The upcoming encyclical on global warming

Over at Patheos, Artur Rosman posts the following:

In a leaked draft of the forthcoming encyclical on the environment the pope says:

Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family.

The document gives climate change an almost ontological import:

The relationship between individuals or communities and the environment ultimately stems from their relationship with God. When man turns his back on the Creator’s plan, he provokes a disorder which has inevitable repercussions on the rest of the created order.

-snip-

[NOTA BENE: I can’t reveal whether the source of the leak is this well-known Vatican insider or this one, both of whom are my facebook friends. Stay tuned.]

This is truly epochal, everything will change, or it will be a worse disaster than Humanae Vitae:

 

I am not looking forward to this encyclical.  I wish the Pope would stick to faith and morals and the unchanging teaching of the Church and not venture into areas of prudential judgment. From what I understand, there has not been any sign of global warming in 15 years.  Climate change has always been with us and there have been periods in the earth’s history that have been much warmer than present. Thus, I am a skeptic when it comes to man-made climate change, though of course on a local basis we can see man-made effects of pollution, desertification and other problems.  Yes, our relationship with God does bear on our relationship with the environment. I’m with Pope Benedict’s human ecology on this one—and St. Paul’s words in Romans 8:

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God;[b] 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;21 because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

If Pope Francis builds his encyclical around this, then I will breathe a sigh of relief.

That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill points out how the anticipated encyclical has already become fodder for conspiracy theorists.   He writes:

The idea that with the election of Pope Francis, a secretive and deeply sinister power group now has the Catholic Church ‘in the bag’ will only be enhanced by news of a Papal encyclical on the environment and the attending ‘intervention’ that Pope Francis hopes to make at the UN Climate meeting in Paris this year.

Should it receive the benediction of Pope Francis, the international climate change movement will receive a huge public boost even though the science on the issue of man-made climate change is far from settled. That there are plenty of people for whom the climate change agenda is a gigantic scam that seeks to persuade mankind that he is ultimately responsible for the vicissitudes of nature might not worry Pope Francis, but should he decide to embrace the international climate change dogmas, he will be met with great resistance from many people who will believe that the Catholic Church has exchanged a group of supernatural beliefs for a man-made natural myth.

He goes on to capture some of the concerns I have, after having observed how some statist, leftist and politically correct ideas show up in some progressive Catholic circles, giving rise to the dichotomy between pro-life Catholics and social justice Catholics.  There should be no dichotomy.  And let’s drop the word “social” and go back to traditional justice, okay?

And lest there be any confusion, I am for protecting the environment, and for behaving responsibly regarding our resources and the air we breathe.  But I have noticed, too, that the environment is considerably cleaner than it was when I was a kid and that it takes economic wealth to add the scrubbers on smoke stacks, to make and drive fuel efficient cars, and to clean up rivers and so on.  Private enterprise has done a lot better job of protecting the environment than big government and it’s best when the government and private enterprise cooperate for the sake of the common good.  A glance at the environmental havoc in China or the former Soviet Union is a case in point.  Corporatism or state capitalism, crony capitalism is not free enterprise.

Bones continues, my emphases:

Sensible priests, sensible bishops, sensible laity and even a prominent Cardinal who has publicly rejected much of the climate change agenda on the record, will be deeply antagonised by the political interference of this Pope not just because this is a wholly unnecessary intervention into politics but because it is difficult to distinguish between the major protagonists in the climate change agenda and the population control enthusiasts who are sworn enemies of the Catholic Church. These may henceforth consider a Pope who feels we shouldn’t “obsess” about abortion and homosexuality a natural and hugely influential ally of epic, perhaps ‘biblical’, proportions.

The leading protagonists orchestrating the Culture of Death will quite happily embrace a Catholic Church that has, due to a ‘climate emergency’ prostituted itself to an inhuman agenda condemned by Francis’s predecessors, and worry little should the Supreme Pontiff, from time to time, make a remark condemning abortion and euthanasia because, after all, if a Pope didn’t say those things from time to time, you’d be forgiven for wondering whether he was a Pope at all. The grievance caused by any such comments would be transcended by the great cause of their rejoicing – that the Catholic Church had signed up to the falsification of science in the creation of a new, global, naturalist religion in which some form of human sacrifice is considered a ‘necessary evil’.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The upcoming encyclical on global warming

  1. David Murphy says:

    I am surprised that you doubt climate change, Deborah.

    Tsunami, Katrina, untold death and suffering, melting glaciers and icecaps, flooding in parts of Europe every year.

    I am glad that the Pope is stressing the link between ecology and the Creator’s plan. We are negligent with human life, negligent with nature – these are symptoms of the Godlessness that is pervading our society.

    The Patriarch of Constantinople has been campaigning on these issues for years – it is right that we should add our voices to his.

    • Foolishness says:

      Climate change is always with us. However, whether mankind is responsible for it is not proven. And the solutions proposed to deal with manmade climate change are massive, statist, wealth distribution schemes that have no accountability or measurable results

    • Rev22:17 says:

      David,

      You wrote: I am surprised that you doubt climate change, Deborah.

      Deborah’s comments are completely accurate, but only part of the story.

      From my days as a university student, I remember a professor of meteorology advising another student who was working on a study of climate change: “If you submit that analysis in your report, you won’t get any further funding because it does not support the answer that the sponsor wants.” In reality, we are dealing with supposed “science” utterly corrupted by the political agenda of those who control both (1) the funding to study the matter and (2) the “peer review” processes of the conferences and the journals dedicated to the field, and have used this power systematically to deny both funding to continue their work and fora for publication and dissemination of their results to any researcher whose investigations yielded results that were not politically acceptable for over four decades. Thus, one cannot regard the body of publications in this area as “science” in any meaningful sense of that term.

      Incidentally, there was some public hint of this a few years ago in a disclosure of e-mail traffic that some “hackers” downloaded from a server at a climate research institute in the United Kingdom. What came to light, however, was barely the tip of a proverbial iceberg, and was well underreported by complicit left-leaning global press.

      Norm.

  2. Rev22:17 says:

    Deborah,

    You wrote: I am not looking forward to this encyclical. I wish the Pope would stick to faith and morals and the unchanging teaching of the Church and not venture into areas of prudential judgment.

    I also am not looking forward to this encyclical — but not because it is fundamentally wrong for the Vatican to speak about the issue of protection of the environment. Indeed, just the opposite: our creator entrusted this planet to us, along with a fundamental moral duty to take care of it as good stewards so that it will continue to support the next generation.

    My concern, rather, is that the Vatican’s bureaucracy seems to have unwittingly fallen for a scam of truly gargantuan proportions — probably the most elaborate scam ever in the history of the world — and is consequently preparing a document that does not match reality. This scam is precisely what I described in my reply to David in a preceding post in this thread: research has been completely corrupted by persons of a particular political agenda who have complete control over both the agencies that fund research and the “peer review” process of the conferences and journals that publish and propagate the results of supposed research. The consequence has been nearly complete suppression of all results that are not politically acceptable for over four decades, giving the distinct misimpression of settled science.

    The only silver lining here is that an encyclical is correctly understood as an expression of the pope’s personal opinion, and NOT as a decision by the masgisterium, on the subject matter at hand. This means that nothing can ever become infallible doctrine simply because it appears in an encyclical.

    There is a very serious danger here, though. Publication of an encyclical based on false science will look pretty pathetic when the lie is exposed at some time in the future, potentially gravely undermining the credibility of the church to future generations.

    Norm.

    • EPMS says:

      Norm, I can understand why research sponsored by an entity with an obvious financial stake in the outcome would be suspect. But who would be behind “the most elaborate scam ever in the history of the world” to convince people that greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change? How do they benefit? It is one thing to feel that evidence is contradictory or incomplete, another thing to suspect a global conspiracy of unprecedented proportions.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        EPMS,

        You wrote: But who would be behind “the most elaborate scam ever in the history of the world” to convince people that greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change? How do they benefit?

        I doubt that any of us know the full extent of who is behind this agenda, but I do know a few details.

        >> Historically, the Kremlin instigated the agenda of extreme environmentalism, including the supposed repercussions of “global warming,” as a tool to stifle economic development in western Europe and North America during the Cold War — and environmental legislation has indeed had that impact. Many mines here in the States are closed simply because environmental mandates have made them unprofitable, and many companies have shifted manufacturing overseas for the same reason.

        >> More recently, a significant number of influential politicians on the Left have invested substantial sums of their own wealth in “carbon exchanges” and other related instruments, fully expecting that such investments would yield tremendous returns when legislation mandating purchase of carbon offsets becomes law.

        >> There’s also the reality that environmental and safety mandates now consume about two thirds of the price of a new automobile, and many of these mandates are of very marginal real benefit. The intent seems to be one of driving the price of new automobiles sufficiently high to ensure that the average middle class citizen will no longer be able to afford a new vehicle.

        And, again, this is barely the tip of the iceberg. The objective seems to be to force fundamental lifestyle changes on the middle class, while the ruling elite will have the means to continue in their chosen lifestyle.

        You wrote: It is one thing to feel that evidence is contradictory or incomplete, another thing to suspect a global conspiracy of unprecedented proportions.

        Except that I have personal knowledge of the politics of funding of research on climate change and control of the peer review processes of the conferences and journals pertaining thereto.

        Norm.

  3. EPMS says:

    I have never been clear as to why judgement on a scientific issue should divide down political lines, but this seems to be very much the case with climate change, at least in the North American context. I also seem to recall that former TAC primate John Hepworth is or was a spokesman for climate change denial, so perhaps it is also a political issue in Australia. Perhaps Pope Francis was unaware that he would be stirring up right/left divisions here.

  4. EPMS says:

    Norm, surely the process of “peer review” applies to scientific publishing on all subjects. Is it all a cospiracy?

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You asked: Norm, surely the process of “peer review” applies to scientific publishing on all subjects. Is it all a cospiracy?

      Most of the world of science is not politically charged, and the peer review process is typically objective and constructive. Within the company where I worked for twenty-seven years, we often asked one another to review our work with the goal of producing the best possible product for our customers and for publication.

      I am much less trusting of modern journals of psychology and psychiatry, especially when they venture into the area of human sexuality. There is, again, a political impetus to portray various forms of sexual perversion, such as homosexual acts and acts between adults and adolescents, as normative behavior rather than the aberration that they are. But, again, there are political actors that instigated this with the objective of destroying the social fabric of North American and Western European nations during the cold war, in the hope that these countries would crumble.

      Incidentally, if you don’t think that there is a covert organization behind the various political agendas of the left, think again. A while ago, a reporter at one of the protests during a convention asked a couple protestors what their cause was. The protestor said that he didn’t have his protest with him, then turned to his buddy and said, “Which is today’s protest, anyway?” These “protestors” are recruited, hired, and paid by the underground organizations to stage the whole slew or protests.

      Norm.

  5. Foolishness says:

    peer review has become a joke in the era of “settled science” in the postmodern university

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s