead was built in 1860 with American Chestnut, hand hewn. The previous owner after the farmer converted it to heat pump, all electric (there’s a natural gas main ~100 yards away feeding the residential development that has overgrown the old field that once was grazed by methane producing bovine). I haven’t given up on alternatives, just a hiatus. I have full confidence that electricity will skyrocket once the middle class crushing agenda is fully implemented on us. When I do, it will be my contribution to social justice too, whatever I end up doing.

                • Tom McBride

                  Obama’s middle class killing agenda and his ultra wealthy economic policies.

                  • St JD George

                    What’s sad is that his tactics are essentially straight from his idol Alinski and his playbook Rules for Radicals. He/they can’t stand the middle class as they are a bulwark of independence that threatens their goals of total state control. Every time he opens his mouth he mocks us with sweet lies of persuasion leading the blind down a path to their own imprisonment of state dependency. I will give him and his machine credit in the brilliance of execution. Most lemmings don’t even know what is going on and how they are being manipulated.

              • Catholic pilgrim

                Are “illegals” your brothers & sisters in Christ Jesus, DE?

                • But you repeat yourself..

              • Catholic pilgrim

                Are “illegals” your brothers & sisters in Christ Jesus, DE, or figures of your contempt?

                • You have a twisted idea of fraternity (like everything else) if you think I’m obligated to aid and abet law breaking.

                  • SWF77

                    You have an obligation to all your brothers and sisters, sinners, not sinners, law abiding and otherwise. It is not up to us to impart punishment. It IS up to us however to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and provide shelter for the vulnerable. So yes, if a hungry family comes to my door I will help them get on their feet. Because that is what Jesus told us. I have in fact given a suitcase full of clothes to a migrant family on the street and a book with English lessons, as well as a list of useful phone numbers to get their kids schooled and fed.

                    • It took you 11 days to come up with that lachrymose exercise in activism described as compassion.
                      I don’t believe for a minute that you will let strangers in your house and if you do, you are a reckless idiot. My first duty is to protect my family, not to put them at risk from strangers who might not be what they seem to be.
                      You gave a “suitcase” full of clothes? Well whoopee for you. Me, I don’t brag about what I give, but I lets just say, its a lot and better than a suitcase of things I’ve tired.
                      Jesus never said anything about helping people to break the law.

                    • SWF77

                      PS: You know who else broke the law? Jesus. He called himself King of the Jews while Roman law made it very clear that the authority in Rome is the ONLY authority on all its territories. Oops.

                    • Blasphemer.

                    • fredx2

                      What was King Herod about then?

                • Yes they are our broters and sisters. The van will be stopping by your house momentarily. You get to host four families.

            • Eamonn McKeown

              Assuming inclement weather doesn’t wreck these investments over the decades of R.O.I.

              • St JD George

                Most are rated for high abuse, i.e. hail but not tornado ripping from roof, and home owner insurance may cover, but with a 10-15 year ROI including your helping to pay for my installation, 1-2% efficiency loss per year and the need to continually keep clean to achieve that, and a useful life of maybe 20+ years, I’m not sold.

          • The main use of energy in the Vatican is indeed air conditioning and lighting. Museum quality air conditioning is important, you’re talking tenths of a unit temperature and humidity control.

            40 years ago what Pope Benedict XVI did with solar panels on the roof and hidden wind generators and banks of batteries would have been impossible; wind generators and solar panels simply were not that efficient.

            I compare it to where I work, Intel Hawthorne Farms campus. We’re about 1/100th the size of the Vatican, but due to what we do, lights and air conditioning are extremely important around here, especially in the clean rooms. We spend about $6000/day on lighting and air conditioning around here, tons of energy usage, and that’s even excluding the manufacturing equipment.

            • So, you work for Intel, one of the leading corporate proponents of marriage deformation and you question what other people do for a living?

              • The more money I take from them in salary and benefits, the less money they have available to spend on iGlobe.

                • Nice try, but you are materially cooperating with evil.

                  • Paddy

                    Same as paying taxes?

                    • Nobody compels you to work at Intel, there is no threat of prosecution or incarceration.

                  • Yes, as is every American.

                    • I don’t work for Intel, and I will make every effort not to buy their products.

          • Don’t forget the hot air that emanates from some prelates such as Cardinal Kasper.

            • Jacqueleen

              Laugh. Kasper falls under the Smoke that has infiltrated the Vatican. However, the Pope could have put the fire out by simply stating the Teachings of Christ on these hot button issues and put the dissension to rest. But, he didn’t! Be prayerful and watchful as to the outcome of the Synod this year.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              Enough comes from that source to make me worry about global warming.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          Perhaps, but Benedict didn’t think it was necessary to write an encyclical about it. Aren’t there other things that need far more attention than garden-variety environmentalism?

          • I think this may be in keeping with Pope Francis’s focus on third world issues. Some 30% of the world’s human beings live close enough to coastlines and at elevations where they may be threatened by sea level rise; some extremely low-lying populations on remote islands have already been wiped out.

            In other words, expect this encyclical not to focus on science, but rather continue the theme of first world big business exploiting third world populations for fun and profit.

            Of course Pope Benedict XVI also wrote an encyclical on that- _Caritas in Veritate_.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              Hello, Theodore, and merry Christmas.

              I’ll wait and see. But so far, the Pope’s pronouncements on these themes have been pedestrian and embarrasslingly unoriginal.

              • Given 124 years worth of harping on these issues by various Popes, I would expect them to be “unoriginal”. I in fact hope that Pope Francis’s version is quite pedestrian and unoriginal. I’d much rather that than him getting inventive.

                • Glenn M. Ricketts

                  I actually don’t see him in the Church’s tradition, so much as enamored of secular environmentalism, which the late Michael Crichton appropriately characterized as the “religion of urban atheists.” So far, Francis has seemed much closer to Gustavo Gutierrez than he has to Leo XIII or Pius XI.

        • Paul Primavera

          The Vatican is NOT carbon neutral. The pitiful amount of renewable energy that it employs in the form of solar photovoltaics has a capacity factor of a mere 20%, which means that 80% of the time when power is needed, it is not available. Furthermore, the manufacture, use and decommissioning of the solar photovoltaics which the Vatican uses involves 50 dangerous chemicals, including potent greenhouse gases, carcinogens, and toxic chemicals. The chemicals range from arsenide to cadmium and lead, sulphur hexaflouride (the most potent greenhouse gas known), thiourea (carcinogen), selenium hydride (highly toxic), nitrogen trifluoride (significant greenhouse gas), indium phosphide (known carcinogen), hydrofluoric acid (inhalation or skin contact can be fatal), hexafluoroethane (greenhouse gas), germane (extremely toxic), chromium VI (known carcinogen and toxin), carbon tetrachloride (carcinogen), arsine (carcinogen with high toxicity), and others. If you want safe, clean, low cost, carbon neutral electrical power, then this is the solution which has a capacity factor of 92+%: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZpRsHhLmDpI

        • Thomas J. Hennigan

          The Vatican has beautiful gardens. Without carbon dioxide they wuoldn’t exist. Besides, there is no real proof that any increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is bad or much less that it is caused by human activity. More probably it is caused by the sun and its effects on the oceans. As for the hype about global warming, in fact what we have in the last 13 years is global cooling. What’s so bad about an increase of 1 degree celsius in temperature? Nothing, and in fact there are positive sides to it. Did you know that the Vikings used to cultivate many crops in Greenland? The Pope has no business getting involved in this kind of discussion among scientists where there is a stack of ideology and political agendas. Climate change has always existed and will always exist long before humans came along.

          • You are making the rather large assumption that the Pope is going to come down on the side of the climate panic people. And those gardens, using up atmospheric carbon, are a large part of how the Vatican became carbon neutral to begin with.

        • Dick Prudlo

          If the Vatican were really neutral they would shut this pope up.

          • The Vatican can’t be neutral. The Vatican must be on the side of God.

            • Dick Prudlo

              What?

              • What I said. The Vatican can’t be neutral in any given moral debate. The Vatican exists to be on the side of God.

                This means that politics don’t matter to the Vatican, to the Pope. It is undeniable that some things Pope Francis has said have damaged the political strength of conservatives. It is undeniable that some things Pope Francis has said come down extremely hard on liberals. He’s definitely said some very imprudent things.

                But God isn’t Prudent. God is Just. God is Merciful. When Men in their prudential judgement reject God, the Pope *must* come down on the side of God, every time. That is the job description of the Vatican.

                Makes me nervous too. I heard about this new view of the God of Surprises, and the only thing I could think of was NEGATIVE evil surprises.

      • Catholic pilgrim

        Lol The author of this article writes “Don’t Lose Sleep over Climate Change Encyclical”, & people in the com boxes are acting like the world is coming to an end. People, the encyclical has NOT even been published YET. What’s all the yapping about? 700 comments & counting.
        How about let’s all wait for Pope Francis to actually publish the Encyclical before our fingers start yapping off opinions.

        • I agree with you there, but I think it’s a lot of pent up resentment being expressed.

    • Dick Prudlo

      If my life span exceeded 2000 years I would have seen nothing that bests this man’s pontificate. If one was to devise an effort to destroy Christ’s Church he would have chosen Jorge. This man is neither mad, as some think, or Catholic as some define that. He may be the universal malady duChardin would have applauded.

    • publiusnj

      Agreed. As I was considering the purpose of such an encyclical, I thought that Francis seems more worried about building a coalition with the Left than he is about the Evangelion. As in: “let’s work together where we can and agree to disagree where we can’t.”

      Of course, Francis has made clear that his disagreements with the Secular Power will be understated (he’s already made clear that American conservatives should not push so hard on divisive social issues such as Abortion and Gay Marriage) and that he will go out of his way to reach agreement with the spirit of the age where he can (as in his welcoming attitude toward the Kasper Proposal).

      So, where will this courting of the Left end up? With the Church reduced to irrelevancy (at least until a different and better Pope comes along). The Left has co-opted all the Mainline Churches and they have no say any more except when the Left is getting religious opposition and needs to trot out a useful idiot of the clerical kind. IOW, once the Catholic Church is shut up and becomes a cheerleader for the Left, the Left will begin to assess the Church in the same way their comrade Joseph Dzugashvili did: “how many divisions does the Pope have?” Because the answer is none, the Pope’s opinion will be given at most lip service and then only on issues where he shares the opinion of the Left’s coalition.

      • fredx2

        Where has the Pope made clear “that American conservatives should not push so hard on divisive social issues such as Abortion and Gay Marriage)’

        No, this is what the media tells you that Francis wants. Don’t be taken in by their baloney. He speaks out against gay marriage and abortion all the time. The media just ignores it, because it is to their benefit to proclaim him as a far left Pope.

    • John O’Neill

      Francis has proved himself to be the leader of the American Left Progressive wing of the Christian Church. His snubbing of Archbishop Caput of Philadelphia in the latest distribution of cardinal hats that issued one to every remote outpost of his realm; surprisingly they did not find a churchman on Gilligans Island in order to hand him a red hat, is the canary in the mine. This papacy is a disaster to the Church and as a faithful Catholic I can only hope that God sends us a new Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena. Dominic or Francis de Sales to save the institutional Church at this time. It is time to pray very hard for the Church it is going in to very difficult times and we are sure to witness the ‘bare ruined choirs” of American Catholicism by the time this Argentinian Socialists is finished.

      • JGradGus

        You should probably do a bit more reading, like maybe try “The Great Reformer” (Francis’s bio) by Austin Ivereigh, Francis is NOT a socialist, and shame on you for breaking the 8th Commandment.

        • GG

          Is that the author who worked for that left wing British newspaper and the liberal Cardinal? That guy?

        • He may not be a socialist, but he has redistributionist and statist impulses, and those are useful attributes for those who are socialists.

          • SWF77

            Redistributionist impulses. You mean, like Jesus?

            • No. Jesus told YOU to give, not to advocate that the state take from SOMEBODY else to do it, or do you read some scripture where Jesus calls the tax collector, rather than let the rich man away. You are a blasphemer.

              • SWF77

                Lol wut?

                • It’s spelled “what”.

              • SWF77

                LOL. You seem to have a pretty sensitive blasphenometer aye? I don’t believe in blasphemy anyway. Can you imagine an all-powerful, all-knowing God and his nice dude son in the sky getting their panties in a bunch because a mere mortal utters some words? “Oh Jesus son! Come over here! Human number 384663889096 just called me a lying fag if I don’t answer to his prayer. Put my therapist on the line!”. Right. Celestial beings TOTALLY deal in human drama.

                • I call ’em as I see them.

        • Jacqueleen

          Stop judging or one day, you will be judged.

        • Marcelus

          It’s no use. Not their fault but they are moving around in the dark here. No idea as to who Bergoglio was or did , before and now, or Argentina history, good or bad. So … just google and print.And bash.

          • GG

            You are a liberal from way back.

            • Quote:

              “Well my friend I’m in Argentina and I do recall that event vaguely though. It was not only a mass. It was an event for kids , mass included before or after. In that you may be right.”

              -Marcelus

              • Marcelus

                so? I still maintain that, just maybe you did not read it right.. THere was a Mass and there was a show. Ohhh I do not get you

            • Marcelus

              Ohh you are much mistaken. I’m nooo liberal. You will find we may hold the same position on just about all aflicting Church issues

              Just do not take pride in wearing the “Francis basher” pin on my lapel.

      • Jacqueleen

        I agree. Although I will recommend Raymond Cardinal Burke who together with other Cardinals, wrote the book “Remaining the Truth of Christ” authored by:

        Walter Cardinal Brandmüller; Raymond Cardinal Burke; Carlo
        Cardinal Caffarra; Velasio Cardinal De Paolis, C.S.; Robert Dodaro,
        O.S.A.; Paul Mankowski, S.J.; Gerhard Cardinal Müller; John M. Rist; and Archbishop Cyril Vasil’, S.J.

        So, we do have blessed leaders in the church…They just don’t get the publicity…owned by the liberal media

      • fredx2

        Things look much worse when you insist on looking at things as a “snub” that aren’t snubs. You need to ignore the headlines and read what the pope writes. And that is Chaput, not Caput.

      • slainte

        Have you considered that Archbishop Chaput might have been privately invited to undertake the office of Cardinal and declined for his own reasons?

        • aquinasadmirer

          Traditionally, once the Emeritus bishop turns 80 and can no longer vote in a conclave, a new cardinal is named. This prevents two voting cardinals from the same diocese. Rigali turns 80 in April of 2015. Cardinal Mahony, Emeritus AB of LA, will turn 80 in 2016.

          • slainte

            Thank you for the explanation…hopefully Archbishop Chaput will be honored at a later date, and will be available at that time to undertake the office of Cardinal.

            • Marcelus

              Yes my friend. That is the reason as reported, And further Chaput was made by PF a member of thee council of the Laity, as the only bishop amongst Cardinals.

              Im sure he is next in line

              VATICAN CITY — Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia was among those appointed by Pope Francis Feb. 6 to the Pontifical Council for the Laity.

              Archbishop Chaput is also the only bishop appointed to the council who is not a cardinal, although one other appointee, Archbishop Orani Tempesta of Rio de Janeiro, is a cardinal-designate who will be given the red biretta at the Feb. 22 consistory.

              Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-chaput-u.s.-appointee-to-vaticans-council-on-the-laity#ixzz3OvZPaqei

          • Roger Mahony should do whatever the ecclesial equivalent of recusing himself from voting in the event there is another conclave before his ineligibility.

            “The behavior described in these files is terribly sad and evil,” he said in a statement. “There is no excuse, no explaining away what happened to these children. The priests involved had the duty to be their spiritual fathers and they failed.”

            -Archbishop Gomez

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              If Dante were writing the Divine Comedy now instead of the early 14th century, he’d probably have mostly churchmen placed in Inferno – more than then, I’d say.

      • SWF77

        The Pope has proven himself to be a real man of God. The kind of Catholicism we are taught in Argentina, which is the kind Jesus meant. It’s about helping others, about being nice, about sharing, not about judging and prescribing lifestyles to people, it’s about healing the sick and giving way our own possessions because poverty is virtue. We sang in our churches. We laughed. We were told that people make mistakes, and what’s important is to be a good person, to give to the needy, to be sincere, and to be kind to people and animals. Catholicism doesn’t exist to appease American Neo Cons.

    • bosco49

      This venture into ecology (by way of a papal encyclical no less) is rash at best and tub-thumping at worst. Where is the urgency to evangelize?

      Has it been so long ago that Our Lady appeared at Fatima?

      In 1984 the Bishop of Fatima said, “the loss of Faith of a continent is worse than the annihilation of a nation; and it is true that Faith is continuously diminishing in Europe.”

      Faith! This is a catastrophe in the making in so many ways.

    • They could already do that with The Green Pope, Pope Benedict XVI.

    • M

      Are you sure you are not a dissenting “catholic” yourself, Dr. Williams? You show little respect for the teaching authority of the Magisterium. The last three popes have all been “green” and have spoken of the problems of climate change. As time passes, the science has become increasingly clear. Now, at this stage in the development of the science, the pope MUST honor his obligations to Catholic social responsibility and take a clear stance. In 1970, there was still an excuse for invincible ignorance. Today one truly has to show vincible ignorance to avoid grappling with the science of climate change and how it connects with Catholic social teaching. A Catholic response to climate change now goes well beyond the imperative to care for God’s creation and rests firmly on the themes of solidarity, the life and dignity of the human person, the call to family, community, and participation, human rights and responsibilities, and preferential options of the poor and vulnerable. To maintain that this pontificate is “confused” is a disrespectful and slothful attempt to slough of one’s Catholic faith in favor of an extremist politico-economic agenda. Can true Catholics not put their uncharitable contempt for liberals aside long enough to embrace their faith and take the time to actually consider what our Holy Father is saying?

      • St JD George

        It wouldn’t hurt you either to read some of scientific articles casting dispersion on the so called manufactured and manipulated “evidence”. These dissenters are some pretty brilliant minds who were darlings among their colleagues before they dared speak out against the machine and subsequently thrown under the bus. As a scientist I can tell you that nobody with credibility thinks that they are above criticism, and in fact good science welcomes criticism to strengthen their theories. This is the most shaky science that has been put before humanity that I have ever witnessed in my life, certainly at this scale. There is data that could be discussed, but when people try to ruin people’s careers for offering contrary views, are called “flat-earthers” and “science-haters” … it smells rotten to the core.

        • M

          I have studied the science rigorously. Most of the dissenters are in the pay of Dirty Oil and produce “evidence” that is very easily disproven. Many of them simply lie. I’ve exhaustively and patiently tracked down a number of their articles and generalized claims and found them, without exception, to be unscientific and/or dishonest. I think you’ll find, if you make an honest attempt to understand the science, that the consensus has it right.

          • St JD George

            Obviously, you haven’t. When I have time I’ll summarize for you since you apparently couldn’t find yourself.

            • M

              Sure you will. Then I’ll waste more time, as I’ve done in the past, showing that your conclusions are unscientific and nonsensical. After that, you’ll dismiss all my hard work as “too liberal” or whatever, and you’ll carry on in the same old blissful ignorance. Why don’t you give Pope Francis and the best scientific minds of the century on this subject a chance and actually open your mind a crack to the science and the moral responsibility of this topic? Oh, I get it. You’ll put your stubborn ignorance and pride before your Catholicism and scientific integrity.

              • St JD George

                Your tone and manner of your reply reveals all that needs to be said about your biases. Honest scientists aren’t above peer review and critique of their theories unless they are afraid of having their federal funding cut off. Political hacks aren’t above name calling though. Notice I never implied or was even curious about your political affiliation.
                So, you can start by reading the views of Richard Lindzen, you know, the Sloan Professor who chaired the Meteorology Dept at MIT until last year. His colleagues thought pretty highly of him, and the school I believe is pretty well respected too. Way to many to name them all, but you can continue if you care to read opinion pieces that are different from your own.

                • M

                  Richard Lindzen is 74 years old. It is hard to find a climate change denier (which he, for the record, is NOT) under the age of 60. Linden correctly accepts the main principle of the greenhouse effect — his position is merely a little more muted than that of more current researchers. He in fact agrees that increased greenhouse emissions cause radiative forcing that lead to global warming. All he claims is that climate sensitivity is somewhat lower than is currently believed. Unfortunately some of his listeners are confused by his statements. A clarification can be found at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/?wpmp_tp=1

                  • St JD George

                    I’ll grant you that his retorts strike a more neutral tone than the usual rabidness that accompanies this topic, the mark of a true professional and gentleman. He is quoted often though as calling defenders of the mother earth faith for what they are, climate alarmists.

                    Do you have any scientific background at all M? I’d like you to site any instance of significance where the source data has been manipulated to the extent it has here, the degree of alternative theories that have been ignored, where facts that contradict the model predictions are continually spun so that the agenda, I mean theory, is never questioned and the support is unwavering by the benefactors, and where colleagues that dare to offer critiques are ridiculed and careers railroaded to the extent here?

                    I could write an article for Scientific American where I described all the things that have taken place in the name of so called climate change research disguised as something apolitical and I guarantee it would either never be published or it would be the laughing stock of every scientist who read it the world over.

                    • GG

                      Wait, is not Scientific American peer reviewed? That means no group think. It is all unbiased. Right?

                    • St JD George

                      Of course, don’t over-think. The point being that if anybody described what has taken place here and documented it as some bland apolitical research it would be laughed off the stage and never would have seen the light of day.

                    • GG

                      Oh, I get your point.

                    • M

                      “I could write an article for Scientific American where I described all the things that have taken place in the name of so called climate change research disguised as something apolitical and I guarantee it would either never be published or it would be the laughing stock of every scientist who read it the world over.”

                      I daresay that is true, St JD George. I am sure it would be hugely amusing to the real scientists at Scientific American.

                  • “Richard Lindzen is 74 years old. It is hard to find a climate change denier (which he, for the record, is NOT) under the age of 60.”

                    Ageism. Apparently an aceptable prejudice among the climate cultist.

                    • St JD George

                      I was trying to think of an appropriate reply to the snarcy age remark, thanks.

                    • GG

                      Well, yes everyone knows only those of a certain age get it?

                      IOW, the indoctrinated are not even aware.

                    • M

                      When I point out that Lindzen is 74, Happer is 75, and Dyson is 91, I am not suggesting that they are senile. I am suggesting that the science has developed since they retired (and Happer and Dyson didn’t work in the climate change field anyway — Happer worked in optics and Dyson was a theoretical physicist who claims he knows nothing about climate science.) Scientists actively working in the field are becoming more, not less, convinced of the problems related to global warming. Consensus has increased as older scientists have retired and younger ones are immersed in the current research.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      The “science” is actually being carried on by younger lights such as Judith Curry, David Legates and Patrick Michaels. In any case, a “consensus” doesn’t represent “science” so much as it does opinions some scientists are willing to venture when journalists wanting a quick opinion call, or surveys with skewed questions are administered. And as the Climategate affair demonstrates, there are more than a few AGW proponents who are willing to play dirty. As Einstein once famously observed, it takes only a single to explode an entire “consensus.”

                    • M

                      You are a blithering hypocrite. You feel free to use petty, nasty, childish insults against anyone who disagree with you, but when someone points out that an aging scientist may not be keeping up, you reach for the smelling salts.

                    • Oh get lost. Koch Brother! Dirty Oil! Over the age of 60!

                      You are terribly, terribly troubled and completely guilty of everything you charge me (and others) of-get help before you hurt somebody.

                      I would ignore you but I realize that I that I keep you to busy to do real harm.

                    • M

                      An odious bit of deceit. As far as I can tell, you have no pertinent information to contribute, so you content yourself with vitriol.

                    • Buy a mirror.

                  • GG

                    Climate change denier? If that is not a propaganda term nothing is. Your position is not science but agitprop. It is has become an ideology.

                    • M

                      The reverse is true. I understand you think you know better than Pope Francis and the vast majority of experts in the field, but If your position is truly scientific, publish a paper. Prove the experts wrong. Get rich and famous. If you can do it, go ahead. The problem is that any argument you could produce would be very easily refuted. We’ve heard them all.

                    • GG

                      When did I say say I know more than the Pope and which topic?

                      The “experts” you so worship holder opinions which are influenced by ideology.

                      There are “experts” who disagree.

                      You are not trained in science. You are simply credulous.

                    • M

                      You don’t have a clue about my scientific training. I would think anyone who accepts the current, well-established scientific consensus probably has far better scientific credentials, greater humility, and more common sense than someone who dismisses them without understanding. And, remember, vincible ignorance is not considered an excuse and can exacerbate moral culpability.

                    • GG

                      Your posts reveal much about your level of understanding and background. You value a “consensus” opinion as some touchstone. You bind yourself to self appointed experts as if these professional groups act only on non biased data without any other influences.

                      The topic is much more complicated and influenced then you make it out to be.

                    • Azygos

                      If simply publishing a paper could prove all the so called experts wrong then everyone would be Catholic by now, as the Church is the one true faith and the publications by Saints are many. We see that this is not true because people cannot leave their biases behind to go search for the truth because most often their bias is the falsehood that they wish to believe. In regards to this, the Atheist have supposedly refuted all the Churches arguments for the existence of God. They could say, “We’ve heard them all.” So when I see it in your writings it really smells a bit of pride, it appears that you take the same tone as the Atheist in regards to Climate Change.

                      Publishing something true that is against popular opinion or ‘the consensus’ is almost a guarantee that it will not see the light of day, even among the ‘scientific community’. For example, if the issue is about homosexuality, whereas no one is born Gay, then it will never see the light of day (in many places) no matter how good the scientific evidence is. And on and on it goes with the list of issues…

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      It’s a term intended to intimidate and ridicule. There’s also nothing very “scientific”about it, either. No wonder first-semester freshmen use it do authoritatively.

                  • fredx2

                    You continue to show your biases. Richard Lindzen fundamentally disagrees with AGW. So he agrees with the green house effect? So what? No one disagrees with the existence of a greenhouse effect. Yours is a nonsensical interpretation of Lindzen, again, provided for you by your intermediaries at Real Climate web site. I tried reading Real climate until I got tired with the nonstop refusal to deal with honest objections there.

                    • M

                      Actually he does not. His disagreement is primarily with climate sensitivity. Please study the article I provided above and point out where you disagree with the refutation. Please try not to argue merely from stale ideology, but try to be very precise about the science. Perhaps then I could understand your confusion.

                  • Ethan

                    Yes, Lindzen’s positions are often misunderstood/misrepresented.

              • slainte

                Are you a practicing Catholic M?

                • M

                  Yes, are you?

                  • slainte

                    Yes I am a practicing Catholic.

                    I look forward to learning about your position on Humanae Vitae and Pope Paul VIs unequivocal rejection of contraception. Those who are among the most rigid advocates of climate change or global warming are often proponents of population control….after all human beings who breathe and exhale produce carbon emissions. Many human beings presumably contribute to increased carbon emissions.

                    Where do you stand on Humanae Vitae?

                    • M

                      Why don’t you start by explaining to me where you stand on Catholic issues of social justice and the message of the last three popes on climate change, since that is the topic of this thread and what is most relevant here?
                      I find it interesting that you intrusively question my Catholicity because I embrace … the words of our current pope!
                      I live a very traditional Catholic family life. This is easy for me because I want lots of children, am straight, am happily married, and consider myself “good with kids.” I have a very happy, very stable, very traditional marriage and a rowdy boatload of wonderful children. I avoid judging people on the grounds of their private morality. However, in terms of social justice, our behavior has a greater ripple effect, so social commentary becomes much more important. Freedom of conscience applies more strongly to very personal decisions than it does to social decisions. It would be narcissistic to ignore Catholic social teachings because “they don’t effect me.” This is why I feel more inclined to speak out about Catholic social issues such as climate change than about very personal moral choices.
                      For the record, I don’t think population growth is incompatible with clean technology. I also don’t think every single married couple should be forced to have children or very large numbers of children regardless of circumstances. I don’t use contraception, but I don’t judge others on this issue. Not everyone is blessed to have the marital, personal, and financial situation that I have. As Pope Francis has said, there is no need to change Church teachings on contraception, but they must be applied with mercy. I do, however, find myself urging those who appear too lazy or too ideologically extreme to even consider what the Church teaches about social issues. They are condemning others to great suffering.
                      How about you? How do you follow Catholic teachings in your own personal and social life? How many children do you have?

                    • GG

                      What is applying the teaching on contraception with mercy? What does that mean?

                      Which pope has bound consciences on this issue you call climate change?

                      What is private morality? Do you think private morality affects the body of Christ less that positions on prudential matters like so called climate issues?

                      Is abortion a matter of social teaching?

                    • “I don’t use contraception, but I don’t judge others on this issue. ”
                      But you use lots of carbon and then judge others.

                      I smell a Soros paid jammer.

                    • St JD George

                      Sounds like Cuomo. My faith compels me to personally be against, but it doesn’t really bother me all that much if others feel compelled to kill their children. Such moral conviction.

                    • M

                      Actually my family and I go to great lengths to reduce our carbon footprint. We generate our own electricity through renewable sources. One of my sons does research into lithium ion batteries and is making significant strides toward moving that technology forward. I have also explained why I think it more important to express forceful opinions about Catholic social teaching than about personal morality. What is your contribution, apart from belching out unpleasant and antisocial nonsense?

                    • fredx2

                      You are making a huge leap by assuming that Catholic social teaching demands adherence to a pretty discredited scientific theory that cannot predict anything. After all that is the only value of scientific theories – that they are able to predict what will happen if certain events occur. None of the global warming theories have been able to do that. At all.

                      And NO, the Pope has not called for an application of the doctrine against contraception with mercy. He has never said such a thing. If he had, he essentially would have said that we can ignore Catholic doctrine where it pleases us, and no Pope would be that careless. Perhaps you read it in Grist?

                    • M

                      Slainte? Calling Slainte? I’m generally interested in your answers to my questions.

                    • Paddy

                      The Red Chinese eaferly reject Humanae Vitae…..along with the Democratic Party.

                    • slainte

                      I very much support Humanae Vitae and admire Pope Paul VI; he understood the far reaching adverse consequences of contraception and attempted to protect Catholics from it…in particular he sought to shield women.

                      He was very much wounded by the errant words of the new age bishops who participated in the Winnipeg Statement by rebuking him and rejecting his prescient wisdom.

                  • St JD George

                    Don’t be a raving lunatic M, it’s unbecoming and honestly, not too professional either. Admit your biases and learn about dissenting views. No scientist worth his salt would ever try to destroy another for critiquing his research – those that do reveal their biases or self loathing fears. The more one’s theory stands up to defense the stronger it becomes and is accepted. This is about as flimsy as they come. The hair on your neck should stand up straight when you hear anybody who resorts to calling names like flat-earther or denier, it is so unseemly.

                    • M isn’t a scientist.

                    • St JD George

                      What? He said he was and I took him at his word, but I figured he was among the educator class who are slaved to doctrine. Hey, don’t think I didn’t notice that swipe (again) at our locomotives. I’m sure they look nice in fresh factory paint.

                    • I’m sure they LOOK nice.

                    • St JD George

                      Meet the insta-walkers …
                      http://www.ge.com/instawalk/ft-worth

                    • Ft. Worth was a feature article in the Jan 2015 Railfan and Railroad magazine.

                    • M

                      This is the extraordinarily limited and sadly pathetic way DRE and certain others here argue. They throw insults because that is all they have. The primitive efforts of such people to “disprove” the science are easily refuted by the links I have provided. Nobody has yet addressed an argument made in one of those links. Instead they attack me personally.

                      The onus is on the anti-Catholic, anti-science folks here to prove to me that THEY are right and every major science academy in the world is wrong. That’s how science works. Yes, we all know that a consensus can be wrong. That happens in very rare periods of scientific revolution. AGW is showing no signs of being of being anywhere near revolutionary status. The science is getting stronger. Evidence is increasing, not diminishing. The consensus is growing as scientists change their minds in the face of new evidence. In fact consensus and certainty are at the highest point now than they have ever been. Let’s again take a look at what Scientific American has to say about consensus in climate change:

                      “A consensus view in any field of science represents humanity’s best guess as to what’s going on. The guess might well be wrong, but what else is there to go on? It’s not as though there are answers in the back of the book to look at. People often say that science isn’t a democracy; scientific questions aren’t decided by majority rule. Well, then, what are they decided by? Experiments and observations, surely. But who runs the experiments and makes the observations? Who interprets the outcome? Who double-checks them? It is a social process. If as a scientist I disagree with the consensus, I have to be very sure of myself to put my own judgment up against the collective wisdom. And if there’s one thing scientists learn very early in their careers, it is that such supreme self-confidence is usually misplaced. Nearly all scientists have painful memories of being pounced on in an oral exam for giving a sketchy answer, or presenting a paper before hundreds of people that turned out to be dead wrong. Most experts in a field realize that the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. They learn to doubt their own judgment. If I get one answer and everyone else gets a different one, my first inclination should be that I’m wrong, not that everyone else is. Sometimes, the individual is right and the community is wrong. It happens in times of scientific revolution, which by definition involve the overturning of a consensus view. But such revolutions are rare. We remember Einstein because he was unusual. Climate science shows no signs of being in a revolutionary phase. Evidence for anthropogenic warming is getting stronger with time. Discrepancies are diminishing rather than increasing. Technically, scientists are correct to assert that their field has reached consensus.”

                    • Mre thinks she speaks for science. How cute and disturbing.

                    • M

                      If 97% of PhD climatologists who are active in the field, along with every major scientific academy in the world, along with decades of accumulated empirical evidence, are all in agreement, then how am I not “speaking for science”? If you want to lead a scientific revolution, which, as explained above, “by definition involves the overturning of a consensus view,” you’re going to need something very solid to go on, but you got nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip.

                    • Oh give it a rest. Wipe the spittle from the corners of your mouth and admit that you haven’t a chance of persuading anybody about anything by repeating yourself.

                    • M

                      Stop squirming and hiding behind insults and address the Scientific American explanation of scientific consensus. Do you agree that “supreme self-confidence is usually misplaced” when one attacks the consensus? Yes or no. If no, why? I predict you’ll simply answer with more insults, but at least try to think about it.

                    • What are you under 60?

                    • You aren’t smart enough to be insulted, drone.

                    • M

                      Let’s just say I have a lot more confidence in the science than I do in the few dissenters on this board. It is not I that is biased. It seems most hypocritical that you object to terms like “denier” but you haven’t commented on “chicken little” or “climate alarmist” or “paid shill for George Soros.” I urge you to make an honest study of the scientific literature. It is difficult for a non-climatologist to understand, but it should disabuse you of the more simplistic attacks on science and Catholic social teaching.

                    • GG

                      Catholic teaching does not equal scientific studies. Please stop the propaganda.

                    • M

                      Propaganda is anti-truth. Real science is truth. It is you who is promoting propaganda. And as I’ve challenged again and again, if a scientific theory is wrong, you need to prove it so in order to be taken seriously. If you can’t prove

                    • St JD George

                      Well then, thanks for finally admitting to where you place your faith. Not that we had any doubt.

                    • M

                      Hypocritical, self-righteous, ignorant. Stop playing politics and look at the science. If the consensus is correct, our moral imperative is to act. Francis is right about this. The consensus is correct until proven otherwise. I await your proof. Of course, you can’t disprove it, so I really have to dismiss what you are saying. I just wish ignorance was not so likely to result in harm to millions.

                    • St JD George

                      Part of the enjoyment in engaging you M is to keep you revealing yourself. There is a perverse entertainment in it I agree, but your inability to have a civil discourse is not flattering to one who claims to be a professional. I pray you will learn objectivity some day.

                    • M

                      If I’m not objective about the science, all I ask is that you prove me wrong. If you’re so sure of yourself, go ahead and prove it. Let’s see who is the objective one here. To me, science is pure. clean, and objective. Throwing mud at those of us who have taken the time to study AGW is not objective. It is mean-spirited and uncharitable. As I’ve said before, the current state of the science should be accepted, even with reservations, in the absence of contrary evidence. You are unable to prove contrary evidence. All your arguments are purely subjective and largely uncharitable.

                    • St JD George

                      Because people don’t talk that way M who are truly objective and professional M, it’s about that simple. If you were objective you might also recognize that there is a politically connected group who stands to profit handsomely in creating demand for a new business at the expense of another. I’m all for exploring alternative energy sources, but I’ll have nothing to do with dishonesty and hysteria.

                    • St JD George

                      It’s not so much about being right or wrong, it’s about being honest. Obviously there are interesting data trends, but to ignore the continuous data manipulation, obfuscation, personal attacks of those holding contrarian views, the failure to admit model inaccurate predictions, the politically charged hyper fever, and the money trail from those who stand to profit richly and who are closely aligned with their political friends is to do so at ones peril.
                      I actually think the second coming of Noah (not movie sequel) might not be such a bad thing, some days.

                    • M

                      Does the hair on your neck stand up when you hear someone called a “raving lunatic”? Surely you cannot be quite so hypocritical!

                    • Apparently Soros pays by the word these days.

                    • St JD George

                      As a scientist, if you indeed are one, you of all people should be versed in the scientific method and approach things with a critical eye. If the hair doesn’t stand up on the back of your neck when someone calls you names for not being on the train of settled science, well then I guess you are gullible enough to believe anything someone tells you as fact. I in fact am neither an alarmist or a denier, but when I observe people act unprofessionally and as if they are hiding an agenda then yes, call me skeptical. And it is a fact that the certainty of current climate change models is statistically poor by any objective certain science standard.

              • fredx2

                The best scientific minds of the age? You again show your total lack of understanding of the issue. You have been told by someone that these are the best minds of the age, and you believed them. You have not examined them. Have you heard about climategate and hide the decline? Are you aware of the limitations of using tree ring chronologies? Are you aware that the historical record shows a delay of hundreds of years between rise in CO2 and temperature rise? You have been taken in, I am afraid. Try reading things from the other side.

                • M

                  You make some peculiar assumptions, Fred. As for the old canard that carbon dioxide lags temperature, this is one of the many specious arguments that is used to mislead and manipulate the unsophisticated. It, along with many of its fellows, is easily refuted at
                  https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php and
                  http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

                  I’ve already provided these links elsewhere. They’d be a good place for you and others here to start.

              • Yes. Do tell us how scientific you are as you rail against age, the Koch Brothers and “dity oil”.
                You are such a tedious bore.

          • slainte

            “….I have studied the science rigorously… I think you’ll find, if you make an honest attempt to understand the science, that the consensus has it right…”

            Who are you and what are your credentials?

            • M

              I have a background in math and science. And what are the credentials of those here who are dissing an accepted scientific theory? Don’t you find it a little hypocritical that you are not questioning their credentials?

              • St JD George

                Egad. Hopefully not in a position to educate, but probably so since that seems to be where most who are beholden to political doctrine end up.

              • slainte

                Are you a climatologist M?…if not which of your credentials qualifies you to evaluate and discern the efficacy of competing claims by scientists in a field which is best defined by its lack of consensus?

                • M

                  The consensus is extremely strong. What qualifies you to disagree with it? Start here: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Check out the parts on consensus.

                  • slainte

                    Climate science is not proven by a consensus of opinions.

                  • fredx2

                    You cannot be serious. The fact that you cite to the left wing publication Grist indicates a total lack of seriousness/

                  • What qualifies you to declare a “consensus” and agree with it?

                    • Ethan

                      M isn’t the one declaring a consensus. Just do some basic research!

                    • Because somebody disagrees with you doesn’t mean they haven’t done some “basic research”. Of course you didn’t answer the question.

                    • GG

                      answer the question.

                    • M

                      I don’t think you understand what scientific consensus is. If you did, you would understand that it’s not something I personally could declare! What scientific consensus means is that the overwhelming majority of experts in a field support a particular conclusion, in this case the findings of the latest IPCC report, and those conclusions are endorsed by every scientific academy in the world. Over 97% of peer-reviewed papers published over the past 20 years support the basic theories behind AGW, and consensus is growing, nor diminishing, as more is learned. Yes, there is disagreement among climatologists, but not about the facts that the current warming trend is outside what would be expected by natural variability or that it is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. You also seem to assume that science ends once a scientific consensus is reached. This too is nonsense. Science is an ever-evolving process. There are multiple areas of research in climatology underway into, for example, EESC-based regression analysis for ozone trends and analytic derivation for rapid and steady state changes of the hydrologic cycle, but not about the underlying theories. The degree of consensus on AGW increases with expertise in the field.

              • GG

                They are not putting out a decree that the sky is falling.

                • M

                  Stop trying to change the subject. If you disagree with the science, where is your proof that it is incorrect?

              • fredx2

                An accepted scientific theory? What theory is that? You have no idea what you are talking about. If the “theory” is AGW, then how come there has been no warming for 17 years, something which none of the theories put forth account for? Or do you beleive the nonsense about it suddenly appearing in the deep oceans, having skipped moviing through the upper layers?

                • M

                  Fred, you are merely proving your ignorance. You are being played for a fool by manipulators who still try to cherry pick 1998 as “the warmest year on record,” even though it isn’t. 2010 was warmer. 13 of the 14 years on record occurred in the 21st century. Depending on how December, 2014, pans out globally, 2014 may become the warmest year on record. It has already been the warmest for January through November (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/. ) For goodness sake, educate yourself before you spout this nonsense!

                  • Ethan

                    Clearly!

                • Ethan

                  Oh, come on, Freddie. Look up recent global temperatures over the past 17 years. Draw yourself a graph. You’re just making stuff up. Where are your citations?

              • “I have a background in math and science.”

                Nobody who has a “background” in a science makes such a broad generalization. My wife has a degree in biology and worked in biotechnology, virology and microbiology. She wouldn’t presume to say “I have a background in science” to assert some false authority in an another field.

                • M

                  I was asked what my credentials are. I notice that none of the dissenters have been asked the same question. They simply arrogantly assume they are right, and that I, despite having the weight of modern science on my side, am wrong. I have tried to respond with humility. I am not going to waste any more of my time defending MY scientific knowledge or MY Catholicity. On the issues under discussion in this thread, I am on very solid ground. Once again, the onus is on YOU, as the one disagreeing with the state of the science, to prove that I, Pope Francis, and the overwhelming majority of climate experts — are wrong. I’m bored with your insults and prevarications and personal attacks. PROVE your claim. The ball is in your court.

            • GG

              She reads New Republic.

            • Note for file: “Negative Response”.

          • I have studied the science rigorously.
            Yeah, and I had an aunt that thought she had studied medicine “rigorously”. Unfortunately, her idea of rigorous study was reading Prevention magazine. I suspect her knowledge of medicine was still better than your knowledge of science.

            Oh, for the good old days when she was telling us conventional medicine wasn’t addressing the great scourge of the world, chocolate. You know, before the discovery of the antioxidant and vasodilative effects of cocao polyphenols.

            • St JD George

              Or watched one to many Hollywood movies.

              • Only one-Al Gore’s doom porn.

            • M

              Like aunt, like nephew, apparently. Since you have not yet announced your brilliant refutation of the current scientific consensus, I must assume that Auntie’s knowledge of medicine was at best on a par with Neffie’s scientific expertise.

              • Keep writing, you really do expose yourself as a cultist and a troll.

                • M

                  You expose yourself as hostile, angry, and totally uninformed. Stop blowing hot air.

                  • I’m not the one calling people old, or sputtering about the Koch Brothers or “dirty oil, or making idiotic non-sequitirs about having a Nobel Prize?
                    So how long having you been getting paid to jam?

                    • GG

                      She is credulous. Perhaps culpable so.

                    • M

                      What an extraordinarily ignorant and uncharitable remark! This is a Catholic site. I am supporting the positions of the last three popes and the conclusions of the IPCC. Climate science is an established scientific theory. If you don’t agree with it, stop blowing hot air and insulting everyone and get off your tail and prove it. Until you do so, you are merely wasting my time.

                    • Quoting you accurately is not uncharitable.
                      In fact, since I’m withholding several speculations about you, I’m being very charitable.

                    • M

                      No, you’re wasting time. Put up or shut up on the topic of science. If you can’t disprove it, stop wasting my time.

                    • You put up or shut up.
                      I call.
                      You claim you have a background in math, tell us the general form of population growth curves.

                    • Time is up. You had time to write another insult, but not to validate your claims.

                      The answers are:

                      1.) Population curves are second order linear differential equations.

                      2.) Express a number as an exponent (X to y power). Divide it by itself. By the rules of exponents, division of a common base exponent is accomplished by subtracting the exponent. Y-Y =0; X/X =1.

                      Simple, if you’ve had college level Math.

                      Thanks for playing.

                • Ethan

                  M sounds well-informed to me. More so than most of the others here.

                  • Who are you to judge?

                    • Ethan

                      May I ask you the same question? I haven’t seen any intelligent remarks from you on this thread. M shows some knowledge of the science.

                    • No, you found a kindred spirit in M, assuming you aren’t just a paid shill. All we get from you trolls is claims of authority.
                      Did you read her comment with the age bigotry? Don’t tell me “Koch Brothers” is science or “dirty oil” is either. She claimed to have a background in Math, she said “put up or shut up”, but failed to answer two questions which would show that she had some knowledge of math to differential equations.
                      M’s been here before and its always the same-she’s either a paid jammer or in desperate need of attention, calling into question others while failing to exhibit any trace of coherence in her argument.

                    • M

                      And you post contrarian nonsense here … because? I missed your “test” initially, but it made me laugh when i saw it. Why are you trying to distract with 7th grade algebra when you should be backing up your false claims about climatology?

                    • Oh stop it. You waited three hours to badger Sainte for an answer, you pretentious charlatan.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Science never PROVES anything. It rejects null hypotheses at certain confidence limits and never absolutely.

                    • GG

                      Yes, and that is only statistics.

                  • GG

                    Of course she does to you. That much is obvious.

              • fredx2

                The scientific consensus of the 14th century was that the sun moved around the earth The most brilliant scientists of the day thought so. The scientific consensus of the 17th century said that bleeding people with leeches was the best thing to do. There is no such thing as scientific consensus. That is a political term.

                • M

                  Don’t make me laugh. Of course there is such a thing as scientific consensus! In case it’s escaped you, we’re not in the 14th century. This is in fact the 21st century. Perhaps this article, taken from the Scientific American blog, will help you understand what a consensus is (although …):

                  “A consensus view in any field of science represents humanity’s best guess as to what’s going on. The guess might well be wrong, but what else is there to go on? It’s not as though there are answers in the back of the book to look at. People often say that science isn’t a democracy; scientific questions aren’t decided by majority rule. Well, then, what are they decided by? Experiments and observations, surely. But who runs the experiments and makes the observations? Who interprets the outcome? Who double-checks them? It is a social process. If as a scientist I disagree with the consensus, I have to be very sure of myself to put my own judgment up against the collective wisdom. And if there’s one thing scientists learn very early in their careers, it is that such supreme self-confidence is usually misplaced. Nearly all scientists have painful memories of being pounced on in an oral exam for giving a sketchy answer, or presenting a paper before hundreds of people that turned out to be dead wrong. Most experts in a field realize that the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. They learn to doubt their own judgment. If I get one answer and everyone else gets a different one, my first inclination should be that I’m wrong, not that everyone else is. Sometimes, the individual is right and the community is wrong. It happens in times of scientific revolution, which by definition involve the overturning of a consensus view. But such revolutions are rare. We remember Einstein because he was unusual. Climate science shows no signs of being in a revolutionary phase. Evidence for anthropogenic warming is getting stronger with time. Discrepancies are diminishing rather than increasing. Technically, scientists are correct to assert that their field has reached consensus.”

                  As always, though, feel free to overturn the consensus with your brilliant original research and usher in one of the greatest revolutions ever to grace science.

                  • GG

                    Ah, the oracle has spoken. I guess is self appointed experts tell you then it must be true.

                    They were wrong before and will be wrong again.

                    Any consensus always involves people who are influenced by more than studies, meta analyses, and numbers.

                    No, all too often their is a group think. Numbers get pushed in any direction depending on who is in control.

                    Frankly, any honest person who is involved with science knows very well how the politics get played out. Do not be so credulous.

                    • M

                      So if they’re wrong, prove it. That’s all I ask of you. I subscribe to several peer-reviewed scientific journals about climatology. I have studied every IPCC report in detail. I am fortunate to have a niece with a PhD in the field and a son working on his PhD in an energy-related field. The counter-arguments I have seen, here and elsewhere, are ludicrous. They are so commonly made that they’ve been collected and roundly refuted at sites I have provided for your edification. It’s clear you’re all about ideology and politics, at the expense of your faith and your reality testing. But by all means DISPROVE the theory of AGW. DISPROVE! Not insult or stereotype or sulk — DISPROVE! Until such time, I can’t take you seriously on the subject.

                    • Thinking in terms of “proof” is simpleminded.

                    • Ethan

                      No. Science requires proof.

                    • No, science knows proof is elusive and uncertain.

                    • Ethan

                      Maybe, but science deals with reality. If you feel a scientific theory or law is false, you have to disprove it or it continues to stand. Nobody here is disproving climate change theory. Or even trying.

                    • “Maybe, but science deals with reality.”
                      You mean like the reality of uncertainty?
                      What is it with trolls they can’t formulate a coherent response?

                    • GG

                      Because they are not scientists or good reasoners. They are ideologues.

                    • And we thought the most dangerous drones have wings…

                    • GG

                      It is not up to me to disprove it. There are already informed scientists who have “proof” that contradicts the assertions you so worship.

                      The issue is not simply battling bits of data. The issue is much deeper and profound. It involves politics, money, ideology, not even mentioning what types of data actually matter and what parameters to agree to that should be evaluated.

                      I say again you seem credulous.

                    • M

                      But if I were to claim that the surface of the moon is made of green cheese and all these arrogant scientists who claim otherwise are just elitists who are not real scientists or good reasoners, nobody would take me seriously unless I somehow managed to prove that the moon’s surface is indeed made of green cheese. That’s the position you’re in with denying climate change. The body of evidence showing global warming and resulting climate change is enormous. The usual objections one reads at Newsman or similar are easily swatted away. Someone here was actually claiming that there has been no warming for 17 years! With 2014 shaping up to be the hottest year on record, after 2010, disproving that is easy. You’re going to have to come up with something very radical to overturn what is now well-established science.

                • GG

                  Consensus apparently matters when you like the topic. We have “scientific” consensus on all matters of support for perversion. I ask so what?

          • fredx2

            The very fact that you say such things as those who disagree are in the pay of Dirty Oil indicates you are not to be taken seriously, but have been taken in by politics. Your conclusions are near ridiculous.

          • Ethan

            Unfortunately that is true (about “Dirty Oil”.) I’ve also worked through piles of denier literature and been very disappointed with the poor quality of it. Very often the authors are journalists who have misunderstood the science.

            • GG

              Catholics do not favor dirty oil or dirty liberals.

            • Is it over yet?

      • GG

        What is climate change?

        • M

          Change in prevailing weather conditions over a long period of time. As the globe warms, climate is changing. You might find these sites helpful:
          http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic/global-warming-and-climate-change/
          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov
          http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

          • GG

            See a lot of propaganda.

            • M

              A truly asinine response, GC. How about educating yourself by studying the information I’ve provided. Once you get to the position of sounding like someone other than a 5yo saying “And so’s your old man,” then perhaps we can talk.

              • GG

                What education? That is all indoctrination. You are simply credulous. Nothing new.

                • M

                  I believe in the findings of the IPCC, the Pontifical Academy of Science, every major scientific academy, and the vast body of scientific literature to which I subscribe. I am quite willing to change my mind in the face of contrary evidence. I haven’t seen any from you that is credible. Hence I must assume that it is you that is credulous. If you want to convince me or to change the overwhelming scientific consensus, go for it. Right now, you’re simply wasting time with your insults and distractions.

                  • GG

                    Scientific consensus is not proof of truth. It is proof of ideology often.

                    There is consensus for abortion, “gay” sex, transgender surgery, and much else. So what?

        • ForChristAlone

          It’s more nonsense from the dimwits on the left.

          • St JD George

            If it weren’t so sad it would be funny to watch them get all worked up into hysteria over their mother earth religion. If only they had the same passion for their own salvation, and the salvation of others.

      • littleeif

        “The teaching power of the Magisterium …” – teaching what? Climate change connects with Catholic social teaching. So what? Physicists can now don vestments, and in the quiet sanctum of the confessional absolve me for preferring plastic to paper ten times last month, three uses of non biodegradable products and failing to recycle twice?

        To the Magisterium I would say, teach me about virtue and the virtues of frugality and simplicity, yes. Lead me away from positivist schemes that complicate my already difficult life with a “politico-economic agenda” that seeks to re-organize whole economies based on a false vision of the perfectibility of the material world.

        • M

          “So what?”????????? Catholic social teaching is so unimportant to you? Well, that’s your choice, and, like a good cafeteria Catholic, you can claim freedom of conscience trumps any Church teaching, upon which, no doubt, you will also accept that those OTHER Catholics are free to disagree with OTHER Church teachings, as they so choose. All I would say is that social teaching is not simply about you. It is about society, the commonweal, all of us. And if climate change is hurting society, the most Catholic response would be to become part of the solution.

          • littleeif

            It’s obviously nine question mark important to you. But if you can ad hominem me a “cafeteria Catholic” (so much for scientific objectivity) I can call you a Catholic Pharisee. Those were the white sepulchers, you will recall, who laid down rules so complex they barred the door to the common man, and yet would not themselves enter through. Their rules – nine question mark important to them too – made life unlivable for so many. Gratefully Our Lord swept them aside, and not too nicely either. I seriously doubt my final exam will consist of a grilling on the extent to I let the changes in the weather effect my behavior.

            • fredx2

              Suddenly all the progressives will insist that the word of the Pope must be followed. Simply say “great, when are you going to start following Humanae Vitae?”

          • slainte

            M do you also agree with and affirm the Catholic Social Teaching of Pope Paul;VI in Humanae Vitae?

          • GG

            Catholic social teaching now includes climate change as defined by Left Wing groups?

            • M

              As defined by the Catholic Church, actually. Don’t let your Catholicism get hijacked by your politics.

              • GG

                Where has the magisterium defined climate change?

              • That’s funny, coming from you.

            • IF “M” was so concerned about carbon emissions she wouldn’t be expending so much of it. Wanna make a bet that she’s not peddling furiously to produce the wattage necessary to keep her computer operating. With a little tech and imagination….

              Oh wait, if she was peddling furiously, she’d be expelling more carbon dioxide, and her caloric intake would need to increase. Increased intestinal throughput increases the risk of another “greenhouse gas”, methane.

              • GG

                Funny, but true.

                What if these mistaken zealots actually took their concern and used it for the salvation of souls instead of left wing propaganda?

          • fredx2

            No, you misunderstand. Global warming policy is not a religious subject. The Magisterium of the church does not proclaim on current specious scientific inquiries, it has no power to do so. It deals with religion. Now, the Pope can proclaim that he thinks it is a big deal, but since he is not speaking on a relgious subject, no one need listen to him. We don’t elect the Pope to settle scientific questions for us. It’s not a matter of conscience at all. If the Pope were to tell us that string theory was a Catholci imperative, he would be off base. That’s not what the church is about. You just want support for a pet idea. The feeble attempt to bootstrap global warming into a relgious subject is yet another weak attempt to use religion for your personal political preferences.

            • M

              The fallout of global warming most certainly falls within the province of Catholic social teaching.

              • ForChristAlone

                It does not

        • ForChristAlone

          No such thing as:climate change.’ It’s just a concocted opportunity for the left to wield power over people. The fear mongering has not worked and will not work because people are already controlled by their little gadgets.

          • Ethan

            What exactly has “the left” “contocted”? Do you suffer from paranoia?

            • ForChristAlone

              There’s such a thing as healthy paranoia.. Refute what I have said.

      • fredx2

        Your insistence that the science is settled on this subject reveals you really don’t know much about the subject. Nothing could be further from the truth. When the media insists that it is immoral to allow the other side to be heard, you know something is very wrong. The whole point is they are just beginning to understand this stuff. Last week there was a new study saying that significant amounts of carbond dioxide are being released into the atmostphere above themal vents along the tectonic plates. In other words, it is all natural.

        And your attempt to spin Global warming into a Catholic, religious imperative is misplaced, at best.

        • St JD George

          And another study has pointed to the beneficial effects of rapid tree growth, particularly in deforested areas. The uncertainty around the prediction of long term weather is so obscenely gross that it’s almost laughable at the rabid nature with which it’s being defended. Everything about it smells to high heaven of being agenda, not science driven.

        • M

          This is simply nonsense, fredx2. You are arguing from a position of utter ignorance. I don’t expect you to understand the more esoteric aspects of the science, but even you should be able to get past your vincible ignorance. Scientific American is a popular journal, but even that should be a good start.

          • GG

            It seems you almost worship so called climate change. It is not about science. It is a new ideology.

            • How dare you question AGW? Heretic.

              • GG

                I not only question the so called science I question the supporters as either credulous or dishonest.

                • Are you over 60? Do you have a Nobel prize? (sputtering) Are you getting money from (deep breath) Dirrrrrty oil?

            • M

              That is your view, not mine. I don’t “almost worship” the science of diabetes, but I study it and take it very seriously in order to help my Type 1 diabetic child. Please stop imputing strange ideas to me and consider your own issues with science and ideology.

              • GG

                Diabetes is much easier to study than global warming.

                Global warming is not so much science as belief.

                • Ethan

                  What aspect of it? Specifically.

                  • GG

                    The aspect that involves the propaganda and the business that has propped up around it.

    • pi2r2

      I’m happy to see the church take a stand against pseudo science and pseudo morality.. ‘..the gates of hell will not prevail against it.’

    • Marcelus

      Confusing? may be for a limited number of elite “cathoilics”? Or maybe I’m wrong

    • Terry Mushroom

      Dr Williams

      Shouldn’t we wait to see what the encyclical says before making any judgements about it and how people will respond?

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      Witihin the last year, someone’s already asked me how I could possibly take issue with the Pope’s statements on AGW – after all, didn’t I believe in papal infallibility? Can you imagine what such an encyclical as this one would bring? Sheeesh.

    • York

      You mad bro?

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        You dense, bro?

  • sybarite123

    How about an encyclical about the world’s declining Birth Rate. This decline is world wide, not just in Europe and America. We are committing suicide in a ‘death cult’ society! A retired Catholic priest in Canada.

    • Paddy

      No one has the fortitude to tell Modern Woman she’s a…well…er…woman, subject to the natural law.

    • St JD George

      So true. It’s not as obvious to most here yet (expect maybe in the cities), but having lived in Europe I can tell you that I experienced it first hand in a pretty profound way. In another generation or two, unless things dramatically change, Europe won’t even be recognizable as anything like it’s former self today. The joy and gift from God of children has been replaced by the want of “things” and misplaced faith in a benevolent state to bestow entitlement benefits in perpetuity.

    • How about an encyclical on the unrestrained disrespect for the Sabbath?

    • Azygos

      Tonight I had a conversation with my wife and teenage step-daughter (we married when I was outside the Church while living very badly and having come into the Church, received an annulment). My wife being almost 40 is now pregnant and she says that she never wants to be pregnant again, my step daughter then states, “I don’t see why you won’t let her get fixed.” I boldly stated (probably with ill effect), “You don’t get to do whatever you want to do, sterilization is immoral and those who do whatever they want end up in hell. The theme song to hell is this, I did whatever I wanted to do. Those in Heaven made it there because they obeyed God and did his Will. Scripture says that women are saved as through child bearing, if they remain sober, faithful to God and submit themselves to their husbands in all things. I am the head of my wife and she is to obey me on the order of God. You have but to obey or end up in hell, that is it, and that includes myself. I must obey God, I don’t get to do whatever I want to do.”

      The reason I post this is because I have never heard a priest speak like this and this bold language is what I think, is lacking in the Church. Priest really do have authority over people and so do the Bishops, people will listen if they boldly proclaim the truth… But who is going to obey or listen to them, if they keep avoiding the issues and giving the people sensitive (watered down) non-offensive truths. By the way, I have still never heard a single homily on contraceptives being evil, which I find very disappointing considering that so many Catholic women are using contraceptives and helping to fuel the culture of death. But then again, it is like many other things that I never hear from the pulpit…

  • Climate change is opportunity for farmers and houseboat manufacturers, nothing more.

    • And General Electric,

      Effective 1/1/2015, they own a monopoly in the “line haul” locomotive market (large, high horsepower, intended for intercity transport), not because they produce a product which annihilated the competition; but their inherently less durable GEVO four cycle engine meets the Tier 4 standards, while the two cycle EMD 710.
      You thought monopolies were great evils dispensed with by the Sherman and Robinson Patman Acts. No, some monopolies are bad, but if they are created by lord god state, they are good.

      God help you if you need a mid range roadswitcher. The EPA rules have ensured that neither GE or EMD re enter the four axle market they exited in the middle nineties, so you either pay a premium for a forty year old locomotive OR you get to but a “gen-set” (which uses computers to cycle on ad off small high speed truck diesels-and creates a lag which is horrible when switching-from small boutique builders. Better hope you get a “DERA” (Diesel Emissions Reduction Act) grant, because you’ll need extra units and they are costly and unreliable, as well as almost useless.

      No accident GE is a political animal or that they just bult a new facility in Forth Worth Texas, away from their historic home or that Imelt was such an Obama brown noser.

      • Seems to me one could retrofit a Ford Ecoboost V8 F150 to be a perfectly adequate two-axle road switcher. But the EPA would probably ban that too, despite it being much cleaner….

        • Gas engines in locomotives are beyond useless, sorry.
          Henry Ford had a fascination with railroads but never made any serious attempts to build locomotives.

          • 1. Never said it was a gas engine. Diesel Ecoboosts are available.
            2. Not real sure I’m understanding what the difference is. Isn’t torque, torque?

            • 1.) Even if its diesel, the smallest practical engine is about 15 litre displacement. Cummins has been supplying QSK-19 and now with Tier 4, QSX-15’s. There’s a start up in Canada using a Cat C-9, on an SD40 truck; but its really only designed as an in-plant switcher. Keep in mind, EMD’s 710 displaces 11.6 liter per cylinder, the GE v250 GEVO 15.7 liter per cylinder. To make an engine light enough for a pickup would sacrifice the required reliability and durability required for rail service. I occasionally work with a 1958 GP9, its getting its first rebuild now.
              2.) Torque is basically irrelevant-outside a few small offerings and a failed experiment on the Southern Pacific (Krauss-Maffei) just about all diesel locomotives are diesel electric. The diesel engine turns a generator or alternator which produces current that feeds traction motors on the cylinder.

  • Paddy

    Let the good Pope have had it. He may suggest:

    1. The Sun may, to some extent, may be at the center of this as suggested by Copernicus 5 centuries ago.
    2. Under the Doctrine of Subsidiarity, local action is preferable to international proclamations. For example, local manufactures are better for the environment than burning filth Bunker C oil to move goods from Asia to Chicago.
    3. Conservation is good and the Pope’s use of his bully pulpit harkens back to Teddy Roosevelt’s efforts. That is, sensible husbandry of resources is an ancient conservative idea.
    4. “Red tape”…apparently invented by the Papacy…has run amok in EPA operations. Our own regs are several times larger than the Bible and consume electricity, paper, time, heat etc. that often outweighs any benefit.
    5. Hypocrisy, the first arrow shot in any attack on the Catholic Church, is rife in the global warming scams with the scammers leaving a larger carbon footprint than Big Foot.
    6. Greater scientific research into fusion in nuclear power production is needed.
    7. The New World Order crowd is THE throw away society. They burn aborted corpses to generate energy, upset economies around the globe with degenerate and costly dictates and turn the other way when heat is generated by torching Catholic churches, often with Catholics inside.

    At least we all know that regardless of what the Holy Father says, the MSM will pervert every word of it.

  • Daniel P

    “Progressives love to promote a narrative wherein they are on the side of science, while conservatives (and religious people especially) are sticking their heads in the sand and wishing away the mountains of empirical evidence that run contrary to their views.”

    And yet, Rachel, you here seem to be promoting a narrative wherein conservatives are rational on this issue, whereas climate change activists are political windsocks that go wherever the wind is blowing. It’s very strange to me that you would ask for people to understand the complexity of your position, all the while glossing over the complexities of the opposing position — including, most likely, the Pope’s position.

    Environmental issues are all about managing risk. Some of the science on climate change is clear (e.g. we are destroying marine life and rainforests to our peril); some is unclear. Still, if there is just a 10% that humans are seriously damaging the climate of future human beings, the stakes are so high that we should act – that would be the *conservative* thing to do. It doesn’t mean we should utterly reverse technological progress, and I don’t know any environmentalists who want to destroy industry or technology. Rather, they want to make technology *better* and more sustainable.

    Moreover, conservative positions on social issues would be aided by a conservative response to climate change. We constantly say that gay marriage (e.g.) poses a risk to future generations, since – for all the history of mankind – children have been raised by at least one man and one woman. In other words, gay marriage is risky. But why should liberals listen to us when we talk about this risk, when we ignore their (plausible) claim that pollution is risky?

    There are many laughable excesses in the environmentalist movement, which has become a reasonably pathetic way for undisciplined people to feel self-righteous. But that doesn’t mean our way of dealing with the climate isn’t perilous.

    • Nonsense. That assumes that the actions we take have significant benefit. The amount of climate change we can control is like spitting into the ocean. And that spit comes at a huge cost.

      • Daniel P

        “The amount of climate change we can control is like spitting into the ocean.”

        Citation?

        • ForChristAlone

          oh, common sense

      • Paddy

        Certainly, we can:
        Preserve more rain forests. Haiti, a Catholic country, has had deforesting problems persistently for a century. The Church could help establish land preserves that are just to the subsistence farmer, as the UN and other atheist organizations try and fail.

        • So you want to keep Haiti as an agricultural backwater, rather than doing what China and all the other first world nations have done and that is enter the industrial revolution.

          • Paddy

            Trees are good. They even lift their leafy arms to pray. I’m pleased with reforestration in the USA and parts of Europe, too. Haiti needs help that the RCC is uniquely qualified to supply.

            • Well, I support preserving nature in general. But it’s up to the local people to decide how to balance nature and industry.

      • I’m not so sure about that.

        Two things we can do about climate change right now: Subsidize Bangladesh in the development of a houseboat industry, and start research into planting drought-resistant food crops.

    • Captain America

      good stuff above!

    • Oh please. In the 1970’s activists were promoting the coming ice age, then they were promoting global warming, clapping like seals as Al Gore jetted about and dropped trou in hotel rooms, when he wasn’t in onne of his palatial mansions. Now it’s the “generic climate change”.

      The conservative position is to ask the chicken littles to make their case with something more rigorous, consistent and thorough than calling skeptics “deniers”.

      • St JD George

        They used to clap like seals, I noticed that even Al Bore is having a hard time filling the halls where he is asked to come speak and share his intellect (reportedly he has a little). With the push back against their destructive agenda now exposed I believe that the movement has now largely gone underground where it can avoid transparency, like a mole avoids sunlight.

      • M

        Hating Al Gore does not disprove climate science. And since the science is now settled and has developed into an established theory, the onus is in fact on the deniers to disprove it. Why don’t you start. DRE-173? And try to avoid any of the old canards debunked at http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ . If you are able to prove what you claim, you will be rewarded with millions of dollars by the Koch brothers, proclaimed as a scientific genius, and your groundbreaking work ushering in a complete scientific revolution will be published in the most prestigious of peer-reviewed journals. Let me know how your work is coming along.

        • GG

          Yes, because science is not at all influenced by ideology and politics, right? It is not as if there is no consensus from the overlords about “gay” behavior and parenting, right? It is not like the professional organizations are pro gay, right?

          • M

            So do you think ideology and politics are more likely to be embraced and twisted by Dirty Oil and its paid political puppets, or by a bunch of Nobel prize winners and dedicated PhDs who don’t make very much money but love science? At some point, people need to stop politicizing this and take a good, hard look at the scientific facts. Don’t let ideologues and politicians mess with your scientific understanding.

            • GG

              I do not follow either. I am critical. I evaluate, choose the good, and reject the evil.

              The problem is claiming the “science” is right on any particular topic is that it is much to broad a position to take.

          • ForChristAlone

            Makes me laugh about “Nobel prise winners as it reminds me that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Frauds, all of them.

            • M

              When you win a Nobel prize in some scientific discipline for disproving the now well-established theory of anthropogenic climate change and you in glory usher in the greatest revolution in the history of science, do let me know. In the meantime, I’ll go with the current rapidly growing body of scientific knowledge, but be sure to know that I await your brilliant refutation with baited breath.

              • ForChristAlone

                Couldn’t care less…have at it.

                • M

                  So you admit utter ignorance of the science, but you proudly embrace an anti-scientific position? On top of that, you admit you “couldn’t care less” about a topic that affects every living organism on this planet, and this in spite of Catholic teachings on social justice , climate, and the environment? Well, I’m fine with that, but please understand that such casual rejection of Church positions makes it impossible for you to condemn those who may disagree with Church teachings on, say, contraception or homosexuality.

                  • Before you accuse others of ignorance, read your own screeds.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    You overvalue the content of your cranium. You’re far too impressed with yourself. Knock it off.

                    • Narcissism is a disease of the left.

                    • M

                      This shallow bigotry may impress shallow bigots, but bear in mind that it requires a great deal of narcissism to assume that you know better than the vast majority of climate experts.

                    • It takes even more narcissism to think you are one.

                    • Ethan

                      I don’t claim to be a climate expert, but I understand the scientific method and I understand overwhelming consensus. It takes an extreme degree of narcissism to insist that the majority of experts are wrong, especially if you have no clue as to why you think they’re wrong. “The experts are all wrong because some of those evil lib’ruls believe them” is dumber than dumb. This is superstition and bigotry. It is not science. It is a false belief based in narcissism.

                    • If you understood the scientific method, you’d understand its wash, rinse, repeat, not have an imaginary election and walk away. That’s why REAL scientists are still testing elements of relativity theory, not yelling consensus and walking away.

                    • M

                      You seriously don’t think scientists are still testing elements of AGW? Do you know how many peer-reviewed papers on the subject are published every month?

                    • I think somebody should be testing you, because you’re bats!

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Sorry, but you do NOT know the scientific method since true experimental designs assume a manipulation of variables which is impossible in the case of climate studies. You can do longitudinal studies but these are not true experimental designs.

                    • A charge of bigotry from a crank that cites the age of her opponents is laughable.
                      You, madam are a hypocrite.

              • You don’t have a Nobel either, so quit throwing stones from a glass house, troll.

            • St JD George

              Don’t forget Yasser Arafat, and big Al. Notable’s are included for sure, but these provide quite a balance to those, like a rogues gallery.

              • GG

                It has become almost all politics.

          • St JD George

            You had to bring that into the conversation, didn’t you. Before you know it Mr Frog will be weighing in.
            I think there’s a tune that goes something like “there’s no science like my science and your science so please keep those dollars a flowing …”

            • Trust me, the next time time the hyperthermic amphibian shows up, I have something for him. You know the old saw about a picture being worth a thousad words?

              • St JD George

                My curiosity is peeked now, I’m looking forward.

        • “DRE-173”
          It’s “DE-173”, and it was a nom de plume I chose precisely because of the indoctrinated like you.
          You show the paucity of your thought with the use of the term “hate”.
          I disagree with Al Gore’s politics and I find him to be an odious hypocrite, but I don’t care enough about him to hate him. The opposite of love is indifference, not hate.
          The Koch brothers canard is almost laughable coming from a Steyer-troll.

        • St JD George

          I used to hate him I admit, but now I just feel sorry for him. He has become like a dried up old wind bag who has destroyed his life (I don’t mean monetarily, just morally) and now is bitter and nobody but a few soles pay attention to. He single handedly managed to destroy himself and bring his whole family with him too.

          • M

            Soles? Does he fish? Too bad your own hatred and bitterness blind you to science beyond Al Gore.

            • St JD George

              Oops. It’s sort of fun to have you here today M, I know people like you are out there. It would be more fun if you were an honest person too, but I see where your filters are set. People that behave the way this way are no scientists, they are nothing more than agenda driven drones. The huge uncertainty in the current state of climate prediction models which are constantly being revised to adapt to new realities and contradictory data (as all good models should) is beyond laughable, but those who have drunk the kool-aid will never admit until maybe their funding dries up, then they become bitter. It’s clear that you don’t understand, and I’m not sure if I have any hope that you will, ever. People that talk to others the way you do must have the similar DNA as Alinski. Professional, courteous people I find are normally more more open minded.

              • M

                You have failed to show professionalism, courtesy, or open mindedness, so again I can’t avoid seeing hypocrisy here. If you want to be taken seriously in your critique of the science, then, as I’ve requested before, provide your refutation. The ball in your court since the science is now an established theory. If I wanted to disprove the Big Bang theory, I’d look pretty stupid if I simply kept restating my view and attacking anyone who believed in it. It would be incumbent upon me to provide a detailed analysis of what I felt were shortcomings in the theory and then see what others do with it. In the same way, if you believe you know something that 97% of trained climatologists, every major scientific institution in the world, and the Pontifical Academy of Science have missed, all you need to do is produce a paper that undermines the growing multitude of independently verified and mutually supportive findings on the topic. All I ask is that:
                1) You avoid the old canards (it’s the sun, it hasn’t warmed since 1998, carbon dioxide lags not leads, etc.) that are refuted in the links I’ve provided (I don’t want to have to keep explaining the problems with these.)
                2) That you avoid trying to dodge the issue with insults (Al Gore is fat, it’s all a liberal plot, people who believe the consensus after conscientious study are “raving lunatics, etc.)
                Just the facts, ma’am. All I’m asking for are the facts.

                • St JD George

                  I could write a list as long as my arm of prominent, credentialed scientists who are on record calling attention to the current unfounded hysteria that surrounds the global warming fan fare. In summary, the consensus is that we don’t have anywhere near a complete enough understanding of the complex interaction of CO2 or other green house gases like methane in our atmosphere, their latency, or other factors that affect the climate perhaps more like solar cycles. The only consensus is that the alarmists have adopted this as their Godless religion and are rabidly trying to enact political policies based on unproven science and which carry enormous risks. You can search as well as I, the list is pages and pages and includes Nobel prize winners, directors of famous science institutes, department chairs of prominent universities, and researchers who have dedicated their lives to studying meteorology – go Google famous global warming skeptics. There are also many who were once on board but left and became skeptics after being sickened by the perverse hysteria they found themselves immersed in. All are better mannered and true professionals than those who resort to calling names of those who question, but their principled scientific minds allows them to see things as they are – incredibly uncertain, and not as others who are agenda driven wish them to be.
                  You claimed to be a scientist, but no scientist I know with an ounce of integrity would offhandedly dismiss esteemed colleagues who question the certainty of your data and hypothesis. That is the act of a self absorbed, caged animal who feels threatened for their life or source of grant funding. The science is so far from being settled that is laughable to hear people like you talk the way you do. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but be transparent and honest about the limits of what is known and don’t act like your feelings are hurt when someone questions your data and conclusions. A good scientist welcomes honest criticism because it helps prove or discredit the theory.

  • Allan Daniel

    Global heating has had to morph into climate change. A change that has happened every day since creation. That might have had a cautioning effect on a wiser man, but in Francis we have what we have. I question the choice of material for this encyclical not merely becasue the science is questionable, but because there are spiritual problems that need addressing. Spirituality is an issue one would hope the pope would be interested in, but by choosing a subject he has no competency in he comes off as a no-nothing butinski. Frankly I’m embarrassed by this guy.

    • Dick Prudlo

      No matter what subject this man writes it is beyond his scope.

  • Thanks Rachel. I don’t mind the Holy Father laying out the imperative for Christians to be good stewards of God’s creation, but when (or should I say, if) he gets into the minutia of climate change and its negatives (while leaving out the positives) and not understanding there is a cost/benefit analysis that each nation must assess, then he is intruding into areas that are no longer religious but political. Frankly, Pope Francis is getting harder and harder to like.

  • orientstar

    Climate issues are of relevance to everyone but is this really what we expect from the Pope? Surely the salvation of souls should be more his concern than anything else. Many Catholics are on the spiritual “global endangered red list” in fact we all are. Perhaps he should address that through sound doctrine and teaching. On the other hand, diverting him to other issues – given his track record so far – may not be a bad thing. But then, who am I to judge.

  • St JD George

    Rachel, I appreciate the sincerity in your article today, but I’m afraid that Dr. Williams and many others are on point in their criticism. As a Chemical Engineer by education our Pope should know better than to wade into these politically infested waters. Whether we like it or not we will have to wait to see what new perspective he brings to this “settled science” (no scientist worth his salt talks like that by the way) conversation. That he would even distract himself to write an encyclical on the topic is very disheartening to me.

    • You mean like how Neil de Grasse Tyson’s (big atheist) shouldn’t have been commenting about unhackable IT systems?

      • St JD George

        I saw that too, and his foot in mouth last week about Christmas. What a sad, sad man of … whatever.

        • He’s an arrogant idiot savant gasbag. Sheldon Cooper with less social skills.

  • Paddy

    Dr. Lu is right. Pre-judging a 50 page paper that hasn’t been written is folly. Let’s also admit that it’s good to have the Pope in the Public Square. To date, the Pope hasn’t done anything heretical as he defends the Deposit of Faith. Who could do a better job as he approaches only two years in service this March? Every pope always seems to have an Augean stable to clean at a terrible cost to himself. So, God’s speed, Francis.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    I was given to understand that a considerable portion of this encyclical would be given to ‘social justice’ issues and the (by necessity) Big G solutions they entail. I also have heard that such an encyclical will be made to be read out in every church in the world and by all priests and religious. As a TLM Catholic, I m trying to picture this.

  • AcceptingReality

    As a proud “denier” I have to sadly admit that it seems as if most Church authorities are focused on trendy social controversies most of the time. Dolan, Weir, O’malley, etc., etc., etc….

  • littleeif

    Too late, Rachel. I already tossed and turned since I followed a New Advent link to an article in The Guardian. My first thought – how does the Pope who famously says his priests should smell like sheep rationalize taking a trip with the darlings of the elite? So he’s saying what, that priests should create the illusion of being from among the stinky flock but get on to things that really matter the first chance they get?

    Then I was trying to imagine some eco friendly message being delivered by our Pope to the UN brand of elite, who use the same logic he is apparently going to embrace to promote birth control, abortion and euthanasia in the name of population control and ecology. What a fine line he is going to have to walk to dance through that one!

    Then I thought, ok let him take this trip that has absolutely nothing to do with our faith, our struggles in this world or with a single thing that matters to me. I’ll just refuse to take any material that it might generate, tune out any senseless sermons and retire to the monastic cell of my mind whenever the topic arises. Oh, and I won’t give any money to Peter’s Pence this year – but then I didn’t last year so there’s that.

    Finally I fell asleep wondering why, instead of going through the whole gospel thing, Our Lord didn’t just say – “Hey people, you must wash your hands and separate your fecal matter from your water table or you shall not enter heaven. I know you don’t get it now but someday you will. That sheep smell is bad for a reason you just don’t get yet.”

    How useful would that have been? And how much closer to the real message his Vicar is apparently prepared to advance.

    • How else could a wolf in sheep’s clothing be able to approach the sheep if it didn’t smell like them?

  • Murray

    My concern is that it’s not really about climate change at all. If the encyclical turns about to be some anodyne Bergoglian reflections on being good stewards of Creation, then Rachel Lu is correct that there’s nothing much to worry about.

    However, I strongly suspect that the Holy Father intends to use “climate change” as a figleaf for an attempt to redefine the Social Doctrine of the Church away from Leo XIII’s balanced approach towards something much more consonant with Latin American Socialism. Why else would he have enlisted Liberation Theologians like former Father Leonardo Boff to help him compose it?

    The Holy Father has form here: as we now know, the “Synod on the Family” by design had precious little to say about the actual problems facing actual families in the actual modern world, but was (and is) a Trojan Horse for Kasperist and homosexualist “reforms” to Church teaching.

    • GG

      We all know the model by now. No matter what is said the professional Catholics will say it is all quite clear. Then they will find a couple of words and say see this is simply what Pope Benedict said too. Then any criticism from the orthodox will be dismissed as the media’s fault for misreporting things and finally there will be charges of mistranslations.

      Oh, and do not forget people will say he has not changed any doctrines so keep quite.

      Did I forget anything?

      • Murray

        Yes. You forgot the bit where the normalists impugn the characters and the motives of those expressing concern over what is, after all, a mere difference in papal style.

        I have resolved to refer the normalists to Chris Ferrara’s exhaustive (and exhausting) enumeration of the multitudinous troubling events associated with this papacy, though it will certainly be out of date by next week. Are these all due to translation errors, or a malicious media taking him out of context, or his utterly foreign Latin American cultural context, or traditionalist meanies? Or should we use our God-given reason instead?

        • I find it interesting that every time I read about something strange this Pope says, it comes from mainstream media- a source that few conservatives should trust.

          • GG

            Thanks for proving the model.

          • Murray

            Seriously, Theodore? Please read Ferrara and then get back to me about how it’s all the evil media’s fault.

            For what it’s worth, I never read, watch, or listen to mainstream media outlets.

            • Interesting, I did click on that link, and all I found there was the typical rad-trad griping about liturgy that has been unchanged for the last 10 Popes, ever since St. Pius X flipped the order of first confession and first communion.

              I actually didn’t find any of the strange things this Pope has been quoted as saying in the Mainstream Media- the stuff that I’m worried about.

              I don’t care about the Pope turning down vestments woven of gold; they’ll be kept in the museum until we have a Pope whose personal style fits them.

              I DO care about the removal of marriage and the Holy Orders as sacraments, the endorsement of homosexuality with “Who am I to Judge?”, and the apparent widespread genocide of the poor in abortion that we’re supposed to just ignore.

              • Murray

                Did you read it? Really?

                There are 25 bullet points in the article, only four of which are even tangentially related to the liturgy (including the persecution of the FFI). The remaining 21 are overwhelmingly about troubling things the pope has most certainly said and done.

                • I am not the remnant, and I have different reason for being worried than they do.

              • Dick Prudlo

                Here goes the rad=trad epithet. Can you get over the fact that it is you folks who have encouraged this foolishness for 45 years by worshiping whomever was given St. Peter’s chair. It is you who have devised a new fashion in the Church. And PS: the Liturgy was not changed by Pius V, but codified, thank you.

                • I wrote St. Pius X, not St Pius V, but hey, don’t let 5 Popes named Pius get in the way of your rant in which changes to the liturgy takes precedence over, say, changes to the doctrine on usury.

                  • Dick Prudlo

                    I do apologize, Theodore. My meaning, however, remains.

                    • And so does mine, the modernist changes to our time honored traditions started with St. Pius X- ironically the very man whose name would be lent to a famous group dissenting from Vatican II. His faith in the healing power of the Blessed Sacrament would revolutionize First Communion- and also eventually lead to a reduction in the popularity of the Sacrament of Confession as people stopped confessing venal sin.

                      There were many changes to the liturgy made slowly since Pope Pius V’s day- but after that, the changes accelerated.

                      As a child of the 1970s who doesn’t remember a widespread Latin Mass, but who recently saw ICEL bow to pressure and retranslate the Novus Ordo, I can sympathize somewhat with the rad trads. But of course, the change I lived through made the Mass significantly better, not worse…..too bad I had to live through Puppets giving Homilies to get here.

        • GG

          Yes, so my point is the model is used to justify things that if properly examined would be contradictory.

          IOW, do not believe what you perceive. Only believe what the para experts tell you to believe.

      • http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130228-environmental-pope-green-efficiency-vatican-city/

        Is what you forgot. We *have* a Green Pope already to compare whatever Francis says to.

        • GG

          The model says this pope is vastly different from the other popes. Or, the model will say this Pope is only enacting what Benedict really wanted.

          • So neither is a reasonable model.

            • GG

              Right, but they are still used.

    • BXVI

      If, as you say, the Pope has enlisted Leonardo Boff to help draft this thing, then we know all we need to know. Boff is a radical leftist environmentalist former priest. He has some very anti-Catholic views. Look him up. All I can say is, if he’s contributing to this encyclical in any significant way then it will be a major disaster for the Church. It will be rank political leftism.

      • Murray

        Boff’s involvement has been known for a while. From last October:

        …Boff was among the experts contacted during the idealization and the management of the apostolic exhortation [Evangelii Gaudium], the first exclusively authored by Jorge Mario Bergoglio… Boff…was with the Argentine Clelia Luro, widow of Bishop Jeronimo Podestà, when the Pope called the woman. Luro, in turn, told Francis that [she] was in the company of Boff and immediately he asked that the widow passed the phone. “Could you send me that his book on environmental issues? I Need him,” said Bergoglio [of] the Brazilian theologian. The interest in the work of Francisco Boff was also confirmed during his visit to Brazil on the occasion of World Youth Day (WYD) in Rio de Janeiro. Vatican officials have roamed the city looking for books of the theologian.

        But of course we can’t possibly draw any conclusions from this. It’s not like every single “misquote”, or “mistranslation”, or “mainstream media distortion”, or second-hand account, or off-the-cuff remark, or interview, or Santa Marta homily, or “ecumenical” gesture, or major appointment or firing, just happens to point in the exact same direction. Why, if that were the case, we’d have to conclude we have a serious problem on our hands, and that’s inconceivable! Didn’t the Holy Spirit promise that nothing bad could ever happen to the Church?

  • RufusChoate

    Great article and careful stewardship of God’s creation has always been a Catholic impulse from the very early recultivation of barren wastelands by Monastic Orders to the draining of pestilent swamps and bogs in Rome.

    Like everything the Left embraces it is befouled with their will to power and the power they desire is over humanity by the creation of false narrative.

    I have never understood why they oppose reforestation, claiming desert land, increased aquaculture, agriculture along with the harvesting of the Rain Forests or mature forests when it is shown time and again that new growth always consumes more CO2 than old growth in every example. There are even more innovative Carbon Dioxide consumption discovered by seeding of the northern and southern seas with metallic material (ships) to provide the necessary compounds for life phytoplankton which the Seas are devoid of because of the lack of metal etc…

    Muslim and African mismanagement of arable lands in the Sahara regions have loss millions of hectares of land to the expansion of the desert which could be reversed.

    The Limits are always on Human output and redistribution of wealth to benefit the non-productive.

    I fear Francis will see this as Leftist redistribution opportunity than a long term solution to the world’s problems.

    • egalitrix

      Since when is the Left against deforestation?

  • We COULD err on the side of caution …

    • RufusChoate

      As Catholics it is well understood that the Left never produces what it promises because it is a false doctrine that they seeks only power and riches for themselves.

      Only to create hell on earth.

      None of the claims in your cartoon would ever occur and we would be enslaved to the comprehensive state.

    • St JD George

      We also could be honest about it too.

    • Promises, promises…..

    • ForChristAlone

      Leftists

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    “. . . careful stewardship of God’s creation” includes care, nurturing (and proper liberty) to mankind’s wont to be energetic, inventive, and creative – in short, to do things, to make things.

    God’s good creation is material to all that doing and making. Material creation – proper;y understood – is subservient to man. (The exercise of “sphere-sovereignty”, to pull in a Dutch philosopher.) Mankind’s stewardship is governorship over all he (finitely) surveys, what falls into his (limiting) reach. In which, the first thing touched is his imaging (participation) in God’s own inventive, creative life.

    Creation does not dictate the terms of that stewardship; it has no power over man, except, under God’s sovereignty, it blesses him – or, in those incidents it is asked to punish him. Creation does, though, communicate the nature (and laws) of its “itness” (in the Aristotelian/Thomist sense). That must be attended to and respected in man’s stewardship; it is, in truth, the first act of his governorship over creation, what has been placed in his (finite) sovereign-sphere (of acting, inventing, and creating).

    Thanks for forthrightness of your essay.

  • BXVI

    Well now, Pope Francis’ supposed theme of “sticking to the kerygma” didn’t last very long, did it? I have to admit I really didn’t expect that it would. So, his first encyclical will be on the biggest pet issue of the progressive political left. I expect this encyclical to be more about economics, with the basic theme being that the rich nations of the West are taking more than their fair share of the world’s resources while emperiling the planet and subjecting poor nations to the downside of “climate change.” Shame on the rich Western nations! Pope Benedict was also an environmentalist, and very concerned about the issue of climate change, but he was smart enough not to wade into this highly politicized issue with an encyclical, especially when the “science” is definitely not settled.

  • M

    “Without cheap fossil fuels, many more people will be hungry and cold. Abundant energy also tends to fuel job growth, which the Holy Father has highlighted in the past as a vital concern for modern societies.”
    Energy can be abundant, cheap, AND clean. I suggest you read http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=view&nr=245&type=99&menu=20, which I referenced in another comment, to learn how clean energy can and does fuel job growth while providing more than enough energy and saving lives by reducing air pollution.

  • ForChristAlone

    Whenever I run across a piece commenting on something the Pope is alleged to have said, I simply pass over it. Unfortunately, Francis I has become irrelevant to me and I await the next conclave. The Holy Spirit was on vacation for this past one. I refuse to allow myself to be perturbed any further by this man’s musings. A cousin of mine offered to open her house to me near Philadelphia for the Pope’s visit there this Fall. I politely thanked her and told her that I was planning on watering the lawn that day.

    • linda daily

      As many felt about Benedict.

      • ForChristAlone

        Yes, the dolts.

        • linda daily

          So the Holy Spirit leads the Church only when you agree.

          • RufusChoate

            Oddly the Holy Spirit also chastises the wicked and discomfits the comfortable with affliction and anxiety.

            You’re not going to defend the Borgia Popes with the same standard are you.

            Francis like all in the Church is only a Man.

            • linda daily

              Only ten seconds before you started name calling, a record. Yes the Holy Spirit can use even scoundrels for his purpose. But neither Benedict nor Francis are scoundrels and deserve our support and prayers.

              • ForChristAlone

                says you…really now

          • ForChristAlone

            The Holy Spirit allowed a very flawed man to take over Peter’s See. My vote is with the Holy Spirit who blows where He wills and knows exactly what He is doing and why.

      • GG

        But those who felt that way rejected Church authority. No comparison.

    • RufusChoate

      I appreciate you angst. I don’t think Pope Francis has anywhere near the enthusiastic support in the Church that both Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II enjoyed but I am willing and open to being surprised and amazed by Francis but unlike Saint John Paul II he isn’t a young man where the Left in/out/near the Church can continue to “misrepresent” him for the first four years of his Papacy.

      I continue to read Pope Francis but the air of prophetic courage of his predecessor is sorely lacking.

      • ForChristAlone

        The most recent perturbation came from his excoriating the curia in public. This was shameful and unseemly coming from someone who hold his office. It is unbiblical too. I am disappointed in the man.

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    “Climate Change.” Yes, the climate changes, and thank goodness, otherwise Ohio (where I now reside) would be under 600 feet of ice, as it was 40,000 years ago. “People are responsible for the climate changing.” Highly debatable. According to some studies, all of human activity has had less effect on climate than three volcanic eruptions. “People can stop climate change.” Supremely arrogant and absurd. “The Pope’s opinion about all of this is part of the Magisterium.” His opinion matters about as much as mine, which is not much at all.

    • St JD George

      When I lived in LA I think I read somewhere that one fire in the hills released more carbon than all the cars in SoCal did in a year. I never checked to verify, and it does seem to be hard to believe, but hey – it was in print so must be fact, right – ha.

  • hombre111

    Let’s see…Behold the Lord God Yahweh didst look down upon his children upon the earth, and lo, thanks to man-made global warming, the seas, yea, they had risen, drowning out the teeming lowlands, the clouds had not dispensed their rain, and verily, the wretched of the earth, they did wander uprooted from their homes, perishing of hunger and thirst, first by their millions and then by their billions.
    And lo, the Blessed Holy Father, Pope of the One True Church didst die and ascend to the glories of God.
    “Did thou doest well, my Son?” asked Lord God Sabaoth.
    “Yes, my Father,” saith the Pope, “I did chide the people for their divorces and for the evil of birth control.”
    “Well done, my faithful one,” saith the Father. “Thou didst mind to the truly dreadful things that afflicted the sons of men. Come ye into my kingdom.”
    And in the midst of this conversation, another million people starved and died on the earth.

    • GG

      “Blessed are those who embrace so-called climate change and forget about that sodomy stuff”?

      Book of Hombre111

      The New Authority

    • kag1982

      Oh thank you for that!

      • ForChristAlone

        More NCR nonsense: Kag1982, Hombre111, amd M. Did I miss any others who have been summoned here from the protestant wing of the Church?

    • What have you done to end starvation? We know you’ve done your level best to congratulate yourself on holding opinions that tell everybody else to do something, but what have you done, during those interludes when you aren’t telling everybody sodomy and contraception are wonderful.

      • hombre111

        Your ad hominem response shows I just won this argument.

        • M

          DE produced an argument? But thank you, hombre111, for your very pertinent sketch.

          • ForChristAlone

            The NCR crowd has been summoned here.

            • GG

              And Crux too.

            • Whattya know.. M just made a pass at a faux priest…

        • ForChristAlone

          again, a broken promise not to return here. A man of his word we should listen to? Nope.

    • JP

      Actually, if anyone is starving it is because they could not afford to purchase corn. And the reason for that is because 60% of the US corn harvest goes into our automobiles. Because of green policies that go back to the Bush43 administration, the price of corn is tied to the price of oil. Global Hunger has its roots in the salons of wealthy, self loathing Progressives.

      • M

        Drought in Somalia, which recently experienced the driest year in the last 60, was a major factor in causing starvation, along with problems of access, partly due to poor infrastructure, and response.

    • Ethan

      LOL!

  • papagan

    According to what I’ve heard, the upcoming encyclical will be devoted to the topic of “human ecology,” which is much more broad and humanistic than is the more empirical topic of “climate change.” Let us not be too quick to dismiss in cavalier fashion an encyclical that hasn’t yet been published, and the topic of human ecology is certainly not peripheral to Christian faith and morals.

    • GG

      Right, but as you read in these comments the left wing has already seized the idea of a climate change encyclical as a means to further their agenda.

      • papagan

        As the saying goes, even the Devil can quote Sacred Scripture! That doesn’t mean that we would be better off without Scripture. There will always be those who seek to distort truth, and we will always stand in need of thinkers who courageously resist sly distortions of truth.

        • GG

          Again, true but to wrench the document from the times we are in and the circumstances we are in is to deny the obvious problems. We are not talking about Scripture. We are talking about a document that can contain some binding truths and some non binding things.

          • papagan

            Let’s wait and see what the forthcoming encyclical has to say before we hasten to pass judgment on its teaching.

            • GG

              Well this entire article is guessing in a way. Again, I do not think Church teaching is the issue. The issue is propagandists hijacking Church teaching to use as a cudgel.

              • papagan

                Then you would agree that human ecology is a vital social issue?

                • GG

                  Properly defined yes.

                  • papagan

                    Do you agree with the teachings of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI on human ecology within the matrix of Christian humanism and theological anthropology?

                    • GG

                      Sure.

            • ForChristAlone

              Many of us have ceased listening to this Pope who has something to say about everything – most of which comes with little reflection as it then has to be explained and backtracked.

              • papagan

                I see. What was it that you said earlier about a Protestant wing…?

                • ForChristAlone

                  it was “protestant” wing, not “Protestant” wing. It applies to those who use Church teachings to further their political agenda. If the show fits, wear it.

                  • papagan

                    Using Church teachings to further a political agenda? Hey, look in the mirror!

    • JP

      The Pontifical Office for the Academies and Sciences got the ball rolling. They were the ones who mentioned and highlighted the main points of Pope Francis’ encyclical. If you have a bone to pick, drop them an email.

      • papagan

        You need to be more precise. If you have a problem with the forthcoming encyclical, what exactly are your grounds?

        • Ethan

          This is what I want to know too. What I see is a lot of bashing of Pope Francis and science, but no specifics.

          • papagan

            It seems that at least some of the harsh criticisms stem from a sad failure to appreciate the value and significance of Catholic social doctrine, which is opposed to various modern errors taken for granted by not a few misguided individuals.

            • ForChristAlone

              CST begins in the womb

    • ForChristAlone

      Oh, so the human ecology encyclical will be about the evils of the violence that has been done to women’s wombs because of abortion. That the first and foremost human ecology issue and until that is ecology is healed, nothing else really matters.

  • kag1982

    Hey as faithful Catholics shouldn’t you guys be anticipating the Holy Father’s words about environmentalism and how pollution and climate change hurts the poor. After all that is an important part of the Church’s social justice teachings. Or are there only sexual sins, not sins associated with harming the environment?

    • GG

      Faithful Catholics welcome all truth. They care deeply about people and eternity. But, they are not credulous and do not like propaganda. This thread is not about the encyclical so much as it is about what the left wing dissenters will do to use the document to further their ideology.

      • kag1982

        So you should care deeply about how climate change hurts the poor, shouldn’t you? And of course liberals have political agendas. Conservatives have those as well. It just amuses me greatly that the same people who lecture liberals about their faithfulness to the Magisterium reject a large portion of the Church’s Magisterium themselves.

        • papagan

          “It just amuses me greatly that the same people who lecture liberals about their faithfulness to the Magisterium reject a large portion of the Church’s Magisterium themselves.”

          There is surely a certain amusing irony in such debates. I’m not sure, however, that the liberal vs. conservative debate isn’t a red herring. The real issue is the debate between those who defend Christian orthodoxy and those who seek to overthrow Christian orthodoxy!

          • kag1982

            Do you mean all Catholic orthodoxy or just sexual orthodoxy?

            • JP

              Can a Climate Change Denier go to Hell for his heretical beliefs concerning CO2? Does a Climate Change skeptic need to confess his sins to a priest?

              • kag1982

                Really? Is this similar to being okay with gay marriage then?

                • JP

                  Answer my question. You’re the one who brought up Orthodoxy.

                  • kag1982

                    And this is what I’m getting at. I don’t care what you guys believe in about Climate Change and I don’t think that you will go to Hell for not liking what Pope Francis has to say on the topics. However, it is hypocritical for you to dismiss the views of the Pope on social justice teachings and scream about the fact that some Catholics dismiss the Church’s teachings on birth control or gay marriage. I’ve always been told that you cannot pick and choose the parts of Catholicism that you like by conservative Catholics and it seems that the same applies here. An encyclical is the highest level of papal teaching which would put this on the same level as Humane Vitae, wouldn’t it?

                    • JP

                      Who said I dismissed anything? You’re throwing out strawmen, now. And you have it absolutely backwards. Heterodox Catholics like you cannot have it both ways. The Heterodox have been fighting to get the Church to change it prohibitions on contraception since 1960; the prohibitions against abortion since 1972, and heterodox Catholics have been lobbying the Church to relax its teachings on adultery and homosexuality since at least the late 1980s. I’m not for changing anything.

                      And I have nothing against an encyclical on stewardship. However, it was the Vatican that announced that Pope Francis intended to publish an encyclical concerning “human-ecology” and Climate Change next autumn, not me. I’m just trying to figure out how a subject like Climate Change made it into the subject. He might has well included String Theory.

                    • kag1982

                      String Theory isn’t causing harm to the planet or to people, now is it? Climate Change is. And there is a rich history of Catholic social teachings on the subject of environmentalism. Your guys’ hero, Pope Benedict, talked about the environment quite frequently.

                    • JP

                      Please, define what Climate Change is. I for one haven’t a clue. Do you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming? If you do, then that is a presents a problem for the Vatican. As the world has stopped warming a decade ago. The warming which has so obsessed the world since 1976 stopped in 1997. The science of the atmosphere is anything but settled. And I certainly would question any religious leader’s attempt to tie stewardship to Climate Change (formerly known as Anthropogenic Global Warming).

                    • kag1982

                      It is now considered Climate Change rather than just Global Warming. Scientists would argue that is why we are having all these weird weather events.

                    • JP

                      There is nothing weird about our weather.

                    • kag1982

                      I guess you didn’t experience last winter in the U.S.

                    • GG

                      So, a particular winter in the Eastern USA is climate change?

                    • kag1982

                      Yes. A quite out of the ordinary winter like that could be evidence of Climate Change.

                    • GG

                      Even the climate change propagsndists do not say that.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      only for those who think the world was created the day they were born and is likely to end the day they die. they’re called the narcissists of the 1960’s/70’s generation.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      and killing babies became “pro-choice” Does the name Alinsky mean anything to you?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      you’re here to grind an ax…get lost

            • GG

              Is “climate change” a matter of binding moral teaching?

              • kag1982

                So an encyclical would mean that this is on the same level of teachings as Humane Vitae, wouldn’t it?

                • JP

                  No. Not at all. Humanae Vitae broke no knew theological, doctrinal ground – the encyclical did not create any new dogmas. The prohibition against the use of birth control as well as abortion go back all the way to the Church Fathers. Humanae Vitae only reminded Catholics of long held Church teachings.

                  Pope Francis cannot create any new dogmas on his own.

                  • kag1982

                    And the idea that Catholics should protect Creation goes back to the Church Fathers as well, doesn’t it?

                    • JP

                      Your soul is at risk of Hell for using birth control or committing adultery. I don’t think the same can be true for purchasing a F150 diesel 4×4 crew cab.

                    • kag1982

                      Your soul is definitely at risk if you are prone to materialism.

                    • JP

                      And what does materialism have to do with Climate Change? I will keep asking that question until I can get a logical answer. I for one cannot even find a person who can even define what Climate Change is.

                    • kag1982

                      So you don’t think over-consuming and wasting the world’s resources isn’t related to materialism by purchasing a gas guzzling SUV or building a large mansion that wastes energy and contributes to climate change.

                    • JP

                      You’re conflating 2 different subjects. And the last time I looked CO2 is not a pollutant. As a matter of fact, it is anything but. One might as well declare water a pollutant as much sense as that makes.

                    • kag1982

                      And an excess of CO2 is adversely effecting the planet.

                    • JP

                      CO2 is measured in parts per million. There is not enough biomass we can burn to raise CO2 levels to the point where it would effect our weather patterns. Currently we are at 398ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution it was 325ppm. At what levels should we reduce our CO2 levels to? BTW, at 325ppm crop yields fall to a point where starvation would become the norm at our current population levels. There are negative feedbacks to reducing CO2 levels. Almost all of them are bad.

                      I cannot imagine that the Pope wants to drink from the polluted rivers of the Climate Change issue. It would certainly detract from the moral issues of stewardship.

                    • kag1982

                      Actually, this is a moral issues associated with stewardship. Perhaps people shouldn’t over-consume.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Is over consuming what everyone but you is doing?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      before going any further, please give us an exhaustive inventory of your total use of all carbon products. When you have eliminated everything from your list and you can tell us that you’re carbon-free, get back to us.

                    • papagan

                      Human ecology is a vital issue. Please don’t downplay its importance in relation to Catholic social teaching, which is part of the Church’s moral doctrine.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      human ecology begins in the womb. When that debacle is rectified, we can proceed to look elsewhere for planetary healing.

                • GG

                  No, not necessarily.

                  • kag1982

                    Yes, it is the same level of papal teaching.

                    • GG

                      No, it depends on the things mentioned.

              • papagan

                (1) The humanistic notion of human ecology is not synonymous with (2) the empirical idea of climate change. We must be careful not to reduce 1 to 2.

                • GG

                  But that is exactly what kag is doing.

            • papagan

              I’m not employing the term “Catholic orthodoxy” in any narrow sense. The Catholic Church’s teaching on human sexuality is only one aspect of the Church’s comprehensive teaching on faith and morals. The more comprehensive teaching includes the important and complex notion of human ecology, which must be understood within the context of Christian humanism and theological anthropology.

              • ForChristAlone

                Human ecology begins in the womb and does not advance until that matter is settled. You cannot care about climate change until the climate of the womb (which, by the way, is something we CAN do something about) is healed.

            • ForChristAlone

              If you find it so distasteful here, go elsewhere. Your persistent presence here is an enigma.

          • ForChristAlone

            Catholic orthodoxy is what this site is about. Don’t agree? Go elsewhere for your fix.

            • papagan

              What I observe here is more than a little dissent…

              • ForChristAlone

                so, don’t let us hold you back from leaving here

        • GG

          What do I reject? Please share.

          If the climate hurts the poor, whatever that means, then yes we must help. None of that is the issue though.

          The issue is inexact science used as propaganda to further a left wing agenda. By left wing I mean immoral.

          • JP

            Yes. Climate is a nasty little evil. It has led many a people astray.

        • ForChristAlone

          No, it’s that we see Catholic Social Teaching as having nothing to do with advancing a socialist political agenda. In fact, it says nothing about politics. You know, the “Render to God..” sort of thing.

      • papagan

        See my reply to your response to my previous post.

        • GG

          See my reply to that.

    • JP

      How does “Climate Change” hurt the poor? Better yet, please explain what “Climate Change” is?

      And, if I understand your post correctly, pollution only hurts the poor. Interesting.

      • papagan

        Let us not commit the mistake of thinking that the poor are to be identified exclusively with those whose material needs are not met. We are all “poor” in one way or another. The man who fails to love his neighbors, whatever their material circumstances may be, is very poor indeed. Pope Benedict XVI has something quite profound to say about this in his work, Jesus of Nazareth.

        • JP

          Great post. But, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I am just trying to understand how “Climate Change” and pollution exclusively hurt the poor.

          I am reminded of a quip I read some years ago. It was in the form of a fictitious headline:

          “Asteroid to Destroy Earth Next Week – woman and minorities hardest hit”

          • papagan

            In a previous comment I posted, I stated that I had heard that the upcoming encyclical is about human ecology, not simply about “climate change.” Pollution does hurt the poor, but one must remember that we’re all poor in one sense or another. It is a mistake to reduce all poverty to material poverty. The greatest poverty is not to love God and one’s neighbors.

            • JP

              We are in agreement that pollution is not good and everyone’s health is diminished because of it -even the rich. The next order of business is to figure out whether CO2 concentrations are responsible for “Climate Change”? This is something that Bishop Sordono brought up in his announcement last week concerning Climate Change and the Pope’s encyclical. Is CO2 a pollutant? Is the subject of CO2 even worthy of a Pope’s attention?

              • ForChristAlone

                I think that the next thing on the Pope’s agenda is an encyclical calling for a cure to cancer. Perhaps he might advise us on the way forward on that most dreadful of diseases that plagues mankind.

        • “Let us not commit the mistake of thinking that the poor are to be identified exclusively with those whose material needs are not met.”

          Exactly why I reject the cheap politics of “Hombre111” that he tries to pass off as a concern for the poor.
          You want drinding poverty, go to a nursing home, even among the most well-heeled “private pay”, there is an insidious form of grinding poverty, the bodies and minds that betray their owners, the lack of privacy, where the most intimate hygiene is attended to by strangers, who for their own survival dare not become to attached to the those poor souls. Worse, familes may be busy or living far away.

      • kag1982

        The poor are more likely to be killed in a natural disaster caused by climate change. They are more likely to starve and go without clean water and basic needs. And one could say that the culture of excess associated with climate change (over-consumption and waste) leads to a society where people are also seen as commodities that can be thrown away.

        • ForChristAlone

          your emotions get in the way of your reason

          • Get the feeling Hag1982, Mre and Edith are all Sybil?

    • Let’s see, there’s two of ten commandments that warn against sexual sins, and one that warns against the idolatry of environmentalism.

      • kag1982

        You certainly take a narrow view of the Commandments.

        • GG

          You have in backwards.

          • kag1982

            People who overconsume shared resources are stealing from others.

            • ForChristAlone

              wrong again but if you stay here long enough you might just begin to assimilate the truth

            • GG

              What is over consuming?

        • And you take none.

          • kag1982

            Actually, I’m not sure what Commandment Bob and Steve’s marriage or Sherry’s use of the Pill falls under.

            • GG

              That is because you do not know the Catholic faith.

              • kag1982

                See, the Church would say adultery which is quite a stretch given the definition of adultery. However, we are going to stretch out the definition of the 10 Commandments, then I’m sure that wasting resources falls under some sin. Perhaps stealing would be a good one.

                • GG

                  The Commandment includes all sexual sin. This is only surprising to post modern minds.

                  • kag1982

                    Yes, I know what the Church says about it but the Commandment is against adultery, not birth control.

                    • GG

                      Again, your understanding of the commandments is not only historically wrong but reductionist and self centered.

            • Bob

              Bob and Steve’s marriage: “thou shalt not commit adultery.” “I am the Lord your God, no other god’s before me.”
              Sherry’s use of the Pill: “Thou Shalt not Kill.”

              Let me know if you need any other help……

              • kag1982

                Exactly, how are Bob and Steve committing adultery unless either one is currently married to a woman?

                And how is Sherry committing murder if the idea of the Pill is to prevent her from conceiving in the first place?

                • GG

                  Joking? We are not 7 year olds here.

                  • kag1982

                    No. I’m serious.

                • Bob

                  Good questions.

                  Here, read below. It says it better than I can:

                  http://www.catholicdoors.com/courses/commandments.htm

                  • kag1982

                    I’ll pass considering that same site argued against baptizing the child of a couple who were married outside of the Church.

                    • Bob

                      OK, I get it.

                      You really weren’t looking honestly for answers or what the Church teaches.

                      You’re just here to ignorantly attack.

                      Shame on you.

                    • kag1982

                      Such blatant hypocrisy amuses me.

                    • Bob

                      Why do you hate the Catholic Church so much? It’s obvious you know very little about the Church, let alone it’s teachings. But you feel inclined with a hard heart to ignorantly attack it.

                      Why? Why attack an institution you know almost nothing about?

                    • kag1982

                      I am a Catholic and know what the Church teaches on this. I disagree with it because the Commandment clearly says adultery. However, what I’m mainly amused by is the blatant hypocrisy of the author and many of the commentators who state that they totally believe in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church unless it goes against their economic interests or political views. The Catholic Church isn’t the Tea Party; there is a whole lot of left-y economic and social justice teachings in there.

                    • Bob

                      “I disagree with it because the Commandment clearly says adultery. ”

                      Then you rebel against the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church, given the ability to “bind and loose” directly from Christ. You then don’t profess “One, Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.” Honestly, I believe you “disagree” because, like many Catholics that “disagree” with a teaching (specifically doctrinally) it does not fit a particular lifestyle you wish to lead. You should choose then not to describe yourself as “Catholic.”

                      And the church is not “left-y or right-y.” It’s the Catholic Church.

                    • kag1982

                      Tell that to many people here – at least I’m honest about being a Cafeteria Catholic.

                    • Bob

                      Stop being a cafeteria Catholic, I once was. Embrace the Church 100%, it’s much better.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      get your dietary needs met elsewhere; this site will never satisfy your perverse interests

                    • kag1982

                      Do you have a substantial point to make or do you just want to complain?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      get lost

                    • ForChristAlone

                      be amused elsewhere…you’re not welcome here

    • ForChristAlone

      if you do not count yourself among us “faithful lay Catholics” on this site, why are you here?

      • kag1982

        I was just struck by the hypocrisy of the author and commentators on this. People should follow Catholic teachings unless it goes against their personal political beliefs.

        • ForChristAlone

          get off my site

  • Jacqueleen

    The issue may not be severe, but the fact that there is a strong meeting of the minds with Obama and the rest of the Progressives/Communists that makes me tremble.

    • Green is the new red.

  • thebigdog

    Next on the progressive to do list… updating those pesky Gospels to Matthew, Marx, Luke and John — you know, in order to be more fair and inclusive.

    • papagan

      Let us resist the temptation to slander Catholic social doctrine, which is an essential aspect of Christian moral teaching.

      • thebigdog

        I didn’t mention “Catholic social doctrine” I specifically and intentionally used the word ‘progressives” who, if they had the authority, would eliminate the idea of all sin… except traditions and truths that block their leftist agenda.

        Let us resist the temptation to slander Catholics who see reality for what it is.

        • papagan

          “…updating those pesky Gospels to Matthew, Marx, Luke and John…”

          Let’s be honest. Pope Francis has unfairly come under attack as a friend of the “progressive agenda.” And the reference to the fictitious “Gospel of Marx” could very easily be read as not only an attempt at humor, but also a sly attack on Catholic social doctrine. One can’t have one’s cake and eat it too. If one claims to embrace the Church’s moral teaching, one cannot consistently reject Catholic social doctrine.

          • “And the reference to the fictitious “Gospel of Marx” could very easily be read as not only an attempt at humor, but also a sly attack on Catholic social doctrine.”

            Only by somebody lacking any reasonable interpretation. It’s not a sly attack on Catholic Social Doctrine, it is an open attack on the state sponsored theft that is presented as pseudoCatholic doctrine.

            • papagan

              “…it is an open attack on the state sponsored theft that is presented as pseudoCatholic doctrine.”

              What exactly does that have to do with Pope Francis’ forthcoming social encyclical? Do you wish to suggest that he supports “state-sponsored theft”? Or do you believe that Catholic social doctrine promotes the idea of “state-sponsored theft”?

              • I was refering the Bigdog’s statement below- and those encompassed in it?

                “I didn’t mention “Catholic social doctrine” I specifically and intentionally used the word ‘progressives” who, if they had the authority, would eliminate the idea of all sin… except traditions and truths that block their leftist agenda.”

                “Or do you believe that Catholic social doctrine promotes the idea of “state-sponsored theft”?”

                I don’t but I’ll bet many loyal readers of America (Amerika?) and Commonweal (Commonsqueal) believe that unrestrained state redistribution (theft) is the sum total of CSD, or at least the part that matters.

              • ForChristAlone

                of course, he supports state-sponsored theft and, yes, Catholic Social Teaching AS PROMOTED BY the protestant wing of the Catholic Church uses CST to advance its political agenda to shove it’s leftist ideology down our throats. We know what you’re up to.

                • papagan

                  Ludicrous! Where are you coming from?

                  • ForChristAlone

                    you wouldn’t get it; no need for me to bother explaining

                    • papagan

                      If you prefer to hide your underlying convictions in the shadows, that’s your choice, but you sound much like a libertarian.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      and you sound like a fool

                    • papagan

                      Do you believe that ad hominem attacks will win you points? Sad.

          • thebigdog

            Wow, since you seem to believe that you are omniscient, please tell me which Catholic social “doctrine” I reject. Or do you believe that the hysteria of “global warming” and the prescribed solution of taxing and redistributing America’s wealth to countries who are far more environmentally irresponsible.. is Catholic “doctrine”

            Do I now have to go to confession because I believe that “global warming” is an anti-American, leftist hoax?

            • papagan

              I referred to the notion of human ecology, not the empirical idea of global warming. Some have suggested that certain elements of Catholic social doctrine are “gauchiste” or tainted by socialist ideology. For example, see “Caritas in Veritate in Gold and Red” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227839/i-caritas-veritate-i-gold-and-red/george-weigel. Do you agree with that opinion concerning Catholic social teaching?

              • ForChristAlone

                human ecology begins in the womb. once that human ecology is fully protected, we can move elsewhere but not until.

                • papagan

                  How narrow! Abortion is gravely evil, of course, but it isn’t the only grave evil the Church is called to address.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    It’s where human ecology concerns must begin.

                    • papagan

                      Focus all attention on one type of grave disorder and temporarily ignore all the others? Fascinating. That’s like saying that one should focus all attention on the Fifth Commandment and place the remaining nine on hold, at least until there are no more violations of the Fifth Commandment. Dream on! That isn’t truly Christian.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Idiot

                    • papagan

                      Look in the mirror.

                    • papagan

                      Idiot

                      Ad hominem again? Is that the best you can do? That’s inferior to plain silence.

            • ForChristAlone

              if you do go to confession, make certain it is to a priest who was ordained BEFORE 1980, otherwise he won’t know what you’re talking about.

            • papagan

              The stale redistribution charge is typical among anti-government libertarians. Don’t you agree with writers like Thomas E. Woods, Jr.?

              • thebigdog

                I’m not on trial here lefty… take your shell games back to HuffPo.

                • papagan

                  Lefty? No, unless you’d describe Pope Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI as “leftists.” I think the current federal administration is one of the worst administrations ever. Trickle-down economics, however, is pure mythology!

                  Interestingly, you haven’t denied that you’re an anti-government libertarian. Or perhaps you don’t know the meaning of the word “libertarian.”

                  • thebigdog

                    I’m flattered that you are so obsessed with my opinions… my own family doesn’t care as much about what I think. Anyway:

                    “Or perhaps you don’t know the meaning of the word “libertarian.”

                    Wow, arrogant and condescending… well done! Yes, I know what libertarian means and will not go to see the new movie Atlas Shrugged because I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand. I am a Reagan conservative, traditional Catholic.

                    “Trickle-down economics, however, is pure mythology!”

                    That statement would be correct because you will not find the term “trickle down” in any economics book anywhere. The term is merely a liberal pejorative for economically ignorant people who have never studied supply side economics… which is what Reagan based his presidency on when building the strongest and longest economic boom in U.S. history.

                    You sound like someone who has never taken an economics course, so you might want to read this (even the NY Times gets it):

                    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/17/opinion/the-reagan-boom-greatest-ever.html

                    • papagan

                      “Yes, I know what libertarian means and will not go to see the new movie Atlas Shrugged because [1] I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand. [2] I am a Reagan conservative, [3] traditional Catholic.”

                      Regarding 1, Ayn Rand was an extremist altogether off the scale, although I know some people attracted to her thought. Needless to say, I don’t share the opinions of her fans. In any case, one can be a libertarian without being a fan of Ayn Rand. Regarding 2, I don’t buy Reaganomics. Deregulation would certainly appeal to libertarians. Regarding 3, that term is used in different ways by different people. The term is sometimes used by persons who follow the SSPX.

  • Marcelus

    So I can sleep better now that R. Lu is at easy….

    PF said it many times that it was about the earth , not climate change, as belonging to God and how we are obliged to look after his work.

    That ism the problem with CM., Just pick up a rumour and off they go.

    • JP

      So, a curial office is in the rumor business? The rumor came from the Vatican itself. Bishop Sorondo made the announcement.

  • steve5656546346

    If the Encyclical is nothing to loose sleep over, then it shouldn’t have been written at all.

    With Christians being killed for being Christian, and all of Western culture loosing its bearings, there are more important issues to be addressed.

    • papagan

      The questions of morality, social justice, and “human ecology” are intimately related. The notion of human ecology is not new. It can be found in the social teachings of St. John Paul II (e.g., Centesimus annus) and Pope Benedict XVI (e.g., Caritas in veritate). In this connection, see Pope Benedict XVI, The Garden of God: Toward a Human Ecology http://cuapress.cua.edu/books/viewbook.cfm?book=BETH , as well as the collection of essays published in the Winter 2011 issue of Communio: International Catholic Review, “Towards a Human Ecology: Person, Life, Nature” http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/view/introduction-towards-a-human-ecology-person-life-nature. Downplaying the importance of human ecology is to downplay a key aspect of Catholic social doctrine.

  • fredx2

    From what I have read, the encyclical is expected to focus on “human ecology”. Which is a term that is undefined, But I expect the Pope may mean that to the extent that climate change affects people, it is incumbent upon us all to help those affected by it. Of course, since climate is changing all the time (The 1920’s New York Times was telling us that the harbor seals had disappeared, and the 1884 New York Times was telling us that rivers were not freezing as much in winter as in Grandpa’s day. ) so this is a good point to make about climate change.

    To the extent he tries to pretend that “the science is settled” he just reveals himself as a rookie.

  • JP

    The following is an example of the harm done in the name of ecology and Climate Change:

    In 2005, President Bush gave an important speech castigating Americans for their addiction to fossil fuels. He followed up with a series of EPA rules that mandated ever increasing blends of corn and soy ethanol into the US supply of refined petrol. The results were predictable. The price of corn and soybeans rose with every uptick in the price of oil. Farmers worldwide stopped growing local crops in order to cash in on the new bull market in corn and beans. Since corn is a global commodity, every nation experienced this surge in corn prices (from around $2/bushel in 2001 to $10/bushel in 2011). The poor, from Mexico to Egypt and Tunisia suffered the most. Riots broke out in 2010 in North Africa. The Arab Spring actually began as a protest of surging corn prices.

    And all that damage was caused by one man’s guilty conscience over Climate Change.

    • ForChristAlone

      I have come to loathe the Bushes…starting with the pro-abort mother.

      • I will crawl over broken glass while snacking on it to vote against Jeb or any of his lackeys.

        They want to be monarchs, let them go duke it out with the Windsors.

  • Mike Smith

    The trouble is, saying that there will be a discussion on “climate change” says absolutely nothing. I certainly will not lose sleep over another teaching about good stewardship and social awareness in regards to how changes in climate could possibly affect the poor.

    On the other hand, tacit agreement with some notion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming in an encyclical? That I’d lose sleep over.

    Again, like I said, both can be considered under the topic of “climate change.” Just which one are we talking about?

  • kemimi

    I’m beginning to wonder if I should continue reading Crisis Magazine articles. I see more pope-bashing than I can like and it makes me wary of the reliability of all its authors. 🙁

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      That’s your choice. But here’s an alternate suggestion: why not present counter-arguments to those points of disagreement, as most of the rest of the regular posters here do? That’s what makes it interesting and productive,

    • GG

      Offer a counter argument. If you can.

    • ForChristAlone

      then you’ve made your choice not to return?

  • robnbc

    The Catholic church has not been at the forefront of scientific thinking as I recall but now accepts Galileo and Darwin. Global heating is not a religious or ideological issue it is a natural consequence of burning gigatonnes of fossil fuel over the last 200 years. At 400 ppm in the atmosphere, the highest in human history, the air, land and oceans is heating due to the greenhouse effect. What Catholics need to do is consider the future of their children and grandchildren and what a 3 to 6 degree rise in average global tenperatures will do the sustainability of the climate they inherit. That is a moral question and one the pope is right to speak about.

    • Thing is, the climate change deniers do NOT care about their children and grandchildren. They only care about their own “prosperity.”

      • St JD George

        What children and grandchildren, last I looked there doesn’t seem to be many of those around because people seem to be more attached to love of mother earth, their own prosperity and possessions. The same that feel no pain or sense of irresponsibility for running $1T deficits and now $18T debt, and climbing as fast as old Al’s hockey stick.

      • GG

        What is climate change?

        • St JD George

          Last week it was in the 60’s, this week it’s supposed to be in the single digits. Now that’s climate change you can believe in.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        Whenever “climate change deniers” are accused of not caring about children, the charge is always leveled by someone without children. Am I right, Chuck?

      • ForChristAlone

        No, we deniers only care about the truth and accurate science from which the climate change meme does not emanate

      • You really are cartoonish. Have anything ORIGINAL. Never mind. Cut and paste is thinking to leftist ghouls.

      • Azygos

        “New data shows that in fact the Earth has not warmed at all over the
        last 15 years. In fact, the Daily Mail reports that the Met Office and
        the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, after taking data
        from nearly 30,000 stations around the world, have found that the earth
        stopped warming in 1997. The report suggests we are headed toward a new
        solar cycle, Cycle 25, which NASA scientists have predicted will be
        significantly cooler than Cycle 24 which we are in now. This data
        largely contradicts the accepted theory among the public that carbon
        dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even proposes that we
        are actually heading toward global cooling.”

        http://mic.com/articles/3824/a

        • M

          Don’t read the Daily Mail, Azygos. Read Geophysical Research Letters or Nature or Theoretical and Applied Climatology — anything but a tabloid. In response to your claim that the earth has now warmed over the last 15 years:
          1) 2014 was the hottest year on record (recently announced by the Japanese Meteorological Society.)
          2) Fourteen of the 15 hottest years on record occurred in the 21st century.
          3) Each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one.

          • Azygos

            Just some common sense objections here. 1st, the hottest year on record according to who and according to who’s statistics and locations? 2nd, accurately recordings temperatures around the globe is a relatively new event and the data analysis is not able to be compared to anything except itself, as their is no past existing data to really make accurate assumptions and temperature also fluctuates upon location. 3rd, this is just bologna and not supported by any scientific analysis that I have ever heard of. And if I look outside it -8 F. It is damn cold.

            • M

              According to the Japanese Meteorological Society (as mentioned above.) This is particularly significant as there was no El Nino last year. There is a 131 year record of global temperatures. Prior to that, global temperatures are estimated by a variety of proxy studies involving ice core analysis, tree ring data, ocean and lake sediment, etc. Multiple independent studies show remarkable agreement. To claim that long-term global climate patterns are in any way affected by one cold day at one location is analogous to claiming that world hunger has been solved because you’ve had a good meal.

              • Azygos

                Yes, I understand the logic was faulty at the end. I just threw that in there for kicks. 😉 God bless.

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      In fact, the Catholic Church HAS ALWAYS BEEN at the forefront of scientific thinking, and is in no way opposed to science. Your statement merely demonstrates that you know nothing about Galileo or Darwin… or Gregor Mendel, or Louis Pasteur, or Georges Lemaître, or the Renaissance, or the Medieval universities, or ….

      • robnbc

        Hmm – when did the Vatican accept the theory of evolution ??? 1990 ???

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          The “Vatican”, as you say, neither accepts nor rejects scientific theories. Catholics have been studying and discussing The Origin of Species since it was first published, and the views of Catholics on the issue are as diverse as those of the scientific community, many of whom are Catholic, by the way. But I am just curious: Do you even know the meaning of the word “theory”? Do you know any of the competing theories of evolution by the various camps of Darwinians? Do you know why Stephen J. Gould was called the “Gorbachev of Evolutionary Theory” by his fellow Darwinians?

        • Bob

          You don’t understand what a “theory” is, do you?

    • Azygos

      How many times has the theory of evolution changed since 1990?

      “New data shows that in fact the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 15 years. In fact, the Daily Mail reports
      that the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research
      Unit, after taking data from nearly 30,000 stations around the world,
      have found that the earth stopped warming in 1997. The report suggests
      we are headed toward a new solar cycle, Cycle 25, which NASA scientists
      have predicted will be significantly cooler than Cycle 24 which we are
      in now. This data largely contradicts the accepted theory among the
      public that carbon dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even
      proposes that we are actually heading toward global cooling.”

      http://mic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real

  • The Petrine Office was not created by Our Lord so that we could get good weather forecast. This is yet another debasement of the office by a mediocre pope who eagerly follows the priorities of the secular intelligentsia to find favor with it.

    • St JD George

      You know, there are times when I think we need climate change to bring about the second coming of Noah and starting over again.
      By your past comments I know you are closer to knowing his background, and I confess I have been shrugging off a lot of the distractions that seem to accompany (are created by) him, but when I read about his tackling this encyclical I about fell on the floor.

  • St JD George

    Rachel, way to kick off the new year with a bang. I see the comments are climbing up through 300 – don’t get those too often, must be a sensitive subject – good job.

  • MJD

    Progressives love Pope Francis? But how could this be? Wasn’t he supposed to disappoint the left by issuing fierce defenses of Catholic doctrine? What Sandro Magister said a year ago still captures the essence of the Pope Francis effect: “The secret of the popularity of Francis is in the generosity with which he concedes to the expectations of ‘modern culture’ and in the shrewdness with which he dodges that which could become a sign of contradiction.”

  • Arriero

    Maybe Pope Francis, like St. Thomas centuries ago, is returning to the discussion on Nature following the Aristotelian Tradition. A return to Ancien Greek topics is always welcomed, insofar as it is done correctly. St. Thomas converted Aristotle’s hilemorphism in the demonstration of the Transubstantiation. Let’s see what Pope Francis can do. We must have confidence in a Pope that comes from the oldest Catholic Tradition: the Hispanic one.

    PS- Mr. Lu, if you’re really a Catholic conservative, you should be, at least, skeptic of democracy and, thus, of the «achievements» of both the French and, very specially, the American Revolutions. Lately, one of the problems of what has traditionally been called the «Right», as opposed to the first generation of «Left» – which was born in the French National Assembly when all those that oppose the king sat down on the left side as opposed to the right side – is that it has lost the north; namely: it has forgotten that the Right is about throne and altar. Both Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald discussed this issue widely.

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    Calling for an end to the use of fossil fuels, as some bishops have recently done, evinces not only a profound ignorance of energy issues, but also a profound indifference to the hungry poor of the developing world, who would suffer immeasurably more than the affluent if such a nutty policy were ever put in place.

    • ForChristAlone

      Notice that none of these bishops will ever say, “I have decided to end completely my personal use of all fossil fuels because I find it immoral.”

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    I am old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s. Just take a look at Time, Newsweek, and even Scientific American, from that period, and you will find one histrionic headline after another warning about the impending Ice Age. I guess if you make enough contradictory forecasts about the climate, one of them is bound to end up being accurate. Personally, I hope it’s the “global warming” prediction that ends up closer to reality. But that is just wishful thinking on my part, especially after last winter, when Lake Erie froze over COMPLETELY for the first time in 40 years.

    • Yes, we need to look at the BRIGHT SIDE of Global Warming:

      1: Public swimming pools open on Groundhog Day, don’t close until Thanksgiving.
      2: No more of those pesky polar bear attacks … EVER AGAIN.
      3: You won’t have to drive to the beach. The beach comes to YOU!
      4: Business will be positively BOOMING at the Great Lakes alligator farms.
      5: No more movies about cutesy penguins.
      6: Fewer people freezing to death. Heatstroke is a much cozier way to go.
      7: Forget mowing the lawn anymore. Just let it die, then paint it green.
      8: “February showers bring March flowers!”
      9: Those garishly-colored coral reefs will soon with a tasteful off-white.
      10: A new, FUN contest to rename Glacier National Park!
      11: Office dress codes revised to allow for “Clothing-Optional Friday.”
      12: People less worried about going to Hell.
      13: Now maybe animals will abandon the cruel practice of wearing fur.

      • GG

        Only the credulous believe you.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        So your primary source of knowledge is now David Letterman? You must have a LOT of anxieties.

        • GG

          How is that global warming working in OH today? Everyone in shorts?

      • ForChristAlone

        You make a much better comedian than meteorologist or prognosticator

    • M

      Don’t get your scientific information from Time or Newsweek. They are not peer-reviewed scientific journals. Could you produce any Scientific American article that warns of an impending Ice Age? The following Scientific American article explains how “nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed”:
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        Oh, please… I know how research works, whether it is in the humanities or the sciences. I have met and discussed “climate change” with many scientists who dispute the alarmist views. But you either adhere to the party line, or see your research grant terminated, your tenure chances eliminated, your career finished. All human beings who spend time outdoors have one huge advantage over scientists who live in laboratories. We know the world isn’t warming up. Chill out.

  • I would like to know why the Vatican cares about earthly matters rather doing its job which is SAVING SOULS. But, I guess MONEY paid to lobby the Hierarchy is more important than God. There is nothing in THEIR world more powerful and more influential than MONEY. Money can create Clergy and murderers alike. Forget about this talk about “caring for the poor” etc… Do you really believe it? Come on!

    • M

      Following Catholic social teaching by working for the common good will perhaps save souls. Vincible ignorance, of course, does not.

      • “Following Catholic social teachings”??? It depends. The current SOCIALISTIC teaching of the Catholic Church is and will not save souls, it is making the powerful richer because SOCIALISM never worked and will never work. Socialism = POVERTY for the majority and power and richness for the few.

        • papagan

          “The current SOCIALISTIC teaching of the Catholic Church is and will not save souls…”

          Do you advocate laissez-faire capitalism? Are you a proponent of libertarianism?

          • I am for FREEDOM. Believing in God and having the Catholic Church doing her ONLY job which is guiding souls to heaven will lead to COMPLETE Freedom

            • papagan

              And what exactly do you understand by “freedom”? A negative freedom from or absence of external constraint?

              • Freedom from human control and a surrender, out of love, to God. One can achieve freedom if one knows how weak he is and that no matter how powerful and rich people get, there is always a more powerful and a richer person than them. And the only way to achieve freedom is through self-denial, humility, and depending on the Creator

                • papagan

                  The negative notion of freedom you appear to embrace is not the positive notion of freedom promoted by the Catholic Church. For those interested in learning more about an authentically Catholic understanding of freedom, see, for instance, Servais Pinkcaers, O.P., Morality: The Catholic View http://www.staugustine.net/our-books/books/morality-the-catholic-view/.

                  • Complete Dependence on God, being humble and self-denial is a “negative notion of freedom”??

                    No I don’t appear to embrace a “negative” or whatever you’re calling….

                    I believe in just what I typed.

                    • papagan

                      You wrote: “I am for FREEDOM.”

                      Well, in the Catholic view, freedom is not an absolute! Freedom is understood not as freedom from, but freedom for the good. The libertarian conception of freedom is based on a flawed anthropology, not a sound theological anthropology.

                      As regards “complete dependence on God,” in the Catholic and scriptural view, that includes obedience to lower authorities established by God, including ecclesiastical authorities. One must not forget that the Catholic Church is not a democracy, but is a hierarchically structured institution with its own laws. Non-Catholics find that difficult to accept.

                    • Freedom:
                      =======

                      “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Gal. 5:1);

                      “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2Cor. 3:17);

                      We glory “in the liberty of the children of God.” (Rom. 8:17) .

                      Dependence on God:
                      ================

                      25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat [or drink], or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?

                      26 Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they?

                      27 Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span?

                      28 Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin.

                      29 But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them.

                      30 If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?

                      31 So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’

                      32 All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.

                      33 But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness,* and all these things will be given you besides.

                      34 Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.

                      Matthew 6: 25-34

            • ForChristAlone

              Thank you, Paul. These guys just don’t get it though

              • papagan

                So you endorse Paul Ben’s libertarian conception of freedom?

        • M

          You aren’t compelled to agree with Catholic teachings. This is, however, an orthodox Catholic site where one would expect such teachings to be given sincere consideration.

          • papagan

            Among the numerous comments on this essay (and on various other essays) published online by Crisis Magazine, I’ve seen many instances of markedly heterodox opinions being posted. So it does not appear that orthodoxy is a precondition of participating in these online discussions.

            • M

              Agreed, papasan, but I would assume that people claiming to be orthodox and devout Catholics, who unquestioningly accept papal encyclicals regarding birth control, would at least be open to considering a papal encyclical on climate change.

              • papagan

                The empirical concept of climate change is not identical to the much richer notion of human ecology understood within the matrix of Christian humanism and theological anthropology. According to what I’ve heard, the forthcoming encyclical will be devoted to the latter notion.

                • ForChristAlone

                  and few here really will pay much attention

              • ForChristAlone

                please go back then, to the National Catholic Reporter from whence you come.

              • papagan

                As I’ve stated previously, it’s a mistake to reduce the Catholic notion of human ecology to the empirical concept of climate change.

              • Now you are disrespecting Asians? How low will you go?

            • ForChristAlone

              then why are you still here…are you heterodox?

              • papagan

                What? I’m not permitted to make an honest observation?

                • ForChristAlone

                  No

          • ForChristAlone

            We understand that catholic social teaching has been hijacked by the left for advancing its political objectives. We’re on to you and have been for awhile now.

            • papagan

              That sounds rather similar to saying that Sacred Scripture has been hijacked by the right to advance its political objectives. The use of political labels like “left” or “right” in relation to Catholic social doctrine is unhelpful at best, if not dishonest. If Catholic social doctrine (or Sacred Scripture) has been twisted for dishonest political purposes, that’s not a good reason to dismiss Catholic social doctrine (or Sacred Scripture).

              Regarding your other comment, if you believe I have a hidden agenda, speak plainly.

              • ForChristAlone

                You know your motives.

                • papagan

                  You wrote: “We’re on to you and have been for awhile now.”

                  Don’t play games. Be honest and state clearly what you mean to say.

        • papagan

          I agree that the ideology of socialism is morally toxic. To assert that Catholic social doctrine endorses socialism, however, is to reveal astounding ignorance of authentic Catholic social doctrine! Do you advocate libertarianism?

      • ForChristAlone

        Catholic social teaching has been hijacked by the protestant wing of the Church which attempts to focus on things like “climate change” rather than what is real.

        • papagan

          It appears that you have problems with Catholic social doctrine.

          • ForChristAlone

            very perceptive on your part

            • papagan

              So, you’re a dissenter. Are you even Catholic?

              • ForChristAlone

                No. Not even a Christian.

                • papagan

                  Some of your comments sound more angry than authentically Christian.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    I said i wasn’t a Christian. What didn’t you understand?

                    • papagan

                      “ForChristAlone” wrote: “I said i wasn’t a Christian. What didn’t you understand?”

                      Reply: In that case, stop mocking the Christian faith, and change your pseudonym! Perhaps it would not be too difficult for you to imagine how those who believe in a transcendent higher power might react to a militant atheist with the pseudonym “ForGodAlone.”

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Stop with the whining and grow up. And while you’re trying to grow up emotionally, allow your higher ordered thinking to follow along.

                    • papagan

                      You mean the sort of “higher-order thinking” exhibited when you engage in ad hominem attacks on those who challenge your irrational opinions? If that’s what you mean by “higher-order thinking,” one doesn’t even need a high school diploma to excel in such sophomoric excogitations.

        • papagan

          It isn’t that Catholic social doctrine has been hijacked, but that too many people are either ignorant of Catholic social doctrine or don’t take it seriously!

    • papagan

      “I would like to know why the Vatican cares about earthly matters rather doing its job which is SAVING SOULS.”

      How we live our lives in this world is closely related to the question of man’s final destiny. The mission of saving souls begins now, in this world. What you refer to as “earthly matters” (e.g., economics, environmental pollution, politics) are not foreign to the Church’s soteriological mission in Christ.

      • God gave the Church only ONE mission: Evangelization, i.e. Saving Souls.

        • papagan

          Your conception of “evangelization” seems excessively narrow, and it doesn’t sound scriptural in the least. Spreading the Good News involves a good deal more that you appear to grasp. St. John Paul II’s encyclical, Evangelium vitae http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/jp2evang.htm , is one example of authentic evangelization. Have you read that encyclical?

          • I read the Bible. Maybe you should read it too.

            “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of
            the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
            observe all that I have commanded you.” Mt 28: 19-20

            Oh, and since you are mention Popes, why not look at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website:

            http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/evangelization/

            But, again, I prefer the Bible. Don’t you?

            • papagan

              But, again, I prefer the Bible. Don’t you?”

              Well, that suggests that you’re not even Catholic! Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church’s magisterium are complementary, not mutually opposed to each other.

              • Take for example the teachings of the Church on homosexuality. It is explicitly condemned in the Bible and it is a sin, yet the Catholic Church NEVER said that homosexuality is a sin nor that the homos are sinners. But all what we read is a mere justification for their “condition”!!!

                • papagan

                  Apparently you don’t understand the Church’s nuanced teaching on faith and morals, and this isn’t the proper venue to offer lessons on this teaching. I’d recommend, however, that you read this Catholic document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons” http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMUN.HTM.

                  • I read it and I knew it. However, nuances and shallow talk are just a form of appeasement. That document and the Catechism could have been explicit and direct: Homosexuality is a sin and the homosexuals are sinners. It’s just as simple as that. Rather, hiding behind that long text and the Catechism’s is a JUSTIFICATION for being homosexual. You have to read between the lines. Too many words and too many fancy words and theological technical lingo are meant to distract and fool.

                    • papagan

                      “Homosexuality is a sin and the homosexuals are sinners. It’s just as simple as that.”

                      No, it’s not as simple as that! You simply don’t understand Catholic moral doctrine, which recognizes the distinctions between human agents and human tendencies and human acts. Before one engages in criticism, one should understand what it is that one is criticizing.

                    • The mere thought of homosexuality is a sin and that what it should be, not even the act. Is it not a sin the thought of peeing on the Holy Eucharist?

                    • papagan

                      “Is it not a sin the thought of peeing on the Holy Eucharist?”

                      In order to make that statement, you had to think it! So, did you thereby commit a sin? Catholic moral doctrine is much more nuanced than you appreciate. By the way, urinating is an act, while a homosexual tendency is not an act, and we don’t always choose our tendencies. Furthermore, it would be better not to identify persons according to their sexual tendencies. For instance, I wouldn’t say “I strongly disagree with that heterosexual.”

                    • Those homosexuals who call themselves “Catholics” are justifying their depravity and filthiness by twisting God’s words to excuse and have the “blessing” of whatever they please to do.

                      There is a difference between giving an example to clarify a point and deliberately thinking about something for the purpose of trying it or doing it. But I think I have to explain every words I am writing, even though they are clear!

                    • papagan

                      Notice the other part: “…from the heart…” That is not unimportant! Heart signifies will or the volitional faculty of rational appetite, not intellect. Sound biblical exegesis is far from easy. That’s why people who lack the requisite theological training in biblical science not infrequently miss the mark in their private interpretations of Sacred Scripture. Consider, for example, the harm done through flawed interpretations of the Book of Genesis. That’s a topic for another day and a different venue, however.

                      You wrote: “But I think I have to explain every words [sic] I am writing, even though they are clear!”

                      Not all of your statements are as clear as you seem to believe. Furthermore, distinctions are important. Consider the following:

                      You wrote: “…yet the Catholic Church NEVER said that homosexuality is a sin nor that the homos [sic] are sinners.”

                      There’s good reason why the Church doesn’t say what you say it doesn’t say. The statement “that homosexuality [tendency] is a sin [and] that the homos [agents] are sinners” ignores important philosophical distinctions. We’re all fallen persons, but fallen persons with homoerotic tendencies are not guilty of actual sin simply because of said tendencies, just as persons with concupiscent tendencies are not guilty of actual sin simply because of their concupiscent inclinations. Objectively disordered tendencies/inclinations aren’t always chosen.

                      Furthermore, when one has a spontaneous thought about something objectively disordered, it doesn’t necessarily follow that one has given one’s free consent.

                      It is a strength, not a weakness, that the Church’s magisterium appreciates the great value of philosophical and theological distinctions.

                    • Azygos

                      I can’t believe you would write such a thing. That comment about the Eucharist, though used to give an example (a bad one at that), is blasphemy, and should be deleted immediately.

                    • papagan

                      “The mere thought of homosexuality is a sin…”

                      Not without free consent!

          • ForChristAlone

            so how are you doing with that call to evangelize?

          • Yours is “mission drift”.

      • ForChristAlone

        that’s the liberal Vatican II stretch coming out…we reject it

        • papagan

          ???

          • ForChristAlone

            it’s code; I wouldn’t expect for you to get it.

            • papagan

              People who write coded messages often have something to hide…

              • ForChristAlone

                you’re a fool

  • Shamrock

    A most excellent article by Rachel Lu. I am pleased to find it through a reference on a Cleansing Fire article debunking global warming: http://cleansingfiredor.com/2014/12/global-warming-lessons-from-pope-urban-viii-to-pope-francis/#comment-120915 Thank you for this great perspective!

  • Eamonn McKeown

    Stephen Moore had a very good commentary about this in the Washington Times today 01/05/15. On a side note, a paper I have the privilege of reading in print, a rare treat in D.C.

  • juan323

    No, the Pope is “out of his lane” and involving himself in the politics of a serious hoax.

    • papagan

      It’s amazing how people can jump to such hasty conclusions prior to the publication of the forthcoming encyclical! 🙁

      • ForChristAlone

        we’ve been sufficiently forewarned, thank you

      • juan323

        It is very easy. On one level, writing an encyclical on man-made “climate change” (a hoax) is like writing one recycling. So will there be 100 days of indulgence from Purgatory for doing a beach clean up? On another level, the Pope is leaving the spiritual, i.e. ethical and moral questions, for which his words are infallible so it invites criticism.

        • papagan

          At least one thing seems certain, even prior to the publication of the forthcoming encyclical on human ecology. Whatever the Catholic teaching propounded in the encyclical, it will displease those under the modern spell of libertarianism, just as they were displeased with Pope Benedict XVI’s social encyclical, Caritas in veritate.

  • Perhaps Francis will pontificate that circumventing EPA mandates, like drilling out flow restrictions in shower heads or modifying water heaters to set the temperature high enough to kill the bacteria on dishes and clothes, is the greatest sin of our times.

    • ForChristAlone

      He’s guilty of one thing: logorrhea

  • I_M_Forman

    Still trusting the Holy Spirit on this one. Took a little extra effort to trust when Cardinal Burke was taken out of Rome. God works in mysterious ways – we know that already.

    • Azygos

      Not everything a Pope says or writes is of the Holy Spirit but he is a man that can be influenced by any number of things and/or make any number of mistakes. However, this does not diminish his position as Vicar of Christ or his infallibility when speaking from Ex-Cathedra.

  • Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, during a recent speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, had THIS to say about global warming: “We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around — we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.” He added that his company had set out to educate the “illiterate” public as to the facts, and move them away from the purveyors of “manufactured fear.”

    And YES, the human species IS pretty adaptable, thanks to our technology and ability to travel. The other species we share this planet with? Not so much. And those links in our ecological chain WILL begin to weaken and fail. But I’m sure Mr. Tillerson finds it reassuring that he won’t have to worry about it too much during HIS lifetime. And it seems most other people feel the same way. Given a choice between long-term environmental sustainability and short-term “prosperity,” most people unfortunately will choose the latter.

    • ForChristAlone

      Trust in God. He provides. Man is not yet ready to take God’s place in the universe despite what he thinks.

      • Presumably God will turn down the global thermostat if our greenhouse gas emissions, combined with deforestation, make things just a bit too toasty.

        • GG

          Yes, it is so hot in the east today. I mean for January is is well..freezing cold!

          I guess global warming really means cooling.

          • Look beyond your own backyard, GG.

            • GG

              Wow the hottest year. I guess that means something. But, what exactly?

              • ForChristAlone

                No need for anything to convey meaning. They’re just words after all. – designed to exert power over others’ lives.

                • GG

                  Apparently “global” warming is not global. The NE USA is excluded. Too funny.

                  • Guest

                    With wind chill 10 to 20 below zero today. I hear polar bears are drowning.

            • Bob

              So, Bear, what are your plans on limiting man made carbon emissions? Have you stopped driving, flying, taking mass transportation? Have you stopped heating, cooling, electrifying your house? Do you eat your meals raw, or cook them? You are aware that those expensive designer rims you have balanced on your noggin in your picture have a huge carbon footprint from design, manufacturing, through distribution?

              So what are YOUR plans to lower man made carbon emissions instead of attacking corporations whom you obviously (hypocritally) benefit from?

              • ForChristAlone

                I’d suggest that he return when and only when he’s succeeded in leaving NO carbon footprint at all. I will look forward to his return then.

                • Actually there are a number of different websites where you can calculate what your carbon footprint is like. Mine is quite small, I’m proud to say. Here’s one place where you can calculate YOURS:

                  http://carbonfootprint.c2es.org/

                  • ForChristAlone

                    When your carbon footprint is NONEXISTENT, get back to us. Until then, shut up.

                    • Excuse me, was the comment section only for people who wanted to preach to the choir?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Once again, I said NONEXISTENT. Until you return letting us know how you have achieved that, your legitimacy on the issue is nil.

              • DEAR BOB:

                Why do you view things in black and white? You seem to think there are only two choices here: Either we all have lives of comfort and convenience and prosperity, or we all just sit in the dark and freeze to death.

                In fact there are COUNTLESS things that we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation, but people like you would rather not hear of it.

                • Bob

                  Thanks for the non answer, hypocrite.

                • Like not spending hours on the computer jamming websites….

            • ForChristAlone

              Not nearly as hot as hell will be.

              • papagan

                What sort of “hell” are you affirming?

                • ForChristAlone

                  The “hell” of reading your posts, of course.

                  • papagan

                    That isn’t even a religious view. What sort of troll are you?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      get oof my site, pest

            • What no cartoon?

        • ForChristAlone

          There you go again trying to outsmart God. It just won’t work. Try submitting to God’s power over the universe. After all, it’s His; he created it. Do what you can to live totally carbon free.

        • Azygos

          Forest can be re-planted without any problem, I think it is silly for people to mention the use of wood as a problem for the world. Take for instance the California forest fires. They happen because the Forest actually gets overgrown and dead trees fall over, creating a moshpit of dead wood (fuel) ready to burn. When the fires happen throughout the forest they burn the forest down but the forest re-seeds itself and grows up again. In fact, they have found out that it is better to do controlled forest fires burns to get rid of dead wood than it is to let the forest fire be a surprise event and get out of control. Forest fires and the re-seeding that happen are part of forest ecology. Needless to say, de-forestation is not a problem. We can simply re-plant it but they re-seed themselves anyways.

          Recommend reading, article on Controlled Burning.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn

      • papagan

        What sort of deity are you promoting?

        • ForChristAlone

          Not you, that’s for sure.

          • papagan

            I’ve never pretended to be a deity. In any case, if you’re not a follower of Christ, it’s far from evident what you could mean when you tell others to “Trust in God.” In fact, another statement you make suggests that you hold a highly peculiar conception of God. “Man is not yet ready to take God’s place in the universe despite what he thinks.” (Emphasis added.) It’s as if you’re suggesting that some day in the future the human race will evolve to a degree that would enable him to become God, Lord of the universe! It’s an interesting twist on the Christian belief that God became man.

            • ForChristAlone

              You’re thinking too much and tripping over your own feet. Now get off my site.

              • papagan

                I don’t believe you are employed by Crisis Magazine.

  • Paddy

    Despite your best efforts, Dr. Lu, half your readers are obviously losing sleep over the Pope’s positions on climate change:

    Oh yeah, life is bad
    Gloom and misery everywhere
    Stormy weather, stormy weather
    And I just can get my poor self together
    Oh, I’m weary all of the time
    The time, so weary all of the time

    Stormy Weather Lyrics | Harold Arlen

  • Congratulations, you’ve just purchased two new locomotives for a multibillion dollar company. No, you didn’t get stock or bonds for your contribution to their fleet.

    And no, Norfolk Southern won’t buy low emissions cars for the poor, lucky lottery winners or anybody else for that matter.

    There’s a reason they call it the “green” movement.

    “Norfolk Southern unveils first publicly funded, emissions-friendly locomotives

    Jan. 6, 2015

    ALTOONA, PA. – The first emissions-friendly locomotives funded by the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program have been released for road testing by Norfolk Southern from its Juniata Locomotive Shop in Altoona, Pa.

    The first two GP33ECO switching locomotives – of a total 25 partially funded by CMAQ for production by Norfolk Southern – sport a distinctive paint scheme that reflects their environmentally friendly mission. After in-service testing in the Altoona area, they will be permanently assigned to their respective grant award areas of Chicago and Atlanta.

    Funding for the locomotive to be used in the Chicago area was awarded by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency, sponsored by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and administered by the Illinois Department of Transportation.

    Funding for the locomotive to be used in Georgia (on Norfolk Southern’s Atlanta Terminal) was awarded by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division.

    Dedication ceremonies will occur in the months to follow.”

    • GG

      I feel cooler just reading that.

      • That’s because your wallet is thinner and holding less heat.

        • GG

          I want to know if there is so much global warming why is my part of the globe so cold? When will I see this so called rise in temp?

  • robnbc

    Some factual data graphically displayed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QONIAGSKaMo&feature=player_embedded
    If you don’t believe it suggest a better methodology. The test of good science is when data trumps belief.

    • GG

      How hot was it 8000 years ago?

    • JP

      Rob, most scientists don’t use NBC new graphics to make their points. I suggest you use NCDC ErSST4 data, which incorporates ARGO buoys (which measures Sea temps down to 2000m). The data shows that 2 of the 4 ocean basins (the Pacific and North Atlantic) have actually cooled since 2005.

      • robnbc

        Sorry about the NBC part, it was the NOAA/NASA animation that I was referring to and your interpretation of the data conflicts with those who actually collected it. Face the facts. Most of the warming has occurred in the polar regions just as the climate models predicted. Melting permafrost with massive methane release is one of the doomsday scenerios that we alarmist are so fond of. Problem is that it is actually happening now. So if you are serious about “family values” then help work toward a sustainable future for our children.

        • JP

          Rob, the Antarctic has not warmed in over 30 years. And the key signature of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a mid tropospheric “hot spot” over or near the equator (Per IPCC AR3). That has not materialized. Every key metric the IPCC created in past ARs to measure Anthropogenic Global Warming (ARs 2-4) have failed to support the theories put forth by the IPCC. So, now it is no longer Global Warming but Climate Change. It isn’t a warming planet anymore, but occurrences of extreme weather – whatever that is.

        • GG

          Move to Chicago. There is no “global warming” there. You will be fine.

          • robnbc

            spoiler alert – Chicago covers a relative small proportion of the globe. Here on the west coast there is no snow on the mountains and ski areas are going out of business. Climate changes cost $

            • GG

              Chicago is but one example. Not only is the north east below freezing it snowed in the middle east. California is simply experiencing what we used to call weather. There is no global warming as defined by the propagsndists.

          • M

            Chicago doesn’t represent “the globe.”

  • Tamsin

    2014 was the hottest year on record? Quantify hottest. Define record-keeping.

    In December, “the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a supposedly scientific body, issued a press release stating that [2014] is likely to be the warmest year in a century or more, based on surface temperatures. Yet this predicted record would be only one hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two hundredths of a degree above 2005 — with an error range of one tenth of a degree. True scientists would have said: this year is unlikely to be significantly warmer than 2010 or 2005 and left it at that.”

    http://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/policy-based-evidence-making.aspx

    • Living proof that liars can figure and figures can lie. Of course, facts should never get in the way of a good rant.

      • Tamsin

        I had refrained from commenting on this thread, but my goodness!

        A little bit more research online, and I find that we are supposed to be entering a solar cycle minimum, which will mean global cooling. I think the Left is in a Complete Panic that time is running out use climate data to seize (more) power over other humans.

        • You know why the left is like a diaper?

          Location and content. Plus they really start to stink if you leave them sitting around.

  • Azygos

    Global warming is a farce.

  • Tamsin

    I wish the Pope would write an encyclical on Lying and Equivocation, perhaps cutting and pasting the entirety of Blessed John Henry Newman’s notes on the matter, in order that the faithful may be instructed that people will lie when they believe their cause is just.

  • Azygos

    Here is a segment of an article that I found helpful. God bless.

    “New data shows that in fact the Earth has not warmed at all over the
    last 15 years. In fact, the Daily Mail reports that the Met Office and
    the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, after taking data
    from nearly 30,000 stations around the world, have found that the earth
    stopped warming in 1997. The report suggests we are headed toward a new
    solar cycle, Cycle 25, which NASA scientists have predicted will be
    significantly cooler than Cycle 24 which we are in now. This data
    largely contradicts the accepted theory among the public that carbon
    dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even proposes that we
    are actually heading toward global cooling.”

    http://mic.com/articles/3824/a

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Even a pope has limited “political capital”. His opportunity to stand before a world body, such as the UN, should be spent calling out the persecution and devastation of Christian communities across the globe.. He could compose an encyclical addressing the issue and sign it front of the General Assembly – an organization much controlled these days by the Islamic Lobby (Syndicate) within it.

    That this will never be done is because . . . ? And, please, don’t ping back suggesting that the Vatican does protest, but with “quiet diplomacy.”. Events have made a lie of that strategy,, emptied, as it now is, of any morality and practical effective results.

    [Pleased to see that this article has has the New Homophiles ones on the run for the most comments! Shows it has hit a nerve.]

  • LHJ

    Previously everyone waited until the pope said something before manipulating his words to say what they wanted now he is a bad guy for writing an encyclical that has not even been released. Predicting the future is risky business even if it is done with a technologically advanced crystal ball in the form of a computer program. I do not think the pope will buy into that garbage and want to spend billions on that fortune telling instead of where it is needed today. If there is an encyclical I’ll wait and see what it says before I despair. Peace be with you,L

  • ForChristAlone

    MEMO TO POPE FRANCIS:
    Please hurry with that encyclical you’re rumored to be writing (sorry about the reference to rumors) on the so-called Global Warming pseudo phenomenon. You see, it’s going to be bitterly cold in the upper Midwest and Eastern USA over the next few days. Homeless people will be dying on the streets due to the rotten economy of your socialist friend Obama and the elderly will be freezing to death in their homes. Without your encyclical to guide us, we will be at a loss about what to do to correct this Global Warming thing (or is it Global Cooling? I lost track. Let’s just call it Climate Change to cover all possible weather anomalies). But, please, do hurry.

    • Marcelus

      Including humor now on Francis bashing?. Good to see that

      This other man tookk some time on the same matter.. Also said this should be taken up with the UN? Went by Benedict…:

      “He has compared the current degradation of the planet by capitalist economies to the environmental damage caused by Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.”

      “The German-born pontiff has condemned rampant consumerism and bemoaned the abuse of the planet’s resources in speeches, encyclicals and during overseas trips.

      He has warned that humanity risks destroying the planet’s ecosystems unless it listens to “the voice of the earth”.

      During his six-year-long papacy, the Vatican has installed photovoltaic cells on its main auditorium to convert sunlight into electricity He has criticised the “economic and political resistance” to fighting environmental degradation and denounced world leaders’ failure to come up with a new climate change treaty at a UN conference in Copenhagen in Dec 2009.

      He said the planet was being threatened by the same “self-centred and materialistic” way of thinking that sparked the global financial crisis.

      Benedict has raised the alarm for African countries, where competition for water and mineral resources has led to wars, and for low-lying island states in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

      He has compared the current degradation of the planet by capitalist economies to the environmental damage caused by Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

      Without respect for “God’s laws of nature”, there will be no peace on Earth, the Pope has warned.

      In his own backyard, Benedict oversaw the installation of 2,400 photovoltaic panels on the huge roof of the Vatican’s Nervi Hall, a venue for papal audiences and music concerts that can hold 10,000 people.

      The idea is that renewable energy should provide the 180-acre city state with 20 per cent of its electricity needs by 2020.

      It is hoped that they will produce 300 kilowatt hours (MWh) of clean energy a year and save the equivalent of 80 tonnes of oil each year.

      The panels are invisible to visitors to the Vatican and leave its historic skyline unchanged.

      Until the project was initiated, the Vatican bought all its energy from Italy.”

      • ForChristAlone

        unfettered logorrhea

        • Marcelus

          Outstanding.

          Should we get of your site too?

        • papagan

          unfettered logorrhea

          Is that supposed to be helpful?

      • Azygos

        I take issue with this “voice of the earth”, which comes down to people voicing their opinions in the name of the earth, as though the world were more important than souls or any other issue, and as if it needed someone to speak for it. Now, I listen to the “voice of God”… This whole “mother earth” business forgets that God is in charge of planet earth and that the earth is not really our mother, that it doesn’t need protecting, it is just a place, a habitation that is itself deteriorating and passing away just as God wills. People in this age have so little faith, they falsely believe that we must save all creation unless it pass away, however it is passing away and will be consumed with fire… However, we should be good stewards but turning to God must take priority. See then how God provided manna for those starving in the desert and he provided water from a rock. I have to believe then that the first problem is that people turn away from the God who would and will always provide for his creatures if we are faithful to his Word, for we are much more important than sparrows. The Church in this regard would do much better focusing on saving souls and spending money to spread the faith, than it would by focusing on climate change – as if God did not first have control of the climate, that is to say that nothing can happen to the climate unless God first permits it.

        Now, ‘ForChristAlone’ has definitely been uncharitable in the comment above. However, he is right when it comes to prevailing issues of the day. The Church is in ruin, souls are going to hell and socialism/communism is spreading all over the world. There are 3,000 abortions everyday in American and 1 billion worldwide since the 1970’s. People are turning away from God on a massive scale and the majority of Catholics are living in mortal sin, missing mass, using contraceptives, advancing sodomy and abortion. The amount of bad theology and catechists should be enough to warrant 10 encyclicals from Pope Francis… The amount of sacrileges and sacrilegious communions should be enough to warrant an encyclical from the Pope. The promotion of sodomy should warrant an encyclical from the Pope, anything to put a smack down on the culture of death would be nice and would help protect souls, it would ensure the faithful that God is with his Church giving them great confidence to attack the culture of death, which so deserves to be attacked.

        But we are getting an encyclical and speeches over climate change? Souls are falling into hell like snowflakes and the Pope is not putting on the brakes at all… Who the hell cares about climate change? If souls are lost then all is lost! Climate change or no climate change, the end result is that the majority of souls inhabiting this earth will reach the ultimate climate change, the fires of hell. Should we add a little bit of life to the earth and let souls perish, we will have failed our mission as the Body of Christ and we will have failed to love our neighbor as ourselves – thus we ourselves end up in hell.

        • papagan

          …God is in charge of planet earth and that [1] the earth … doesn’t need protecting, [2] it is just a place, a habitation that is itself deteriorating and passing away just as God wills.

          Regarding 1, how is that consistent with wise stewardship with respect to the God-given gift of creation? Regarding 2, the fact that our planet is materially perishable is not a valid excuse for the failure to practice wise stewardship for the good of the human race, including future generations!

          …nothing can happen to the climate unless God first permits it.

          God permits morally perverse acts, but that doesn’t make the acts morally good. If God permits our natural environment to deteriorate because of human wastefulness and pollution, it doesn’t follow that said deterioration is pleasing to God.

          But we are getting an encyclical and speeches over climate change? … Who the hell cares about climate change?

          It will be about human ecology, and there are more than a few people who care much about human ecology. What do you understand by the term “human ecology”?

          • Azygos

            Regarding 1, God is in charge saying that does not mitigate being good stewards, though you implied it with your rhetorical questioning. Regarding 2, I never said that it was a valid excuse not to practice wise stewardship, though what I implied is that the Earth is perishing this is a known fact. It is ridiculous to seek out the salvation of the earth, instead seek first the Kingdom of God and all other things shall be given unto us. We should then seek first to save souls. Souls need not be perishing but they can be saved and this is the Churches primary mission for all future generations. And if you want to promote people to be wise stewards then pointing them towards God is the best way, for when they accept God then they accept that they should do his Will and he helps them do so.

            I never said that a deterioration would be pleasing to God, I said that God is in charge of planet earth and what I insinuated is that through providence (especially with men) he controls the outcome of things. If not even Pontius Pilate came to power without the Lord giving it to him from above, then the earth cannot be destroyed by man unless God first allows man to do it. I trust that the earth is useful to the Lord to provide a place for the creation of human beings, whose final destination is Heaven. It cannot be destroyed until the proper time and it is foolish to panic over this supposed climate change.

            Who the hells cares about climate change, if souls are lost. If souls are lost then all is lost. This is what I implied with that question in proper context. I don’t appreciate you taking my words out of context to insinuate that I don’t care about human ecology.

            You missed the point entirely. My point is that the salvation of souls takes precedence over human ecology and it is wasteful as well as imprudent for the Church to waste time and money on climate change endeavors when they should be trying first and foremost to save peoples souls.

            It is like straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. The gnat is climate change, which may or may not exist in the first place. The camel are the souls that are being forgotten… By straining the gnat, they are examining something tiny and forgetting the big picture (the camel in the room), the more important issue which is the salvation of souls.

            • papagan

              It is ridiculous to seek out the salvation of the earth, instead seek first the Kingdom of God and all other things shall be given unto us.

              Straw man. 🙁

              It cannot be destroyed until the proper time and it is foolish to panic over this supposed climate change. … Who the hells [sic] cares about climate change, if souls are lost.

              We’re not communicating. I’ve been talking about human ecology. Incidentally, the “proper time” takes into account human choices, both good and bad. I’m not an advocate of theological determinism, which precludes authentic human freedom of choice.

              I don’t appreciate you taking my words out of context to insinuate that I don’t care about human ecology. … My point is that the salvation of souls takes precedence over human ecology…

              The two don’t go together? What precisely do you mean when you use the term “human ecology”? Do you mean “climate change”?

  • 62 years of warming temperatures in just 13 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2stHuRMMxog

    • JP

      Chuck, the illustration is a model run and not real time data.

      • M

        No, it reflects observed temperatures.

  • Marcelus

    http://www.catholic.org/news/green/story.php?id=41726

    Catholic Way of Being Green: Pope Benedict XVI Calls for a Human Ecology

    Well…Here is Benedict proposing envirnoment should be debated at….. The UN

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2m-SGupTW4#t=25

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/8589031/Benedict-XVI-The-green-Pope.html

    The German-born pontiff has condemned rampant consumerism and bemoaned the abuse of the planet’s resources in speeches, encyclicals and during overseas trips.

    He has warned that humanity risks destroying the planet’s ecosystems unless it listens to “the voice of the earth”.

    During his six-year-long papacy, the Vatican has installed photovoltaic cells on its main auditorium to convert sunlight into electricity He has criticised the “economic and political resistance” to fighting environmental degradation and denounced world leaders’ failure to come up with a new climate change treaty at a UN conference in Copenhagen in Dec 2009.

    He said the planet was being threatened by the same “self-centred and materialistic” way of thinking that sparked the global financial crisis.

    Benedict has raised the alarm for African countries, where competition for water and mineral resources has led to wars, and for low-lying island states in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

    Ohhh Rachel Lu, sleep well.

    • GG

      That was so general that there is nothing to talk about. If the current Pope says the same thing then basically nothing is new.

      That piece you posted here, like much of the current Pope’s words, are simply taken by the Left and then the Left grafts their politics onto them and declares that Church teaching. It has become simply a game.

      • ForChristAlone

        nailed it

      • Marcelus

        Oh it is? thank God you are there to tell this from that,

        ahhhhh

        • GG

          I simply stated the obvious.

  • ForChristAlone

    CNN has just offered a one-year contract to the Holy Father Francis I to do daily global weather reports from Casa Santa Martha. This will be his opportunity to place a spin on the global warming/cooling meme. Stay tuned for further details. (just to illustrate how badly things are going over at CNN).

  • On a lighter note …

  • Newport

    So, when the so called progressives point out that pope Francis is right on this “moral” issue, what can they say when he pronounces on the real issues of abortion, chastity, marriage, contraception? One can’t pick and choose when to accept the pope’s doctrinal utterances on faith and morals and still be Catholic. The question will be whether the man who utters them can still be pope if his utterances are not Catholic.

    • That’s why he’s the POPE. He is God’s vicar on Earth. Or at least that is what I’ve been told.

  • Jdonnell

    This half-baked discussion of climate change (“It probably is [changing], to some extent.”) minimizing it, is not what a real conservative would do. Conserving and conservation of the environment seems not to be part the conservative agenda, as is evidenced in this article. As Christians, we are to be “stewards” of the created world; facing up to he reality that instead, we are polluting it is a necessary first step. The article gives little thought to this angle of what being conservative ought to entail–a natural consequence of the US conservative ideology that puts business first and sees the regulatory implication of fessing up to the human role in pollution and climate change as anti-business.

    The article also makes the presumptuous suggestion–telling the Pope what he ought to be spending his time doing and criticizing him for causing “doubt and dissention” and not stopping to consider that is exactly what Jesus did.

    • papagan

      One might add that “the US conservative ideology that puts business first and sees the regulatory implication … as anti-business” is not altogether accurate. The problem is that many people uncritically assume a faulty, ethically distorted conception of business! A humane and properly ethical understanding of business entails no real conflict between sound business practice and governmental regulation of market transactions, no real conflict between good business and wise stewardship of the God-given gift of creation. The failure to exercise wise stewardship is not good business, just as crony capitalism entails dishonest business and dishonest government. Part of the problem is that many assume a morally distorted conception of freedom, and that many don’t appreciate that truly good business is necessarily based on the exercise of human virtue. A business that makes much money isn’t necessarily a good business. In this connection, one of the various books I’d recommend is edited by S.A. Cortright and Michael J. Naughton, Rethinking the Purpose of Business: Interdisciplinary Essays from the Catholic Social Tradition http://undpress.nd.edu/books/P00801#description. On the disputed question of freedom and the importance of moral excellence, see George W. Carey, ed., Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative/Libertarian Debate http://isibooks.org/freedom-and-virtue.html.

      Pope John Paul II stresses an important point on the question of freedom in Centesimus annus, 42:

      Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

      The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. [Emphasis added.]

      • ForChristAlone

        no one is reading this nonsense. now get lost

        • papagan

          Follow your own advice! I’m not the one spewing nonsense.

      • GG

        Who disagrees? No one. We all agree business and democracy must be infused with the moral law to be acceptable. That is not the issue.

        • papagan

          From what I’ve observed, it seems to me that not a few are confused about the real issues involved.

          • GG

            What are these exact issues?

            • papagan

              The real issues are anthropological issues, e.g., conflicting conceptions of human freedom. See, for instance, “Erroneous Autonomy: The Catholic Case Against Libertarianism” http://iprcua.com/2014/06/03/erroneous-autonomy-the-catholic-case-against-libertarianism/.

              • GG

                The faithful Catholics here accept the authentic understanding of freedom. See Leo XIII Libertas

                • papagan

                  Regarding your reference to faithful Catholics, my comments were never intended to be taken as a criticism of those who adhere to the true Christian faith defended by the Church’s magisterium. My comments were directed at both “progressives” and “conservatives” who distort Catholic social doctrine to fit their political preferences, preferences not compatible with authentic Christian theological anthropology reflected in Pope Benedict XVI’s social encyclical, Caritas in veritate, for example.

                  There were those who found Caritas in veritate problematic. Would it be accurate to say that you do not find that papal social encyclical problematic? If you answer that question, we can then proceed forward.

                • papagan

                  The Catholic notion of freedom treated in Libertas is not equivalent to the negative concept of freedom assumed by proponents of libertarianism. Are you among the opponents of libertarianism?

    • Azygos

      I think the EPA ought to tax cow farts and why they are at it, they ought to tax invisible carbon emissions and force everyone to give up fossil fuels especially third world countries. This is the best way to love our neighbor because we must protect “mother nature” or she will destroy us… Forget about God’s providence, the world is vengeful and she will get you.

    • papagan

      Thanks for your positive contribution, but it isn’t clear that everyone is paying attention. Many don’t seem to appreciate the importance of ethical notions like stewardship and human ecology.

      • GG

        No, they get it quite well. The problem is it is not just general notions of being a good steward or conserving resources. We all agree with that.

        • papagan

          I’m not so sure…

          • GG

            I am sure. The problem is we have many here who mistakenly make their political ideology as Catholic teaching.

            • papagan

              I’m inclined to think that it’s more a matter of ignorance of Catholic social doctrine as well as plain dissent (e.g., http://tomwoods.com/books/the-church-and-the-market/ ).

              • GG

                It is clear that you think that but there is no proof. You keep posting superficial things without any direct point.

                Catholoc social teaching is a wide topic. That some disagree with you is not evidence of ignorance or dissent.

                • papagan

                  It isn’t a matter of disagreeing with me. It’s a matter of comparing (1) a number of the postings here with (2) official Catholic social doctrine. One can find clear incompatibilities between 1 and 2.

                  • GG

                    No, it is about disagreeing with you. You post generalities.

                    • papagan

                      The disparity between 1 and 2 is clear. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that fact is revealing.

      • ForChristAlone

        Human ecology begins in the womb. Now get off my site.

        • papagan

          First, I offered an analogy concerning the Commandments. You responded with an ad hominem attack. That’s a non-starter. Moreover, repeating the mantra “Human ecology begins in the womb” doesn’t help. You’re ignoring the valid point I made. And if you believe that I’ll let you off the hook, you really don’t know who you’re dealing with here.

          Second, “Get off [your] site”? Will you declare your real name and stop using that silly pseudonym?

    • ForChristAlone

      If it’s not homosexuality that you defend it the pseudo science of global warming. You must be writing from Miami

      • Jdonnell

        To what defense do you refer?
        Only to the Rush Limppaugh ditto heads and their ilk is global warming unreal. He and his admirers can’t distinguish between weather and climate.

        • GG

          No, serious thinkers reject it for serious reasons.

          • Jdonnell

            Serious money rejects climate change and has paid for pseudo-science to create doubt and denial about its reality. The overwhelming preponderance of scientific experts says that climate change is happening and that human behavior is involved in it. Were the Soviet Union intact, your “serious thinkers” might see in it a “communist plot.” If scientists find that fracking is involved in earthquakes, your “serious thinkers” (i.e. right-wing ideologues) will deny that too.

  • JamesIgnatius

    Everybody needs to chillax – Peter is doing fine. The Holy Spirit is in charge and Peter has (on several occasions) clearly stated he is a Son of the Church and therefore a loyal custodian of ALL doctrine and magisterial teaching.

    • Azygos

      The Holy Spirit is in charge, however just because the Pope is a son of the Church does not mean he cannot error in judgment or teaching, especially when it comes to global warming. The Holy Spirit only keeps the Pope from speaking or writing error when he speaks or writes Ex-Cathedra. You can read the definition of Ex-Cathedra in the Vatican 1 documents.

      • papagan

        You might learn something if you pay attention.

        • Azygos

          Thanks for the input.

          • papagan

            The humanistic and ethical notion of human ecology is not equivalent to, or cannot be reduced to, the empirical idea of “global warming.” That point, which has been made before more than once, is being repeatedly ignored. When people don’t pay close attention, they do little more than spin their wheels.

            • GG

              No, you just do not get it.

              • papagan

                I’m sorry you feel that way.

        • ForChristAlone

          you might get lost.

          • Marcelus

            man in the end it will be you and 3 more if you keep this up. Reconsider. Nothing catholic in doing that

        • GG

          Why do you say that? His post was dead on correct and orthodox.

          • papagan

            The comment by “Azygos” was beside the point and a misleading snapshot. Simply because a specific papal teaching is not an ex cathedra pronouncement, it doesn’t follow that a believer may simply disregard it if (s)he pleases. Have you read Pope John Paul II’s important 1998 Motu Proprio, Ad Tuendam Fidem http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html and the attached CDF doctrinal commentary? Many believers have not. As regards a proper understanding of magisterial teaching, including Catholic social doctrine, Ad Tuendam Fidem is a highly significant Apostolic Letter.

    • ForChristAlone

      You could fool the rest of us who have been watching this circus.

      • papagan

        FCA wrote: “You could fool the rest of us who have been watching this circus.”

        Here’s another example of the flippancy I mentioned earlier. 🙁

        • ForChristAlone

          If you don’t think that the atmosphere at the Vatican has been a circus, then it’s you who have neither been reading nor listening.

  • Why not write something really comprehensive like a Summa Climatica? That should keep him busy for a few decades.

    • papagan

      Apparently you’re among those who have not been paying attention.

    • ForChristAlone

      But those from the protestant wing of the Catholic church will interpret the “Climatica” as meaning something totally different. They will see “climactica”

      • clima, climate, climaticum, climatica … 1, 2, 3

      • That would be fom “climax” and not “clima,” right?

  • papagan

    FYI. Something to consider: “Professor proposes ‘green Thomism’ to reconnect Catholics to creation” http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1102612.htm ; The Chapelstone Foundation https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/92602269/website/www_site/The_Chapelstone_Foundation.html.

  • Azygos

    My rant for the day,

    I take issue with this “voice of the earth”, which comes down to
    people voicing their opinions in the name of the earth, as though the
    world were more important than souls or any other issue, and as if it
    needed someone to speak for it. Now, I listen to the “voice of God”…
    This whole “mother earth” business forgets that God is in charge of
    planet earth and that the earth is not really our mother, that it
    doesn’t need protecting, it is just a place, a habitation that is itself
    deteriorating and passing away just as God wills. People in this age
    have so little faith, they falsely believe that we must save all
    creation unless it pass away, however it is passing away and will be
    consumed with fire… However, we should be good stewards but turning to
    God must take priority. See then how God provided manna for those
    starving in the desert and he provided water from a rock. I have to
    believe then that the first problem is that people turn away from the
    God who would and will always provide for his creatures if we are
    faithful to his Word, for we are much more important than sparrows. The
    Church in this regard would do much better focusing on saving souls and
    spending money to spread the faith, than it would by focusing on climate
    change – as if God did not first have control of the climate, that is
    to say that nothing can happen to the climate unless God first permits
    it.

    The Church is in ruin, souls are going to hell and socialism/communism is spreading all over the world. There are 3,000 abortions everyday in American and 1 billion worldwide since the 1970’s. People are turning away from God on a massive scale and the majority of Catholics are living in mortal sin, missing mass, using contraceptives, advancing sodomy and abortion. The amount of bad theology and catechists should be enough to warrant 10 encyclicals from Pope Francis… The amount of sacrileges and sacrilegious communions should be enough to warrant an encyclical from the Pope. The promotion of
    sodomy should warrant an encyclical from the Pope, anything to put a smack down on the culture of death would be nice and would help protect souls, it would ensure the faithful that God is with his Church giving them great confidence to attack the culture of death, which so deserves to be attacked.

    But we are getting an encyclical and speeches over climate change? Souls are falling into hell like snowflakes and the Pope is not putting on the brakes at all… Who the hell cares about climate change? If souls are lost then all is lost! Climate change or no
    climate change, the end result is that the majority of souls inhabiting this earth will reach the ultimate climate change, the fires of hell. Should we add a little bit of life to the earth and let souls perish, we will have failed our mission as the Body of Christ and we will have failed to love our neighbor as ourselves – thus we ourselves end up in
    hell.

    • papagan

      Clearly you don’t understand the Catholic notion of human ecology, or perhaps you simply reject it. Love of neighbor includes respect for future generations. Wise stewardship doesn’t mean “leave environmental issues to God, and go about your own business…” We have an ethical responsibility to care for the God-given gift of creation.

      • Azygos

        “Love of neighbor includes respect for future generations.”

        Indeed, see then how the world has killed over a billion people since the legalization of abortion in 1970 and how the world is contracepting itself out of future generations, and straight into hell. In fact, societies going against the Will of God are in a sense committing suicide and destroying future generations. The amount of people getting divorced and leaving behind fatherless children is destroying future generations, etc, etc… These results are clear and even if the world was warming up (which is debatable), if we let society go to ruin then we have failed and we have failed future generations. Not to mention that the death of the soul is much worse than harm to the physical body or to the world at large. As I wrote above, if souls are lost then all is lost. Christ did not come to save the earth which is passing away, he came to save souls!

        • papagan

          The broad humanistic and ethical notion of human ecology addresses questions like procured abortion, physician-assisted suicide and human trafficking, but it isn’t restricted to those questions! Yes, spiritual death is worse than physical death, but love of neighbor does not ignore unjust conditions leading to the physical deaths of innocent persons.

          • ForChristAlone

            I said move on.

            • papagan

              I’m sure you’d block my comments if you had the power to do so. Apparently you feel insecure, and you have problems with authority.

              • ForChristAlone

                thanks for the analysis…reminds me of the Peanuts cartoon: “The doctor is in.”

          • Azygos

            Since when did the supposed ‘climate change’ lead to physical deaths of innocent persons? As I wrote above, the whole thing concerning climate change is debatable, however what I have commented on is very real and solid. People are being murdered by the thousands to the millions and now having reached the billion mark and Godlessness has abounded, in and outside the Church destroying future generations of people and leading to ultimate climate change – the never-ending fires of hell. We have got bigger problems than worrying about earthly climate change, which may or may not exist in the first place. And it is not the goal of the Church to save the created world or animals, or the like. Its primary goal is to save souls, first and foremost – all other problems in the world are secondary to this goal.

            • papagan

              If you prefer not to listen, don’t expect others to take you seriously.

              • Azygos

                Thanks for the advice and may I suggest that you take the same advice that you give. God bless you.

                • papagan

                  I actually prefer reading over writing, and I’m a careful reader. That’s more than I can say for some people.

                  • Azygos

                    Thank you for the indirect insult and attack on my character. God bless you and yours.

                    • papagan

                      I used the term “human ecology,” while you continue to use the term “climate change.” Those are not equivalent terms. We’re not communicating.

                    • GG

                      Because you keep deflecting his points. You keep using this large, inchoate topic as a cudgel. No one is saying properly degined CST is wrong or not binding.

                    • papagan

                      If one carefully reads “My rant for the day” http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/dont-lose-sleep-climate-change-encyclical#comment-1778762965 , one can detect a serious misunderstanding of Catholic social doctrine, which includes the Christian humanistic notion of human ecology.

              • GG

                Huh ?

                • papagan

                  Previously I stated that, according to what I’ve heard, the forthcoming encyclical is about the broad humanistic and ethical notion of human ecology, and it’s a mistake to equate that notion with the much more narrow empirical idea of climate change. Yet various person continue to speak as if human ecology and climate change are equivalent! That’s what I mean by not listening.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    human ecology begins in the womb. once we insure that it is protected, we can move forward to other spheres

                    • papagan

                      The Holy See can and should move forward on various interrelated fronts simultaneously. It is utterly ludicrous to suggest, for example, that Caritas in veritate should not have been published until the moral teaching in Evangelium vitae is effectively implemented globally.

                      If you wish to focus all of your time and energy on ending procured abortion, fine, but a pro-life ethic is not restricted to the question of procured abortion.

                      By the way, have you actively participated in peaceful pro-life protests in front of abortion mills? I have.

            • ForChristAlone

              well said, indeed

            • papagan

              We have got bigger problems than worrying about earthly climate change…

              Apparently you don’t understand the Christian theological notion of human ecology.

              • Azygos

                I understand it perfectly. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

                • papagan

                  [1] I understand it perfectly. [2] What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

                  Regarding 2, the answer to that interrogatory is “Nothing.” One loses everything. See Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007), pp. 211-17. Regarding 1, it remains the case that you exhibit no clear grasp of the Christian theological notion of human ecology, which you repeatedly equate with the empirical notion of climate change. That’s an illustration of what I mean by ignoring an important point, or not paying attention!

      • ForChristAlone

        Parade your wares elsewhere. You’ve worn out your welcome here. You’ve spent your wad; now move on.

        • papagan

          Is that the command of some deity?

          • ForChristAlone

            Yes. Get lost.

            • papagan

              Why don’t you follow your own advice?

              • ForChristAlone

                Get off my site.. what don’t you get pest?

                • Marcelus

                  What entitles you to drive someone away like that? has he been offensive?

                  • ForChristAlone

                    That’s just the point, I have no power to drive someone away. And, yes, he has been offensive.

                    • papagan

                      yes, [sic] he has been offensive.

                      It’s said that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. You need to substantiate your charge.

                • papagan

                  You seem to enjoy name-calling. Grow up!

                  • ForChristAlone

                    thanks for the advice…but unwelcome

        • Azygos

          If you liked my comment then it would be helpful if you let the points that I made speak for themselves. It does not do any good by trying to incite others to hatred, to start quarrels or to try to boss them around on a forum over the internet (since when did that ever do any good?). Your comments really lack a sense of calm and peace about them. May I suggest that you work on the interior life instead of spending so much time on forums and the like, it will definitely help you to calm your disposition. I must say dear man that you comments do wreak of outright contempt for people and that they are uncharitable. I write this to you in all charity wanting the best for you, with friendly admonishments. God bless you and God love you.

          P.S.,
          Your wad statement is downright vulgar and unchristian.

          • papagan

            “ForChristAlone” (FCA) has already stated the (s)he isn’t even Christian. I would agree that several of FCA’s comments sound much like the comments of a deeply troubled soul. 🙁

            • ForChristAlone

              you take yourself much too seriously

          • ForChristAlone

            sorry that you’re offended but I will continue to comment and seek counsel from other more trusted sources (and you might try to understand hyperbole more)

            Might I remind you of a comment you made to papagan? “Thank you for the indirect insult and attack on my character. God bless you and yours.”
            Do you really mean to thank him for attacking your character or are you being sarcastic? Are you being insincere or is it your wont to thank people for insulting you and maligning your character?

            • papagan

              sorry [sic] that you’re offended [by my wad statement] … but … you might try to understand hyperbole more)

              Hyperbole? Really? Then why did you remove the offensive statement?

              Here’s an example of a papagan-ism directed to you: “You might learn something if you pay attention.” It’s this kind of smart-ass comment that gets my hackles up.

              First, that’s nothing compared to offensive comments you’ve made, some of which you appear to have retracted! Isn’t that interesting… Second, how is one supposed to learn if one chooses to ignore reasonable points made by others?

              And lastly, [1] I have compassion for all people. But [2] I do find some ideas contemptible and respond accordingly. I don’t try to ‘make nice’ in the face of contemptible ideas.

              Regarding 1, some of your comments [which you later removed] are far from respectful toward others. Regarding 2, describing as contemptible something with which you disagree does not thereby render it objectively contemptible. You need to control your feelings and respond objectively and rationally to ideas or statements which you believe to be problematic. Until you can do that, you ought to keep your thoughts to yourself.

        • papagan

          I’m not sharing any comments in this forum to obtain your praise. In fact, there would be good reason to worry if my comments elicited praise from persons who share your heterodox opinions.

          • ForChristAlone

            you’d be well-placed to get my plaudits

    • ForChristAlone

      WOW! You nailed it! Pay no heed to M, papagan and all the rest. You get it!

  • Minnnesota Mary

    In trying to make the Catholic Church relevant and pleasing to the world, this Pope, more than any other Pope, is making the Church irrelevant in a way that people will consider all Church teachings to be just a Pope’s opinion, nothing more.

    • papagan

      Do you take any Catholic social doctrine seriously?

      • Azygos

        It is uncharitable to assume that Minnnesota Mary does not take Catholic doctrine seriously, that assumption cannot be gained from her comment but you have assigned it to her. Just a little FYI.

        • papagan

          Apparently you missed the flippancy behind her comment. The Holy Father deserves far greater respect! And, sadly, I’ve seen more than a few other comments exhibiting a similar flippancy. The forthcoming encyclical hasn’t yet been published, and this hasn’t prevented a number of persons from expressing uninformed or misguided opinions putatively related to a magisterial document that they could not possibly have read at this point in time!

          How familiar are you with Catholic social doctrine? Have you read, for example, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church http://www.op.org/sites/www.op.org/files/public/documents/fichier/compendium__social__doctrine__of_catholic_church.pdf ?

          • Azygos

            She has her opinion about the Popes recent actions and that however could be wrong or flippant, it is possible that she has not been as respectful to the Holy Father as she should. This doesn’t however excuse YOU from accusing her of not believing Church doctrine. That was uncalled for and uncharitable on your part…

            • papagan

              I wrote: “Do you take any Catholic social doctrine seriously?” That’s a question, not an accusation.

              • Azygos

                We all know what that question implies. It implies that she does not take Catholic social doctrine seriously.

                • papagan

                  You’re free to draw your own conclusions regarding the question I posed, but your conclusions may not reflect my actual intentions. Or do you believe that you can read my mind?

                  • Azygos

                    Maybe I should re-post the question with the word “any” in italics.

                    • papagan

                      Are you familiar with the Socratic method?

                  • ForChristAlone

                    your leftist relativism is showing…judge me not my my deeds but my intention.

                    • papagan

                      .judge [sic] me not my [sic] my deeds but my intentions.

                      First, it seems that I’m the target of hasty accusations. Second, both external acts and intentions are important. Bad intentions can spoil human acts.

              • ForChristAlone

                no, it’s an accusation

          • ForChristAlone

            go away, pest

      • GG

        Why would you ask that ?

        • papagan

          See my reply to “Azygos.”

  • papagan

    The essay begins:

    It’s official. Progressives love Pope Francis. Their magazines, from Think Progress to Mother Jones, are abuzz with excitement in light of the recent rumor that the pope is going to issue an encyclical on climate change sometime in the next few months.

    That opening paragraph is infelicitous for various reasons. First, the use of the terms “progressives” and “climate change,” as well as the references to Think Progress and Mother Jones, insinuate, albeit unwittingly, a certain priority of the political over the theological. Such an inversion of priorities is problematic. I say “unwittingly,” because I don’t believe that Dr. Lu actually intended to suggest that the theological is subordinate or equal to the political. I think she understands that the temporal political order is subordinate to the everlasting kingdom of God. Nevertheless, the prevailing tone of many of the comments elicited by the essay appears to be political.

    Second, the paragraph in question suggests that “progressives” have good reason to claim Pope Francis, who stresses the “preferential option for the poor,” on their side, in opposition to “conservatives.” In fact, Pope Francis cannot properly be claimed by any political party or movement. For, as Vicar of Christ, he speaks on behalf of incarnate Truth, not political groups.

    Third, if what I’ve heard about the forthcoming encyclical is accurate, it will focus on and emphasize the theological notion of human ecology, which is much more comprehensive than the narrower empirical idea of “climate change” mentioned in the opening paragraph. The Church’s magisterium is eminently qualified to speak authoritatively on the rich topic of human ecology. A large number of the comments, however, have focused on the empirical idea, not on the theological notion. The empirical idea is much easier to manage, or dismiss. The theological notion of human ecology, however, contains elements that neither “progressives” nor “conservatives” can swallow. For the Christian anthropological vision advanced by the Church’s magisterium in Catholic social doctrine is thoroughly alien to the political assumptions of both “progressives” and “conservatives.”

    That helps to explain why “progressives” insist on a distorted or truncated presentation of the views of Pope Francis, and why “conservatives” who have more than a passing and superficial acquaintance with Catholic social doctrine are rattled by the announcement of Pope Francis’ forthcoming social encyclical. That should come as no surprise, given the negative reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s social encyclical, Caritas in veritate, among various “conservatives.”

    For my part, I eagerly await the publication of the forthcoming social encyclical ad maiorem Dei gloriam inque hominum salutem.

    • ForChristAlone

      No one read what you write. Jut go away.

      • papagan

        “No one read [sic] what you write. Jut go away.”

        That’s one, but not the only, interesting response to my comments.

    • GG

      The opening paragraph is dead on accurate. You may not like the truth but it is true. You attempt to deflect the truth of her position by highlighting an issue that is not pertinent to her assertion. She is not saying politics matter more than faith. That is your spin.

      Your second point is off again. The Left most definitely uses Papal words to further their agenda. They graft their politics on to the Pope constantly and then claim that is Church teaching.

      Your third point misses again. The essay is not about what you heard and think will happen.

      • papagan

        I’ll let honest readers decide for themselves whether my comments about the infelicitous opening paragraph are accurate or inaccurate.

  • papagan

    Earlier today I accidentally stumbled across the following comment:

    C.Caruana
    Rachel, the Pope is going to write about ‘human ecology’, not just environmental matters. That means that ethical and moral questions will be raised, and these might have doctrinal implications. Remember, he has primed us for surprises, and with fear and trembling let us hope they are good ones. In any case, the thought that it will be a written document might perhaps mitigate our anxieties. Or not?

    I found the foregoing comment here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wc3fSXbQ9CYJ:www.crisismagazine.com/2015/dont-lose-sleep-climate-change-encyclical&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1. Now, however, it appears that the comment was subsequently deleted. I cannot find even a single reference to C.Caruana among the many online comments attached to Dr. Lu’s essay.

    Can anyone explain why C.Caruana’s comment was later removed from the Crisis website? I sincerely hope that censorship isn’t the reason behind the deletion!

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    Climatechange, previooly called global warming and the name changed for good reasons, is a totally politized issue lead by the UN which is demonstraing tha it is completely beholden to the left. Many scientists with excellent credentials are against the whole thing and it seems that those involved in such research are getting plenty of well funded research grants and probably dishing up the results the politicians want to hear. So, it shoiul dbe a non issue for the Church. The Pope should mainly restate the general teaching about stewardship of creation etc. However, an encyclical being one of the majjor ways popes communnicate on important issues with Catholics and the world in general, I see no need fo an encyclical on the matter, some discourse by the Pope would be more than sufficient.
    The attention of the Chuch is already being distracted by the contoversy on communion for divorced and remarried, so we hardly need another red herring to distract us from the more important issues facing the Church. Will the double Synod on the family come up with any useful results. Act I has shown that it hasn’t.

    • papagan

      The Pope should mainly restate the general teaching about stewardship of creation[,] etc.

      Do you know anything about the Christian theological notion of human ecology? Readers whose minds are open to veritas may gain some valuable insights from the forthcoming encyclical.

  • Tom McBride

    The problem is that the Pope’s comments climatic and economic give support to leftist propaganda aside from the fact that “Climate” is becoming less important as rational thought and prudence is applied more and more to it. Same thing in economic matters. The Pope is out of his field of expertise and only reflects the leftist/socialist bias of his native political environment. He is giving strength to movements antithetical to Christianity/democracy at a time when the struggle between them and leftist/socialism is occurring.

    • papagan

      [1] The problem is that the Pope’s comments … give support to leftist propaganda … Same thing in economic matters. The Pope is out of his field of expertise and only reflects the leftist/socialist bias of his native political environment. [2] He is giving strength to movements antithetical to Christianity/democracy at a time when the struggle between them and leftist/socialism is occurring.

      Regarding 1, might one suggest that your criticism of Pope Francis reflects the anti-Catholic libertarian flavor of your politico-economic creed? Moreover, properly understood, economics is a humanistic and moral discipline. In that case, the Holy See is eminently qualified to comment on economic activities. Regarding 2, your controversial charge that Pope Francis is supporting socialism in opposition to Christianity is entirely lacking in rational support. Do you believe that Caritas in veritate supports socialism in opposition to Christianity?

  • doomsdae

    From the onset of seeing this Pope step onto the Balcony, I got a very negative sinister feeling about him and that feeling hasn’t changed especially after seeing the three bolts of lightening hit the Vatican after he was elected

    • papagan

      Why should any rational person be especially interested in your negative feelings about Pope Francis?

      • Azygos
        • papagan

          Previously I asked you what do you mean when you use the term “human ecology.” Is that the term you use when you wish to convey the idea of global warming?

  • Azygos
  • papagan

    FYI. “Pope Says Concern for Poor Is Gospel, Not Communism” http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/pope-concern-poor-gospel-communism-28145888

  • SWF77

    For someone who claims to be a Catholic, you sure sound like a selfish douche bag. Climate change affecting the most vulnerable is not a “favorite theme”. It’s looking at the things that are driving nations into war, at the disasters that are killing children and realizing that we should be doing all we can to help avoid them. Haven’t you seen all the people dying in the biggest draughts humanity has experienced? What are you doing to help those people? Being a Catholic is not about worrying whether people can or cannot divorce, whether gays can or cannot marry. It’s about lessening suffering and making the lives of others less shitty, Like that guy from the Middle East taught us.

  • robnbc

    Can we hope now for a “pause” in the “no warming” meme that denial PR has been using relentlessly now that 2014 is officially the hottest on record? My guess is that soon we will be hearing, “warming is good!” (we can drill the arctic!). For the number challenged this animated graphic tells the story. Watch carefully for the “pause” near the end (you might miss it 🙂 Looks like the pope is right on this issue (if not infallible 🙂
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtPkFBbJLMg#t=11

    • SWF77

      The entire world agrees on this. The entire scientific community agrees on this. Yes, I mean entire the way reasonable people with critical skills means entire. As in “the entire world knows the earth is round”. Entire means all people who are not a rag-tag of fray lunatics because you will find those in any argument. Damn, global warming isn’t even an argument any more, any more than gravity or the cycle of water are arguments.

      • robnbc

        Sadly that excludes the senate committee on science and technology (Inhofe) and a significant number of elected republicans It does not reflect well on science education in America. 🙂

        • SWF77

          Members of the rag-tag fray of lunatics, on whom the meaning of the word theory is lost.

  • m8lsem

    “As a political conservative, I care somewhat about political issues such as this. But as a Catholic (which is much more important), I mainly care about fundamental Church teachings on faith and morals. Climate change is only very distantly relevant to any of these,”
    Oh, my. Government standing by and doing nothing, if doing nothing means that New York, Miami, New Orleans, and a lot of similarly situated property will for the sake of wealth generation by various money-blinded people be flooded and millions of people displaced, is not a moral issue?

MENU