Blue Crab Boulevard

Pope Denounces Climate Change Doomsayers

Those of us who harbor doubts about the climate change/global warming hysterics just got a powerful ally. Pope Pope Benedict XVI has just made a very strong attack on the global warming true believers and did not mince any words.

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

The Pope's entire message can be read on the Vatican website. The relevant portion is entitled The family, the human community and the environment.

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

I'm guessing that Al Gore won't welcome this message from the Pontiff. The fact is, as I have documented over and over again on this site, that more environmental damage is being done right now than is tolerable. Rainforests burned, orangutans slaughtered, humans put into virtual serfdom by western global warming zealots. I think the Pope just threw a monkey wrench in Al Gores little money-making machine. (And yes, I believe Al Gore has a huge personal financial stake in getting his histrionics accepted as policy.)

Energy, Environment, Junk Science | Gaius Tuesday, 11 December , 2007

By NortonPete, Tuesday, 11 December , 2007 @ 9:14 pm

Holy Cannoli, and may God Bless.

Imagine just for a second, Al Gore being dragged in front of a modern day Inquisition that rejects “Global Warming” believers as heretics. The robed monks circle the ExGoracal, he cannot escape, the fires are stoked. There will be retribution for your sins!!!

Ha Ha. There is a writers strike and I’m just having a laugh.
By Anthony (Los Angeles), Tuesday, 11 December , 2007 @ 9:51 pm

You know, I stopped being religious years ago, but, based on his Regensburg speech and now this, I really, really like this Pope.
By Mike the Agnostic, Wednesday, 12 December , 2007 @ 6:40 am

Now I’m not a sky is falling climatologist, but I find this ironic coming from a man who owes his very existence to a belief without “firm evidence and based on a dubious ideology”
By dl, Wednesday, 12 December , 2007 @ 7:39 am

Mike the Agnostic

Agnostic: (my def): gnostic (knowledge) prefix of “A” (without).

What you refer to as irony is merely hatred of Christ’s Church on Earth.
By dl, Wednesday, 12 December , 2007 @ 7:46 am

What do you know -Dictionary.com agrees with me:

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn?sis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things”; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals—”ists,” as he called them—who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
By Rich Horton, Wednesday, 12 December , 2007 @ 2:54 pm

Hmmm…as I read the Daily Mail piece and compare it to the actual message of the Pope, I think I’m seeing more Catholic-bashing by the Daily Mail than a “sneak attack” by the Pope.

For example, the Daily Mail says:

“The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.”

But nowhere in the Pope’s message is such a claim even implied. Yes, the Pope advocated science over ideology, but isn’t that what we are supposed to ALL support? Is this an admission by the Daily Mail that all AGW claims are ideological and not scientific?

The Mail continues:

“His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.

“A broad consensus is developing among the world’s scientific community over the evils of climate change. ”

See!! This shows that the Pope has taken the side of evil!!

Maybe he has horns too! Why else would he need such a big hat????

Good God. Am I reading a british newspaper or a KKK pamphlet from the 1920’s?
By Rich Horton, Wednesday, 12 December , 2007 @ 2:55 pm

And thank goodness our scientists today are able to detect evil as well. I was beginning to worry….
By martian, Wednesday, 12 December , 2007 @ 3:07 pm

“A broad consensus is developing among the world’s scientific community over the evils of climate change. ”

Once again this has to be stated: CONSENSUS IS NOT PROOF! Just because a bunch of people agree to believe in something does not make it real or true.
By Carl Scheeler, Wednesday, 12 December , 2007 @ 3:49 pm

As much as I hate to say it (because I think Global Warming is pseudo-science), this is merely irresponsible journalism. The pope never mentioned “global warming” or “climate change” in his so-called “attack” on supporters of the theory. All he said was that environmentalism needs to be based in facts, not ideology. It is telling that Global Warming advocates think he is talking about him. Gee. Why would that be?
By Sam, Wednesday, 12 December , 2007 @ 4:14 pm

Well, I put more credibility in the Pope than I do in the U.N.
By Dan, Wednesday, 12 December , 2007 @ 5:08 pm

Carl Scheeler is absolutely right. I’ve read the Pope’s statement. With regard to environmental issues, it does nothing more than provide bland and somewhat vague moral guidelines for policy and decision-making. According to the article, the purported “attack” on global warming activists is the Pope’s statement that it “is important for assessments … to be carried out prudently … uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions.” This could just as easily be read as condemning those who deny the human factor in global warming.

This Pope is a very, very smart man. He would not be so stupid as to wade into the specifics of a sceintific controversy with respect to which he has no competence or training. I happen to be a devout Catholic and love this Pope very much. I listen to him very, very closely when he speaks on issues relating to theology, philosophy, morality and the relationship between politics and religion. I would be disappointed in him however if he pronounced on scientific issues. He hasn’t, however.
By Marybel, Wednesday, 12 December , 2007 @ 5:39 pm

Sam…

Why denigrate the views of this Pope by comparing him to that lousy bunch of houligans, the UN? The “German Shepherd” cares more for the poor of the world, who are inestimably economically harmed by all this AGW gobbledygook, than the incredibly compromised UN does. The “Goracle” will make a fortune off all this (like a ranting televangelist with millions of blathering followers), but Benedict XVI is the true advocate for the downtrodden. I ask ..what has the UN ( or Al Gore, hanging out in Bali with all his buddies, burning up gazillions of carbon offsets which are really illusory) really done for ANYONE, lately? Far as I can see, wherever the UN goes, they rape, plunder and steal… Given a choice, I prefer Benedict XVI’s views, any time, anywhere.
By Carl Scheeler, Thursday, 13 December , 2007 @ 12:39 pm

Yes, Dan, but isn’t interesting that those who deny Global Warning (and/or its human causation and/or its seriousness and/or that anything can be done about it) didn’t assume that he was talking about them?

It’s kind of like walking into a crowded room and shouting, “I hate you misogynist wife-beating sons of bitches” and seeing who jumps up and says, “well we hate you too.” Heh. It seems like King Solomon just figured out who the real mother was.