Pope Francis proposes Adding ‘Ecological Sin’ to Church Teachings.
Pope Francis, who has made the environment a signature cause of his pontificate, said he was strongly considering adding the category of “ecological sin” to the Catholic Church’s official compendium of teachings.
Pope Francis has stressed the importance of environmental protection since his election in 2013. He dedicated an entire encyclical, “Laudato Si,’” published in 2015, to the topic.
In that document, he called global warming a major threat to life on the planet and called for a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. He also blamed the global market economy for plundering the earth at the expense of the poor and future generations.
In 2016, the pope added environmentalism, or “care for our common home,” to the Catholic Church’s traditional seven works of mercy. He also added it to the Beatitudes, the core set of Christian ideals such as meekness and mercy enunciated by Jesus in the Bible, saying: “Blessed are those who protect and care for our common home.”
On Friday, he said he was considering going further. “We must introduce—we are thinking—into the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ecological sin against the common home, because it’s a duty,” the pope told an audience of legal experts at the Vatican.
He noted that bishops from the Amazon region meeting at the Vatican in October had defined ecological sin as an “action or omission against God, against others, the community and the environment. It is a sin against future generations and is manifested in the acts and habits of pollution and destruction of the harmony of the environment.”
12th Sin On Deck
Thou Shalt Not Be a Climate Change Denier.
Meanwhile, the sun has ‘reached solar minimum’ and its surface is ominously calm.
There’s also a raging debate over whether this will be a ‘grand solar minimum’ with global cooling.
Repent Now!
Finally please consider Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures
and the World Will End in 12 Years.
But there are only 11 years left now (we’ve already wasted a year), so please repent while you still can.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Separately, to some other posters above … do not confuse environmental damage with climate change. Modern humans cause a lot of environmental damage, true. That is ecologic stupidity and should be restrained. However, that isn’t climate science, and has a very tiny impact of global temperatures and climate.
Realist, what you have here is pop science and strawmen. The 5 stages ….etc blah blah blah. Just because you say so, doesn’t make it so. I could say the same thing in reverse – you are a denier of the real science. Eventually you will be proved wrong as 20 or 50 years later the world will still exist more or less in the same condition as now. Comparing climate science to gravity is a strawman, and shows your weak, muddled, scientific mind. Keeping an open mind, taking data strictly on its merits untainted by political or popular pressure, is the only way to advance the science. Stating flatly that the science is settled blinds you to data that contradict the conclusions you prefer. Why are highly respected scientists being hounded and pressured to recant their doubts? Real science does not do this. As I said earlier, the topic has been hijacked by people who have made up their minds based on emotive pictures painted in popular media. When that happens, nothing you read in the popular media can be relied upon. Eventually the reality will be seen as time passes and none of the alarmist predictions come true. Btw, so far NONE of the climate alarmist predictions have come true. And you still believe in the models that generated them?
Wow, I didn’t really intend to cause such an intense argument! 😀
In Mish’s defence, I don’t think he doubts Global warming is happening, only that humans are the cause of it. I don’t agree but we’re all entitled to our 1 vote.
Thanks for some of the science@Realist , I always find it interesting.
As I mentioned before, the long term temperature chart in my view is very telling, unless of course you think it’s inaccurate. All the global cooling and warming of the past is included within it; the mini ice age, grape growing in the North, whatever, its all in it. It is clear to me that the breakout near recent times is unusual. So even without the science, it indicates a new moving trend upwards. As this is a global economics forum, and many are used to reading financial charts, I’m surprised that others don’t read it this way as well. But everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just hope others might change their opinion as I have at some point, because once we all start attempting to address the issues the better our chances of survival.
I don’t see a good argument sustaining CAGW in that comic, just thinking errors — including that it is a very good example of how to mislead with statistics and graphs. Some of the problems are pointed out here:
It is kind of sad that Munroe is such a smart guy (my son loves all of his books) but falls for climate alarmism. I think this indicates how climate alarmism is not fundamentally about specific scientific issues, it is a creature of bad philosophy.
How about NASA’s then, it’s more or less the same.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Of course everyone’s entitled to think NASA’s research is inaccurate. This is some recent commentary on it.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2876/new-studies-increase-confidence-in-nasas-measure-of-earths-temperature/
Me personally, I’ll go with NASA rather than someone promoting a book.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day.
Why’s that then, I’d like to learn. 😀
Putting faith in the establishment because it is the establishment is foolish — especially when the explicit issue here is that the establishment might be biased. Note that those who put their faith in some supposed “consensus” are gleefully embracing the logical fallacy of argument from authority. Yes, that is what they are doing. And this is despite numerous examples of some supposed “scientific” consensus that turned out to be baloney. (See the last 50 years of establishment advice on diet.)
And disbelieving an author because he gets paid for each book he sells is retarded. You might as well not trust anyone for doing anything in their line of work, because they made money doing it.
Thanks for explaining Brad, much appreciated.
It’s my view that the NASA scientists are of independent minds and they arrive at their conclusions based on the results of their experiments and research. I don’t think the scientists have any vested interest in skewing the results one way or another. Whereas the book author does need to sell his story, which is basically saying he alone knows more than all the other scientists. If he had agreed with them he wouldn’t have a book. So I choose to accept the NASA & many others research. I understand you don’t, I’m not going to change your mind & I’m sure you realise I’m not either. 😀
Meanwhile, from the “it’s just weather” department, we have record cold November temperatures and massive snowfall across the Northern hemisphere…
It doesn’t matter what actually happens, the human-nature-hating zombies will take it as signs of sin. My tomatoes did terrible this year — probably because of Man’s depravity.
So far the predictive record of the climate doomsters makes economists look like the descendants of Nostradamus.
Good. Send the Saracen and African invaders back where they came from and leave Europe alone. The West should leave the natural environment of the Saracens and Africans alone too. Let them have it and enjoy it.
The Pope should go back home too.
It’s ironic that religion is believing in science. If not, then climate change is not science.
It is a difficult time to be a “real” environmentalist (one who truly cares about the environment) when most believe in the fake religion of global warming.
TOO little too late ! The ONLY problem on earth today are its 8 billion smug, consumerism craving human crappers, dramatically ruining ecosystems like never before….. The Pope(s), instead of stimulating population growth should have promulgated birth control, but that, of course, would ve been against the Church’s, the more, the more subjugated idiots policy….
What a misanthrope you are.
If you believe what you say, perhaps you should look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re still here.
A growing population is a boon, not a problem. The more people there are, the more ideas and innovation there will be – precisely the things that have enabled so many people to live on the planet in the first place.
What a foolish comment….Get out of your ivory tower, do some research on global poverty and environmental destruction, then come and tell me again there should be even more of us !
Development goes hand in hand with the more efficient use of resources. The more efficient we become, the less we damage the environment.
By the way, fertility rates are falling in ALL countries. Population is falling now in many countries already and one by one many other nations will join them.
I admire your optimism…. Just one example ; the tiny region where I live (Flanders) with its very intensive agriculture, produces 25% of european frozen vegetables…. We are literally peeing pesticides and I hardly see a bird in my garden these days, when hardly 20 years ago it used to be full of it…. Yes, we re making ‘progress’ indeed ….
the above comment was meant for@leicestersq ….
Hot is cold – https://youtu.be/St6E1cF00GA.
Making electricity prohibitively expensive will kill many more people than pollution, which is the point. The Pope and his band of pedophiles have the moral compass of a career politician.
Interestingly, the cooling that happened during the late 17th century through the early 19th has been primarily attributed to the mass die off of Native Americans due to disease. The reforestation of the Western Hemisphere snatched so much CO2 from the atmosphere that the entire globe cooled a couple of degrees.
So you now claim the native americans who were living in teepees were the problem?
How will higher taxes that your nutcase politicians effect the number of native americans?
Your extremist “professor”, when not scamming students into taking on more student debt, claims the cooling was primarily attributed to a mass die off — does this jackass have any actual evidence to back his bullshit? Or is he like all the other “academics” who silence discussion by threatening students with an “”F” if they don’t drink the kool aid?
Stop pretending like any of your political theater is established thinking. Your indoctrination centers are scams, they are not universities at all.
You have no idea what caused mass die off or global cooling hundreds of years ago. You don’t even know why your streets are currently infested with homelessness, disease, feces and used syringes. You can’t even understand your own street today.
But you expect us to accept your bullshit poltically motivated thinking about life centuries ago? You are a fraud.
So, to call myself an environmentalist now I should support burning trees for energy (Google Europe Burning Trees), support deforestation (google biodiesel deforestation), poison the earth by mining minerals required for batteries (most cannot be easily recycled) and support the elimination of most of mankind, as if reducing population makes a place better (Detroit).
Long ago I read how plastic were a solution to using trees. How has that solution worked out in the long term? If you want to know how well it will work out in the future just read above.
In the meantime, the more I read about history, the more I can see how weather or climate constantly changes, like how long-term droughts ended several civilizations (including the Mayans) in tropical areas.
Yes the weather or climate constantly changes. This time it’s changing a lot in a very short time period.
Look at that timeline above, (unlike most charts it’s to scale). If that was an asset chart, every trader would be piling in because it had broken resistance and was headed to the sky.
As they say about stock charts, past performance does not guarantee future performance.
As for rapid temperature change, Martin Armstrong has noted that a frozen woolly mammoth was found with food in its stomach.
After the last El Nino, the land/sea temperature dropped 1 degree C at a record pace. Temperature spiked up, then spiked down.
Per prior studies, the Little Ice Age began abruptly. That was about the year 1275. Per their own studies, it ended only in 1850. Changes over short spans of years have been documented multiple times in multiple locations. Plus as I noted above, the proposed solutions are often worse than what we are currently doing.
I can’t see any abrupt short term temperature changes on that timeline that are anywhere near as severe or as abrupt as the current one. They all seem to be within the long term cycles to me.
Maybe you’re right and this warming event will end just as abruptly but I’d rather trade with the trend rather than fight it. 😀
As for solutions that’s a big problem. Personally I think it’s probably too late to make much difference now. Some would therefore argue there’s not much point in trying to stop it. But that would be giving up!
Why not adapt? Humans have always adapted to changes and I don’t see why we can’t adapt to a few degrees.
I’ll believe people when the price of beach front property drops dramatically. As long as all of the famous (Obama and celebrities) are buying beach front properties, I will remain a skeptic.
I’ve given it more thought and have decided to back the pope. I think hastening the return of 5,000 feet of ice over Chicago will possibly slow the kill rate on the south side. Nothing else has.
Bless me father for I have sinned
I am a climate change denier – But Father, it’s not that I disbelieve in climate change, rather, I deny man is responsible for most of it.
I used to think that but I’ve been stopped out & reversed my position. 😀
Even if I ignore all the scientific views on it the dramatic change since the industrial revolution is too much of a coincidence in my view.
Scoot, I am unsure what you reversed from – to
Just a play on words. I now believe humans are mostly responsible for climate change whereas I neve used to.
Well, you will find out when before St. Peter. Luckily, he doesn’t care either way; he is a cosmologist. 🙂
With or without climate change, fact is that 8 billion human, consumption craving predators, living AGAINST the laws of nature are very busy destroying the planet! With or without climate change the result will be the same, climate change will merely speed up things ….
I know you don’t like being called out on your lies, but your extremism has become a threat to everyone else’s way of life.
Even your false prophet Obama is telling you that you have “lost rooting in reality” (his own words!!!). You are crazy
Perhaps the Vatican is financed by the same group that promotes Greta Thunberg. I find hundreds of more dots connecting climate change to profit than to CO2.
Jorge Bergoglio is jesuit, a facet now promoted in the vatican. There is a lot of criticism or jesuit history, in europe, also its previous ties in Argentina. So there is evangelism and the jesuit order of conquest that are maybe in some competition now, the vatican is closer to socialist themes, but the mode of power is via the harder political structure of various nations, that is nationalism and socialism combined in religion for you. When I say nationalism, that includes viewing EU as a nation. I don’t like what is going on, traditional catholicism seems to be being ushered into these camps.
Our host must be so happy with all the hits this is getting. I wonder if this will do better than Trump’s impeachment. :-))
One of the articles, quoted NASA.
This is a link to their web page on the topic.
https://climate.nasa.gov/
I’m just profoundly thankful that he didn’t re-convene the Inquisition to hunt down and burn idiots like me who’ve spent their adult lives solving real problems with actual data and can’t see one damn thing in the entire tree hugger frenzy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.
Like the “world ending in 12 years” thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal.
But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows.
“you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal.”
Or the actual intelligence of a progressive…
“The meaning of life is that it ends”
― Franz Kafka
So, anyone a view on where on the temperature timeline chart to place a stop loss? 😀
Hey, he’s just doing his part to usher in the one world government to bring about the prophesy of Armageddon.
Ironic Zero Hedge Headline today: “German Farmers Block Hamburg In Revolt Against Globalist Environmental Regulations”
This is a post from a science forum I enjoy reading.
”While the Earth might have naturally cycled back into an ice age in 50,000 years’ time in the absence of emissions, we’re unlikely to see one for at least 100,000 years because of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere.
Postponing the next ice age could, in theory, be more good than bad, as major crop growing regions such as the American Midwest were once buried under a mile of ice. But part of the reason they are so productive is that glaciation delivered nutrients to the soil by grinding up rock.
Unfortunately we are playing with forces on a geological scale. A tree is, by weight, largely fossilised air. The fossil fuels we burn were essentially precipitated out of our atmosphere over millions of years, we’ve been burning them and adding the back to the atmosphere over a few decades.
The Earth’s climate varies naturally but it’s the speed of the current warming that is so concerning. During the last ice age global temperatures were about 4.5 degrees cooler due to Milankovitch Cycles and glaciation (ice has a high albedo and reflects the Sun’s light into space). We could be looking at a similar temperature rise by the end of the century. I don’t like to think about what crop and fishery yields might look like in such a world.
Our civilisation is an experiment with an uncertain outcome.”
They have no idea what causes an ice age, never mind any reputable model of how much a phenomenon they don’t understand might be “postponed”.
What a giant load of crap.
Very scientific 😀
” I don’t like to think about what crop and fishery yields might look like in such a world.”
You can pretty much rest assured aggregate yields will remain plenty higher than they were in the pre-diesel-trawler, industrial fertilizer and fishfarming era.
Among the politicians who wrote the Paris Accord, all but one arrived in an up-armored diesel breathing limo, escorted by dozens of armored security SUVs belching more gasoline. If any of these criminals actually believed in something other than higher and higher taxes, they would have practiced what they preached.
Voting, taxpaying farmers in Germany shut down most traffic in Hamburg today in protest of absurd eco-terrorism “laws” (edicts? fatwas?) imposed by Berlin. Farmers are expected to cut their use of fertilizers and pesticides by 50%, while the criminal class in Berlin isn’t cutting their use of political jet flights at all. If Berlin actually was worried about the environment, they would practice what they preach.
.
“Thou shall have no God before Me” — God (according to the Torah, Bible and Koran)
“As of now, I am in charge!” — current duplicate pope
Airplanes don’t emit ammonia or neonicotinoids. Besides, permissable levels have been around for a while, they’re just being forced by court injunctions to apply the law.
(1) Last week the eco-terrorists were complaining about CO2. Having lost that argument and embarassing themselves in the process, now you want to gripe about ammonia and neonicotinoids?
(2) Farms have been around a LOT longer than airplanes
(3) If these politicians actually believed in more than perpetual tax increases, they would lead by example. They know its all crap
(4) The dupli-pope is still violating one of the actual 10 Commandments
Just pointing out that this time around it’s not about global warming or CO².
🙂
But it was never about CO2 or global warming or the coming “new ice age” (the official waring report the same group sent to the UN back in the 1970s).
There was never any science behind it at all.
It was always about raising taxes for more extreme left leaning political objectives. They thought they could get a bunch of academics to mumble some science sounding nonsense and that would silence opposition faster than antifa could.
It was never science. It was always politics.
Just give up on that world will end in 12 years meme. Makes you look really really stupid.
LMAO, this world has gone mad. The 12 year thing just really blows me away. It’s just impossible for me to imagine people are saying that and, worse yet, people are believing it! We’re in for serious trouble imo. Im glad im as old as I am I dont think I could handle much more. Of course only being 50 theres plenty of time see how screwed up the likes of AOC and this dumbass Pope can make things. I’m pretty sure this place is going to erupt sooner or later.
Good for the Pope. Anyone over 50 years old can see the weather has changed dramatically. Climate change deniers have to answer the question: since I was a kid the amount of carbon dioxide, which is undeniably a ‘greenhouse gas’ has increased from 270 to over 400 ppm. I am at a loss as to why anyone would think this would not have a significant effect and think only common sense would dictate that deniers show that such an increase will have no effect.
Even if you think global warming is hogwash: 1) Oil in the Middle East gives that benighted region great influence on the rest of the world. I have never heard anyone claim that’s a good thing. 2) If that isn’t a sufficiently good reason, note that there is a finite amount of oil, coal, and natural gas. When it’s gone, it’s GONE.
See my post. Try thinking in terms of geologic time. Explain the Roman Warm Period, as well as the Holocene Climate Optimum of around 5000 years ago.
Yeah. I worked as a geologist for 10 years. I’m now an astrophysicist. I may be an idiot in economics but I have a pretty good grasp of the science behind climate change and I really don’t think there’s any room for doubt. Cherry picking an article with on valid reference like above proves nothing, other than the evidence for denial is pretty slim.
I had a roommate who did the first PhD dissertation on the climate within the Roman Empire. He showed it was a bit warmer there, certainly more rainy in North Africa, most likely due to a unusually strong Gulf Stream. Ocean currents distribute the vast majority of the earth’s heat budget. From time to time they change and you can get rather dramatic changes in local climates, perhaps 10 degrees in 20-30 years. The Holocene Climate Optimism can probably be explained by the Milankovitch cycle. Nothing but rising CO2 levels explains the present rapid heat up of the entire planet.
Meanwhile here on earth, everything has been pretty much exactly the same since the little ice age.
I didn’t read over what I replied to you and it was pretty snarky. I apologize.
Since you were a kid, the amount of cell phones have increased a lot more than that. Ditto websites and plenty of other stuff. All of which has undeniably had “an effect.” But… So what??
If the earth was much, much warmer in previous eras, yet seems to have recovered just fine no worse for the wear; why get all tied in a knot just because today may be a degree warmer than the day you got your first kiss? If you find that degree unbearably unpleasant, just have a cold, carbonated soda and burp some CO2 into the atmosphere….
1 degree I’m not too concerned about. At 2 degrees C it looks like methane frozen in the tundra will melt and that’s a greenhouse gas 30x stronger than CO2. At some point, a runaway greenhouse effect occurs. Of course, the half life of methane in the atmosphere is about 32 years so it might not be so bad.
The standard of proof in the physical sciences is pretty high and I have never read a denier publication that met such a standard. There are some pretty good scientists who think the global warming we see is not related to human activity but none of them has shown why this would be the case. There is some evidence that perhaps a third of the warming seen so far is due to some odd solar activity but that still leaves two thirds unaccounted for.
Quite a few non-scientist advocates are a bit hysterical, like AOC, etc.
The lack of solar activity (sunspots to the layman) is odd, but right after Galileo first observed sunspots none were seen again for 200 years. I suppose it’s not impossible that this oddity in the sun’s magnetic field was connected with the Little Ice Age, but we just don’t know, the sun’s magnetic field is something we just don’t have a good handle on. Look it up on Wiki. The graph shows the decrease in temperature from the average of the last 2000 years is about half the increase seen in the last 20. (They use 1950-1980 as a baseline, that can throw you off).
In any case, as I wrote earlier, as long as the world depends on oil the Middle East is going to be rich and meddling with the rest of the planet. That, all by itself, is a good reason to move away from oil at least.
My effect is called “physics”. It’s proved to be useful for understanding phenomena of many different kinds. I guess since I understand the science and what the near future effects are likely to be I don’t have the luxury of not being concerned.
Sorry astroboy, but many physicists contradict what you’re saying. If you’re going to use science, you have to accept that there are many who disagree with you.
Remember phlogiston?
So, based on on your two responses combined, you are genuinely concerned the earth will experience a runaway methane burp mediated warming, rendering it like Venus? I.e. at at completely different, stable, local “fixed point”, completely at odds with pretty much all and any life as we know it?
20-30 years ago, when “climate” alarmism first started gaining traction, these sorts of “Venus” scenarios were bandied about as possible, or perhaps even likely or unavoidable end points, if CO2 emissions was not curbed. If that is a genuine concern of your, as it was of mine for a short period, I can understand you are concerned.
But that particular scare story seems to have largely died away. I don’t follow the science (largely because the S/N ratio is darned near indistinguishable from zero, due to decades-long policies of degree-decorating dunces, and politically motivated petty scientism.) closely enough to know exactly why it was taken off the table.
So I’m working from the assumption that burning fossil fuels won’t knock temperatures into the ocean boiling range anytime soon. And as long as that is the case, we’re still within a model where stable equilibria are not wholesale traded for entirely different ones. And hence, “the climate” won’t suddenly “run away” to somewhere else entirely, and the world will be just fine. Just, possibly, a bit warmer than back when the boomers were rolling around in mud like pigs, during Woodstock.
I should have made it clear I wasn’t talking about a Venus scenario. You’d have to boil the oceans off first…..
The warmest known period on Earth in the past 500 million years was the Triassic. This is the period immediately after the Permian ice age and the Great Dying at around 252 million years ago. See this;
https://www.britannica.com/science/Permian-extinction
We are currently in an inter-glacial (inter-stadial) of the current ongoing ice age (or icehouse conditions if you prefer);icehouse conditions being defined as any period when Earth has permanent polar ice caps. See the graph on this page
http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html
I would have placed a screenshot, but it won’t post for some reason.
The Mueller witch hunt and hearsay-gate have proven beyond any doubt that the Obama regime was too corrupt to even regulate itself — a corrupt FBI head, a corrupt CIA head, an AG having secret meetings on closed runways, and Biden shaking down Ukraine for a high paying job for his druggie son. Obama was aware of all of this, and at best looked the other way (and in some cases covered it up, Nixon style).
Having said all that, Obama was just quoted in the liberal paper of record saying, “Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality.”
Obama is trying to put a good spin on it, but he is telling these nutjobs that they are not rooted in reality.
Oh, and neither pope matters any more. There are two popes because the Vatican was embroiled in so much corruption that one had to abdicate to a socialist (atheist) — Rome has lost credibility even among Catholics. There is enough artwork in the vatican basement to fund decades of poverty reduction… if the Church actually cared about that.
I’m sure the bogus pope will hop aboard his Aliltalia jet, while the pope-mobile and leonardo dicaprio and greta theFraud and prince Harry each fly in separate jets… telling all the little people not to behave like them. Do as we say not as we do, and keep paying more to support our lifestyle while you all wallow in poverty.
They erected a statue of Molech at the Colloseo entrance less than 3 miles from Satanican, er, Vatican city yet he doesn’t say a word but climate change…
Interesting thing about the environment. A lot of recyclables were packaged up and sent over to China to be their problem to deal with. Then China decided not to accept them going forward, dumping the problem back on Americans to deal with. I am aware of at least one U.S. community where the solution became to incinerate recyclables, which has resulted air pollution in their locality.
California is phasing out plastic straws, which democrats imagine are being thrown wholesale into the Pacific Ocean by Californians, while the material in the great Pacific plastic garbage patch is mostly coming from Asia.
The Democratic Party elites are massively sinning against the environment. None are massively cutting their carbon footprint. Obama just bought a $15 million dollar beach front mansion. Imagine the carbon intensive activities produced by the owners of mansions.
The elitists don’t even believe their own propaganda. If they did, they would be drastically cutting their carbon footprint to set an example for all to follow.
I remember a previous drought, when Los Angeles was under water rationing, with Mayor Villaragosa getting caught watering his lawn outside the restrictions residents were subjected to.
The pope will still fly a massive Alitlalia 747, while his pope mobile is flown ahead on a separate plane.
The vatican will sit on billions in fine art, packed in the vatican basement where no one can see it, even though that art could sell for enough to fund decades of poverty relief … if the vatican actually cared about poverty.
Prince harry and leonardo dicaprio each flew separate private jets to meet up with many other private jets at a giant “screw the little people” eco-terrorism convention.
That bitch Pelosi is still exempt from Obamacare, and so is Obama himself. If Obamacare was a workable plan, why aren’t those two crooks leading by example?
“The elitists don’t even believe their own propaganda.” Are you suggesting that Obummer would not have bought a mansion a few feet above sea level if he really thought sea levels would be rising?
“.. they would be drastically cutting their carbon footprint.. “
Unfortunately that means wearing the right size boots, something they abhor. You would think common sense would dictate that to lead by example would be apt for a communal theme, but hypocrisy was always very clever with excuses, and the more so when self serving can be described as to the benefit of all. This is very much the tragedy of the commons, where individual rights are overwritten by a globalist theme, the concept being of imposed management where individual actions failed. Simple fact is that the more mankind does, and in whatever sense, the more destructive it is to mankind-free nature, and often to mankind itself. That is a paradox I don’t have an answer for, because if you restrain resource use, others will prosper with them instead. They are likely to be more ruthless into the bargain. At a personal level though, anyone is able to live more environmentally, more within the bounds of being less wasteful, if only for the sake of it. That is where true change occurs, not from the heel of authority, or contrived shaming by the well to do touting the latest ideological fashion like a pretty garment.
I have thought that it would be beneficial to relocate the papacy to Africa. The benefits are obvious; the bible says multiply and populate the earth, so Africa seems like an ideal place.
True, it would break some traditions, but the pope seems to be keen on breaking European traditions, so a win-win.
The Vatican is a too sterile a place to take the pulse of the planet.
There is nothing wrong with being an environmentalist, but being a dumb one is.
Keep this sort of PC pandering nonsense up, and, at best, SSPX or some such will walk all over what little “authority” may still remain in Rome.
O no. More sunspot BS from Anthony Watts instead of from physicists who have actually measured the correlation between solar irradiance and sunspot activity.
As for the pope, it’s not just about CO², it’s about leaving behind our garbage and depleting non-renewable resources and offloading the costs to future generations. Yes, don’t worry about soil, phosphor, ground water … the market is Providence.
Good way to piss off the remaining Catholics. Maybe he should concentrate on letting priests marry instead.