Monday, March 18, AD 2024 11:29pm

Pope Francis: Green Crusade

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300-199x300

 

Pope Francis continues his Green Crusade:

 

 

Reuters reports, “Pope Francis urged national leaders on Monday to implement global environmental agreements without delay, a message that looked to be squarely aimed at U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.

“Addressing a group of scientists that included theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, the pope gave his strongest speech on the environment since the election of Trump, who has threatened to pull out of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.

‘The ‘distraction’ or delay in implementing global agreements on the environment shows that politics has become submissive to a technology and economy which seek profit above all else,’ Francis said.”

 

So the pope thinks opposition to the Paris Treaty stems from profit seeking?

How about all the billions in profits sought by renewable energy corporations like wind turbine makers General Electric and Siemens or solar panel makers First Solar and Solar City, whose products can’t compete economically with fossil fuels or nuclear without massive government subsidies and mandates?

How about the billions of taxpayer dollars showered on Solyndra and similar now-bankrupt renewable energy companies?

 

Go here to read the rest.  One large problem within the Church, which I am sure will never be addressed, is the willingness of Popes to enlist the authority of the Church in causes which have bupkis to do with the mission of the Church to spread the Gospel of Christ.  Climate Change rests on dubious science, and even more dubious assumptions that Man can impact significantly the global climate.  However, even if this were not the case, fighting global warming is simply not a job for the Church, and popes need to stop riding their hobby horses through the Vatican for causes which detract from the great goal of the Church:  to bring all Men to Christ.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
18 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Wednesday, December 7, AD 2016 4:32am

Pope Francis has ridden that hobby to all new heights. I pray that the one positive thing to come out of this embarrassment of a pontificate is that the future leaders of the Church will realize that taking sides on policy matters that have nothing to do with faith and morals is very destructive to the mission of the Church and act accordingly. But I’m afraid that that prayer will not be answered to my liking in this life.

pengiuns fan
pengiuns fan
Wednesday, December 7, AD 2016 5:54am

Trump to Pope: I’ll look into it.
Hangs up phone.
Tears up treaty.
Deposits said treaty in circular file.
I wish he could say: YOU’RE FIRED!

Father of Seven
Father of Seven
Wednesday, December 7, AD 2016 6:05am

What a phony. This pope goes on and on about his love of the poor. The very first people harmed by this foolishness will be the poor. How long oh Lord, how long?

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Wednesday, December 7, AD 2016 7:04am

Well, guys, this is one topic that boils my blood, so here goes with my rant – sorry.
.
If these eco-wacko enviro-nazi nit wits really believed in anthropogenic global warming, then they would never cease crying out of nuclear, more nuclear to replace fossil fuel. They would realize that less than 30% capacity factor wind and solar are useless and worthless. They would understand that at night and on cloudy days there’s no solar and on windless days no wind. They would comprehend that a single pellet of uranium or thorium the size of a finger nail contains as much energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of oil, and when used in a reactor generates ZERO carbon pollution. They would accept that so-called nuclear waste is nothing but fuel for advanced fast neutron burner reactors which leave behind no long lived actiinides, and that we don’t have a waste problem at all but a vast resource of used nucler fuel waiting to be consumed again.
.
But this Pope – that idiot Argentinian Marxist Peronist – wants to get suckered in by this movement which gives Caesar ever more power. His narcissism, his desire for popularity, his addiction to the cameras and attention by the news media, leaves him no other choice.
.
And Caesar? He wants that carbon tax on fossil fuel bcause it means MONEY. Govt has no intentions of ever replacing fossil fuel with something that doesn’t pollute. Every wind farm, ever solar station is a methane gas (how I hate the term natural gas – why not natural uranium?) turbine plant that has to run 70% of the time to make up for what wind and solar cannot generate! Every wind and solar station is thus a carbon polluter.
.
It’s all a freaking joke, people, and you and I are the butt of the joke, and Jorge Bergoglio is the freaking clown. I have ZERO respect for these people. NONE. ZIP POINT SQUAT. They know no science, no engineering, no mathematics. And on top of all that, what is even worse for the Pope is this. Jesus said:
.
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore 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. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
.
He did NOT say:
.
“Help govt save the environment.”
.
Ths Pope’s job is preaching the Gospel of righteousness and holiness, repentance and conversion, NOT eco-wacko idiocy. Sadly, he is a heretic and he must therefore be deposed and anathematized. Perhaps only God can do that. May He have mercy on Bergoglio when that is done. May He have mercy on us all.

Philip
Philip
Wednesday, December 7, AD 2016 10:08am

This is the front our Holiness should be considered about and speaking the Truth about; https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/12-quotes-against-sodomy-that-every-catholic-should-know?utm_source=TFP+Student+Action+Newsletter&utm_campaign=d7852d2608-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_eff1d66637-d7852d2608-137259289

In this climate change the soul is doomed for hell. Eternity.

Why isn’t the Pope concerned about all souls?
Eternal life especially.

Is he homosexual?

Short sightedness that costs the loss of souls for eternity is by far a worse scenario than buying into man made climate change.

Pope or Politician?
What is he doing to stop the lie of “lifestyle choices?”

Michael Dowd
Michael Dowd
Thursday, December 8, AD 2016 3:36am

For someone who contradicts or misunderstands Catholic doctrine which he should know something about, why would we listen to Pope Francis on climate change which he knows nothing about?

Lisa Bourne
Lisa Bourne
Thursday, December 8, AD 2016 8:52am

Amen.

ExNOAAman
ExNOAAman
Thursday, December 8, AD 2016 7:58pm

There are only 3 implications/possibilities for those that still fall for the global warming hoax…
1. He’s very misinformed.
……..I think this is unlikely,
2. He’s stupid as a stick
………this is proven to be untrue, based in his past record and education, and accomplishments
Or
3. He’s up to something.
……whatever it is, it can’t be from God. And sadly, I feel this is the most likely of the 3.

The Christian Teacher
The Christian Teacher
Friday, December 9, AD 2016 12:58am

Here, here!

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, December 9, AD 2016 7:16am

Some call it “green graft.”
.
The climate alarmists are not concerned that their schemes and plots will impoverish the middle class, further harm poor people, and (most importantly) enrich favored billionaires. “Nothing in American politics is more corrupt than the environmental movement. . . . What’s it all about? Money. Money for the politically connected, at your expense.”

Joey
Joey
Friday, December 9, AD 2016 11:27am

Conservative Catholic here. Climate change does not rest on dubious science, and let me tell you Donald, when you make that claim you cast doubts on your own credibility in the minds of other people. Maybe it’s because I’m a millennial and I was exposed to solid climate science in my top-rate high school education, but I can tell you, Donald, that when you make these claims that are against nigh universal scientific consensus, scientific-minded people turn away from you and, more importantly, what you represent – the Church. I have seen it first hand, and one common denominator in people who make claims about climate denialism or the age of the Earth being 6,000 years old is that they don’t understand the effect their assertions have on people who are raised and immersed in science (whereas nearly all of the people spouting these views, in my experience, are not). Because the Church is not anti-science, the Pope has some great scientific minds on which to consult in the Vatican, and they unanimously agree that climate change is a thing and that humans play a role. Pope Francis is reacting in a rational way – taking care of the environment is clearly a Christian duty that is well-backed by good science.

Does that mean the left is entirely correct when it comes to climate change? No. There is a lot of overblown hysteria that deserves to be called out as nonsense. That climate change is a thing and humans play *some* role is not disputable; what is disputable is the extent to which humans contribute to it and the extent to which we can prevent it. The left has a tendency to exaggerate both. From a political perspective you should focus on demanding solutions from the left that don’t rest excuses for government overreach, not outright denialism, which chases intelligent people away from the Church.

All this is coming from someone who is frustrated with a lot of Francis’ papacy. I have no doubt that he deeply cares for the poor and his environmental convictions are sincere and productive, but morally and theologically I think he lacks clarity, which has had a hugely negative impact on his papacy. I get that he has been widely misinterpreted but some of that falls on his shoulders as he has a responsibility to consider how his statements are being received. He seems to be terribly afraid of offending people, even when that is necessary.

My point is it’s entirely possible to be orthodox and conservative without denying that a still-undetermined degree of man-made climate change exists.

Joey
Joey
Friday, December 9, AD 2016 12:37pm

If I provided you with a barrage of links critiquing the points of those articles, would you be willing to consider them?

exNOAAman
exNOAAman
Friday, December 9, AD 2016 12:53pm

“…people who are raised and immersed in science (whereas nearly all of the people spouting these views, in my experience, are not)”

Joey…Those of us who actually are scientists; (including weathermen); laugh at this strangely common accusation, which generally comes from very unscientific institutions. But please pay no attention to our credentials. They mean nothing to nature’s laws. FACTS are facts no matter who points them out. That is why, in the old fable, it was a little boy who declared that the emperor had no clothes.
Keep praying brother. When I was your age, I’m sure I was stubborn too. God bless.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Friday, December 9, AD 2016 12:58pm

Joey, if you really and truly believe in anthropogenic global warming, then do you support the ONLY means that can replace fossil fuel on a 24 hour per day, seven day per week basis: nuclear energy? Or do you posit that wind and solar with their capacity factors of less than 30% (which always requires polluting CH4 gas turbine backup as spinning reserve) can suffice? If the latter is the case, then you confirm everything I think about eco-wacko enviro-nazis.
.
Should we take care of the environment, being stewards thereof since God gave us dominion over it? YES! But is man made for the environment, or did God make the environment for man? The latter – God made Earth for man, NOT vice versa.
.
Will dumping billions of tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere every year, using it as our trash can, have unintended effects? YES! But are those effects really global warming? Really?
.
And if global warming is real, then why aren’t the purveyors of this scaremongering advocating that we go full tilt nuclear instead of opposing nuclear tooth and nail?
.
I hate environmentalism almost as much as I do liberalism.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, December 9, AD 2016 1:28pm

Possibly, in the (hopefully) far future when the green extremists have decreased Earth’s population from 6+ billion to 300 or 400 million, the geniuses will be able to power humanity’s necessary activities with zephyrs, sun beams, and unicorn farts.
.
Speaking of refunds, I told my wife she needs to get some money back on her 16 years of Catholic education. She didn’t know that the Annunciation was not the Immaculate Conception, or vice versa, until Father Tom reiterated it yesterday.
.
Joey, In nine or ten years you will realize that you don’t know everything, and your parents aren’t complete idiots.
.
Post-modern science and liberalism in general start with an agenda/conclusion and proceed to “validates” the BS by only reporting that which supports the agenda/conclusion: here green graft, the impoverishment of billions of peoples, and $$$ billions of other people’s money flowing to favored constituencies, ala, Solyndra, Tesla, et al.
.
The anti-fossil fuels, global warming graft, faux science was spawned in the 1950’s in Britain when it was desired by the nascent nuclear energy industry.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Friday, December 9, AD 2016 3:21pm

Even though I am a pro-nuclear energy activist, I think T. Shaw is correct when he writes:
.
“The anti-fossil fuels, global warming graft, faux science was spawned in the 1950’s in Britain when it was desired by the nascent nuclear energy industry.”
.
The reason why I think T. Shaw is correct is because of what Dr. Alvin Weinberg, former head of Oak Ridge National Laboratory back in the 50s through 80s, wrote in his book, “The First Nuclear Era: The Life and Times of a Technology Fixer.” (Anyone who loves history and science should read that book – Donald! – ha! ha!). In it Dr. Weinberg several times mentions greenhouse gas warming of the planet as an incentive to develop nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels. But this backfired on the nuclear power industry because the big coal industry responded with foreboding about the effects of radiation that resounded with so much fear in the uneducated American populace who came to associate nuclear energy with nuclear bombs. Never mind the fact that coal fired power plants release more radioactivity in the form of uranium, radium and thorium which occur naturally in coal. The Rockefellers championed a study that hyped up the asinine linear no threshold theory of radiation dose exposure and that completely combatted the global warming scare with which at the time the public could not identify. But fresh from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear fears got stoked and nuclear languished.
.
Of course few if any know this history which set us on the road of dependence on oil, gas and coal. Truthfully, I for one do not believe in global warming, but that crap is championed by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the American Nuclear Society, etc. However, all that said, we would be better off going full scale nuclear NOT because of global warming but because overall it is safer. Mortality rate in nuclear is lowest of all forms of energy production, including the accidents at Windscale, Chalk River, SL1, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima. That’s a fact:
.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html?m=1
.
And that is what the nuclear industry should champion, not this global warming crap.
.
But justice is served. Dr Weinberg purported the stupid global warming crap way back when, and now not even the eco-wacko enviro-nazis whom he coddled will support the energy source to which he devoted his life and which could replace fossil fuel. Imagine that!

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top