Aussie Cardinal Pell Disputes “global warming hypothesis”

CNA reports:

In the April 20 edition of the Australian newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph, Cardinal George Pell expressed his concern regarding the “global warming hypothesis” in an article titled, “Global warming is over.”

Cardinal Pell began his article by giving recent examples of countries that have experienced more bitter temperatures and heavier snow than usual.

... The cardinal stated that while “the world is much bigger than both China and Canada combined, which might be the exceptions to the new rule of man-made global warming, but they are inconvenient facts for the climate-change bandwagon.”

"And it is an intolerant bandwagon with loud, exaggerated claims that the issue is settled and that an unchallenged consensus among scientists confirms the hypothesis of dangerous, humanly caused global warming. In fact, the issue is far from settled.”

He continued by listing three significant points. [Read them here.]

The pope's impassioned speech on global warming ... that wasn't

British tabloids and other less-than-reputable news organizations claimed last year, early in the papal visit planning process, that Pope Benedict would use his speech at the United Nations to "deliver a powerful warning over climate change." At the time of these rumors, I published a lengthy rebuttal of their accuracy and likelihood.

It's worth repeating some of the claims that were circulated:

The Pope is expected to use his first address to the United Nations to deliver a powerful warning over climate change in a move to adopt protection of the environment as a "moral" cause for the Catholic Church and its billion-strong following....

....It will act as the centrepiece of a US visit scheduled for next April – the first by Benedict XVI, and the first Papal visit since 1999 – and round off an environmental blitz at the Vatican, in which the Pope has personally led moves to emphasise green issues based on the belief that climate change is affecting the poorest people on the planet, and the principle that believers have a duty to "protect creation".

Today, now that the speech has been delivered and made available, I went looking for the pope's "centrepiece" to complete the Vatican's "environmental blitz" making it a "moral cause for the Catholic Church." This is what I found:

"....questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet. I am thinking especially of those countries in Africa and other parts of the world which remain on the margins of authentic integral development, and are therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalization."

"... international action to preserve the environment and to protect various forms of life on earth must not only guarantee a rational use of technology and science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of creation. This never requires a choice to be made between science and ethics: rather it is a question of adopting a scientific method that is truly respectful of ethical imperatives."

Note what the pope is actually worried about: environmental and climate protection are one among many moral imperatives facing the international community, with his eye especially on regions of Africa that suffer underdevelopment (as opposed to the "overdevelopment" of industrialized nations).

Furthermore, this entire project must possess a "rational use of technology and science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of creation", which necessarily implies a union of "science and ethics." The authentic image of creation which the Church reveals is always connected to the idea that creation is meant to serve the human person, who receives the fruits of creation as a reward for his labor.

Of course, abuses of the environment, which may have ill-effects on the climate, are against the image of creation, but this is so because the ultimate meaning of creation is tied up with the image of man who is the steward and custodian of creation. That's why the pope talks about "ethics," because it is only human persons who are bound to act "ethically" and see that their actions do not impinge upon the rights of the global community.

If the UK tabloids were looking for their "moral cause" - they've found it: preservation of the image of creation by those who are made in the image of God on behalf of those made in the image of God. People first!

The Seven New Deadly Sins ... That Are Not.

This is a classic case of British tabloid sensationalism. The headlines:

"Recycle or go to Hell, warns Vatican" - UK Telegraph

"Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?" - UK Times

Oh come now.

Margaret at InsideCatholic has the right response. (breath, count to 10, move on).

Still, Reuters isn't far behind. At least they note that the Archbishop spoke mostly about bioethics.

And my heart goes out to poor Ed Morrissey at Hot Air who tries to make sense of all this.

If anyone has access to the original L'Osservatore Romano text, I'd appreciate a gander.

update: a little traction on the story from the CNS NewsHub. AP coverage here. So. Many. Errors.

update 2: Phil Lawler on "Not "new sins" but an old media blind spot. Clarifying for us what needed to be clarified, but better than most of us could do it, and succinctly:

'Archbishop Girotti said that the modern world does not understand the nature of sin. With their coverage of the interview, the mass media unintentionally underlined the prelate's point."

Recent reports suggest global cooling + increases in arctic ice

Because I'm feeling somewhat masochistic and this topic always gets heated:

"Heart-ache: Temperature records indicate … global cooling?" - Hot Air

Quoting this article:

"All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously…

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it."

Now, hold onto your fur coats, I agree with this article that says "one winter does not a climate make." However, can we also agree on this observation?:

" ... if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

That's really all I ask, at this point.

German company to provide solar power to Vatican Paul VI hall

TotalCatholic reports that the rumors have taken a step towards reality:

A German solar company has given Pope Benedict XVI an electricity-generating solar rooftop for the Vatican’s Paul VI audience hall.

Bonn-based SolarWorld is donating approximately 2,000 solar modules to be installed on the audience hall roof to provide what it claims will be “the very first solar power ever generated in the Vatican”.

A press release (The Fourth Gift of the Three Kings: 'A Solar Cell') includes this quote from the CEO:

"If the Three Wise Men from the East came to Bethlehem today they would in all probability bring a solar cell in addition to gold, frankincense and myrrh. It is the symbol for the preservation of creation and for the energy supply of the future."

Riiiiiiiiiight. And I imagine it would probably be a solar cell manufactured by your fine company.

So, exactly when is the Vatican going to cease associating itself with such silliness?!

Anyone who doubts MMGW must work for Exxon-Mobile

In response to this news that the "consensus" on MMGW is in-fact shrinking:

"More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says."...

... Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, according to the report.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," atmospheric scientist Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in the report. - Washington Times

How does the Gore camp respond? With an acknowledgement that research must continue?

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp. (underlining mine)

Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

Far from it. Why argue the science when you can accuse the opposition of corruption?

Read the U.S. Senate Committee Minority report here.

Al Gore & the Pope's Holiday Un-Greenery

Apologies in advance for mentioning Al Gore. Don't be upset - my purpose this time is to amuse:

"Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs — even on his Christmas tree." - AP

... did you catch it? That's right, Al Gore murdered a tree. Unless, of course, he went outside and decorated a living tree. Or had the tree delicately removed from its soil with the roots intact. Somehow, I doubt it.

Of course, over in uber-industrialized Rome, Pope Benedict has wantonly decreed the merciless felling of a mighty, old-growth, 140-year-old, 75-foot-plus, 3-ton Christmas tree. With the decoration lights included, I have no idea how much net carbon dioxide is going to be released into the atmosphere. Probably some.

To add insult to injury, that huge tree is going to be plopped-down right next to a nativity scene.

What are its seventeen life-sized nativity figures made from? You guessed it: previously-living wood.

And the worst of it is, Santa can't give either of these two a lump of coal for Christmas. They might burn it.

Did the Pope condemn "climate change prophets of doom"?

Earlier this week (the day it was issued), I blogged that Pope Benedict had released his Message for the 2008 Day of World Peace. Paragraphs 7 & 8 of that document are entitled "The family, the human community and the environment." Vatican analyst John Allen, in his coverage of the document, said that it represented a "distinctively Catholic shade of green." An excerpt:

On the environmental front, however, Benedict is also well aware that his budding eco-advocacy has drawn fire from critics who warn that it gives aid and comfort to radical secular environmentalists, including thinkers who deny any special moral status to human beings or who reject Biblical notions of human stewardship of the earth as excessively "anthropocentric."

Thus in today’s message, Benedict was careful to signal that he’s not ready to sign up for an “Earth First!” membership card.

I think that's a fairly accurate read of the situation, and nothing here should surprise anyone who is aware of the Church's long-standing tradition of respecting the environment but giving humanity priority.

Today, however, the UK Daily Mail tried to make the Pope's message sensational:

"The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom"

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.

Of course, you don't find the DM using any quotation marks because the Pope said nothing so specific.

I think two excerpts from the actual document are most pertinent to this question:

#7 ...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....

#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...

Here Pope Benedict is making the simple (but almost universally-ignored) observation that the rush to arrive at a "consensus" in the man-made global-warming debate is a disservice to humanity (when it spreads overblown fears and promotes useless "solutions"), and furthermore that artificial, ideologically-driven consensus violates the usual methods of good scientific hypothesis-testing.

Pope Benedict spends a large portion of his message speaking about the role prudence should play:

"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."

He also succintly lays out the two poles of morality that should guide decision-making about the environment:

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.

In what remains (I've already quoted practically everything he has to say), Pope Benedict notes:

• The poor must not be excluded their share in the goods of creation.
• By the same token, the costs of preserving the environment must be shared justly.
• Technologically advanced countries should reassess their levels of consumption (a good reminder at Christmas ) and search for alternative sources of energy for greater efficiency.
• Emerging countries should not have their energy reserves exploited by richer nations.

Three comments that the Pope makes I'm still pondering:

• "Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours..."

Frankly, I think the international agencies currently in existence are most guilty of the temptation to be "inhibited by ideological pressure" and for that reason "draw hasty conclusions." So why exactly would more help a situation that is already plagued by the existing ones?

• "...more important [than international agencies], however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation."

Again, those who are not cooperating seem to be the same folks who are resisting the temptation to - wait for it - "draw hasty conclusions" and become "inhibited by ideological pressure." Isn't that so?

And then this single line:

• "The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short."

Sadly, sometimes I think these documents embrace ambiguous phrasing to leave some "hedge room." The problem is, this sentence can be taken to mean precisely whatever it is you take to be the problem and then imbues this self-defined problem with a sense of urgency ("time is short"). In a debate charged with a) lack of clarity and b) exaggeration ... this exhibits both, in my opinion.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't get too perturbed by the UK Daily Mail story. If you need any sense of that publication's journalistic integrity, you need only take a look at the poll it is running today: "Are American Women Better Groomed than British Females?"

The answer looming on the horizon is complex ... and time is short!

Benedict outlines "distinctively Catholic shade of green" in '08 Peace Message

Again, just the essentials at present:

• VIS summary: MESSAGE FOR WORLD DAY OF PEACE 2008
• VIS: Cdl. Martino presents the document...
• Full Text: MESSAGE OF POPE BENEDICT XVI FOR THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE

Commentary by John Allen: In World Peace Day message, Benedict paints a Catholic shade of green.

U2's Tower of Babel?

U2 is trying to build the tallest building in Ireland, and the environmentalists aren't happy:

Who would have guessed that U2 would be the target of environmental protesters? In an attempt to spend some of their immense fortune, the rock band gone real estate investment firm is drawing up plans to build the tallest building in Ireland. The 'U2 tower' has quickly become a major bone of contention between the globally-conscious rockers and environmentalists in their hometown. - GreenDaily

More from Wikipedia. The design isn't finalized, but here are some search results.

Hopefully they won't get vertigo in the city of blinding lights (I couldn't resist).

Holy See sends delegation to Climate Change Conference

Considering "the Holy See is usually represented at such meetings" I'm not sure why it deserved a mention in today's Vatican bulletino:

The 13th session of the conference of States parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is being held on the Indonesian island of Bali from December 3 to 14.

A communique made public yesterday afternoon affirms that the Holy See will be present at the Bali meeting with a delegation led by Archbishop Leopoldo Girelli, apostolic nuncio to Indonesia, and composed of Msgr. Andrew Thanya-anan Vissanu, nunciature counsellor in Jakarta, and of three local experts from the Philippines and Indonesia: Fr. Benito B. Tuazon, Fr. Alexius Andang Listya Binawan S.J., and Vera Wenny Setijawati.

"Given that the sessions of the Convention on Climate Change are held once a year in various countries," the communique reads, "the Holy See is usually represented at such meetings with a delegation led by the apostolic nuncio and made up of experts from the area, so as to take advantage of local resources and to achieve a broader and more differentiated vision of the questions being examined."

Meanwhile, "a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment."

While stateside, "A U.S. Senate committee is scheduled for an historic vote on a global warming bill this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday. Environmental groups are planning a flurry of press conferences [today] to try to influence the vote."

Sierra Club joins PP to offer conferences on "Sex and the Environment"

Thanks CNA, I think I've lost my appetite for lunch:

During the first week of November, members of the Sierra Club traversed one end of California to the other for a series of conferences called “Sex and the Environment.” Accompanying them at most of their stops were representatives of Planned Parenthood.

... The 115-year-old Sierra Club, based in San Francisco and founded by California environmentalist John Muir in 1892 to “explore, enjoy and protect the planet,” now declares on its web site: “Sierra Club is a pro-choice organization.”

The November tour was part of the Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program, which states as its mission: “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives.”

The term “reproductive health” has long been understood as a code word for “abortion,” especially in Third World countries where the outright use of the word “abortion” would be politically unwise.

The plan:

In a question-and-answer section on the Sierra Club’s web site discussing the Population and Environment Program, the group says it has endorsed a 1970 resolution drafted by the group Zero Population Growth. Among the provisions of the resolution: “families should not have more than two natural children,” “state and federal laws should be changed to encourage small families and to discourage large families,” “policies, and attitudes that foster population growth or big families, or that restrict abortion and contraception, or that attempt to constrict the roles of men and women, should be abandoned.”

Story originally reported by the California Catholic Daily: "Save the Planet, Kill a Baby!"

Weather Chanel Founder says MMGW is a SCAM + supporting arguments

Seen first on Newsbusters, but available here.

See also "Dr. Bob Carter’s Lecture on Climate Change" summarized by Newsbusters:

During the roughly 37-minute lecture given at the Annual Conference of the Australian Environmental Foundation on September 8th in Melbourn ... Carter debunked the hysterical claims regularly espoused by warm-mongers."

Enjoy: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 (youtube links)

R M Carter's full article "The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change" is available here (PDF).

Update: I'm going to embed the first segment to make it more accessible. Feel free to jump to the 0:50 mark to skip the introdution. The first five minutes alone should start to give you a better sense of the issues involved:

'07 shaping up to be record low year for hurricanes

*begin provocative statement*

"Somehow this has to be related to Global Warming."

*end provacative statement*

P.S. Newsbusters takes a look at NBC's presumption that the CA wildfires were caused by global warming. While kowalski tells us to expect "Climate Change" to replace "Global Warming" as the enemy we are fighting against (in the winter months, at least). Meanwhile, Christopher Alleva puts his finger on this tendency to "politicize natural disasters" and why it is so wrong-headed.

More food for thought.

The California fires were caused by ... (wait for it ...)

That's right, the California fires were caused by ... global warming, 60 minutes tells us.

Hmm, what's that you say? Some were caused by Arson?

Um, well, that's fine because ... arson is caused by global warming.

(Okay, 60 minutes didn't make that second claim.)

60 Minutes' description of its segment "Mega-Fires":

They're forest fires ten times bigger than the blazes we're used to seeing. To find out why these infernos are happening, Correspondent Scott Pelley went out on the fire line to witness the burning of the American West. What he found were overmatched firefighters and evidence that a big reason for the fires is global warming.

Help me out on this one. Human intervention has actually resulted in less forest fires around the globe, because human beings are the one species that is able to and tries to put them out. I guess this is our fault as well, because young growth trees actually remove more CO2 from the air than old-growth forests. Deforestation - when it is followed by reforestation, I'm told results in a net decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels.

... anyway, I truly hope 60 minutes' position is a bit more sophisticated than "fire is hot, global warming is hot, ergo global warming causes fire." I'm sure it is, but eventually I hope to find some physical disaster that isn't directly caused or heavily exacerbated by global warming.

I dunno - heavy snowfall? Nope. Maybe tsunamis? Nope. Okay, what about Earthquakes? Nope!

Sorry California, it's not looking too good.

(And before some folks get too worked up because I'm putting unreasonable words into the collective mouths of man-made global warming proponents, let me clarify that I'm just trying to make the point that in situations where absurd claims are being tossed around, folks with legitimate science - and specifically reporters who related that science - should demonstrate a bit more restraint before blaming current, tragic natural disasters on remote, disputable human agency. It's been done with Katrina, and is now being done with the California wild fires.)

No love lost between Gore and Martino

John Thavis of CNS reports:

The Vatican has a long memory, and that helps explain its less-than-enthusiastic response to Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize.

The day Gore was announced as a winner, the Vatican newspaper covered the story in a single sentence, buried on an inside page.

Then at a Catholic meeting in Pisa last Friday, Cardinal Renato Martino let slip a rather caustic remark. “Allow me to express well-founded puzzlement over how and to whom the Nobel Peace Prizes are assigned – even if they have gone to very worthy people in previous years.” Ouch. He never mentioned Gore by name, but the message was clear.

Why the antipathy? [Find out.]

Buchanan on "global-warming hucksters"

A history lesson from Mr. Buchanan:

The scaremongers are not always wrong. The Trojans should have listened to Cassandra. But history shows that the scaremongers are usually wrong.

Parson Malthus predicted mass starvation 250 years ago, as the population was growing geometrically, doubling each generation, while agricultural production was going arithmetically, by 2 percent or so a year. But today, with perhaps 1 percent of our population in full-time food production, we are the best-fed and fattest 300 million people on Earth.

... Neville Chute's "On the Beach" proved as fictional as "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days in May." Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" never exploded. It fizzled when the Birth Dearth followed the Baby Boom.

... Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.

This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster.

... The mammoth government we have today is a result of politicians rushing to solve "crises" by creating and empowering new federal agencies.

Whether it's hunger, poverty or homelessness, in the end, the poor are always with us, but now we have something else always with us: scores of thousands of federal bureaucrats and armies of academics to study the problem and assess the progress, with all their pay and benefits provided by our tax dollars.

Cal Coolidge said that when you see 10 troubles coming up the road toward you, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing, because nine of them will fall into the ditch before they get to you. And so it will be with global warming, if we don't sell out America to the hucksters who would save us.

Each one of those "..." represents additional paragraphs of good insights. Read them here.

Video: A skeptic's response to the new "man-made global warming consensus"

To heat up this week's debate, 20/20 looks at the MMGW debate:

Ph/t: Roman Catholic Blog.

Al Gore & IPCC win '07 Nobel Peace Prize

The links:

• AP: Al Gore, UN share Nobel Peace Prize
• Reuters: Will Nobel win mean Gore will run for president?
• NobelPrize.org: The Nobel Peace Prize for 2007

I think the Czech President Vaclav Klaus said it best: "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilizationdoes not contribute to peace." - Margaret Perry

Although I would add that I thought winners of the Nobel Peace Prize were supposed to provide some example. Al Gore, however, by the common admission of all sides save his own, is a notorious "polluter" by the standards he himself sets forth in his public admonishments.

Update: Good thoughts @ DarwinCatholic. Well worth the click.

Al Gore continues to avoid debate over manmade global warming

Steve Huntley of the Chicago Sun-Times reports:

Seven hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money to spend to try to get someone to talk to you and not get an answer.

That's how much the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based libertarian think tank, has forked over in six months for advertisements in national newspapers trying to persuade Al Gore to debate one of its experts on global warming issues. "We have tried, repeatedly, to contact Gore directly, with registered letters and calls to his office, and have never received a reply," says Joseph Bast, Heartland president.

A spokeswoman for Gore told me by e-mail that Heartland is an oil-company-funded group that denies that global warming is real and caused by human activities.
"The debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if there is one," said Kalee Kreider. "It does not make sense for him to engage in a dialogue with them at this time."

The issue is a bit more complicated than that. What Bast wants is for Gore to debate one of three authorities who dispute the former vice president's assertion that global warming is a crisis that requires an immediate, hugely expensive response potentially damaging to the U.S. and world economies.

Notice the Gore-team response: cynically claim the opposition has