Up next? Climate Change.

I'm a man-made global warming skeptic. There, I said it. When the world was getting warmer, I admitted it, but didn't attribute it to human activity. Now that it's getting colder, I don't attribute it to human inactivity.

Being a skeptic takes some guts when CNN publishes articles like this on a daily basis:

"Climate change is happening faster than previously predicted according to a new World Wildlife Fund report.

Bringing together some of the most recent scientific reports and data, "Climate change: faster, stronger, sooner" reveals that global warming is accelerating more rapidly than the predictions made in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007."

Then I sit back, sip a cup of tea, and read something that strikes me as far more sane:

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

[Helpful graph:]

Now where was I? Oh yes:

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming.

Well, let's just hope annoying news like this doesn't get out before the democrats can spend billions of dollars on "climate change" legislation in the coming year.

And to be clear: I have no problem pursuing energy alternatives, but pursuing them only to reduce carbon dioxide emissions strikes me as imprudent and frankly, more than our economy can handle right now.

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.]

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.

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!

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."

Pope prayers for Bangladesh and rejects "recurring messianisms"

Amid news that Cyclone Sidr has left thousands dead in its wake, Pope Benedict said today:

"In renewing my profound condolences to the families and the whole nation, which is so dear to me ... I appeal for international solidarity, which has already moved to assist with immediate necessities. I ask that every possible effort be made to succor these sorely tried brothers."

The cyclone affected more than 2.7 million souls, and the death toll could reach between 5-10k. The U.S. is sending $2.1m in aid.

Not to diminish the magnitute of the current situation, but another storm in 1991 left over 143,000 dead. Rescue efforts appear to be going well. More from Associated Press. [update: the most recent reports paint a bleaker picture: here & here.]

Pope Benedict also rejected "recurring messianisms that claim the end of the world is imminent, saying instead that "history is ongoing, and involves human tragedies and natural calamities."

He continued, and CNA relates:

"Reflecting on the Gospel reading for this Sunday, the Holy Father recalled that, since its inception, the Church "prayerfully lives in the care of its Lord, scrutinizing the signs of the times and keeping the faithful on guard against the calls of messianisms, which from time to time announce the imminent end of the world".

""Actually, the Pontiff said, history must take its course, which also involves human tragedies and natural calamities. As time develops, the design of salvation that Christ has already taken effect in his incarnation, death and resurrection [becomes clearer]. This mystery is continually announced by the Church and actualized in her preaching, with the celebration of the sacraments and the testimony of charity."

Faced with the problems of life, "do not be afraid for the future," said the pope, who urged parishioners to accept "the invitation of Christ to face everyday events trusting his love."

AsiaNews.it also posts a summary.

"Many who claim that the end of the world is near"? I wonder if this applies to those who are saying:

• "The effects of climate change have become so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do. There is no time to waste." - The UN Secretary General
• [The report is] Saying [alarming possibilities are] less likely to occur, but if it does we are fried.” - Dr. Verolme, director of the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Climate Change Program
• These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie, but they are even more terrifying because they are real." - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, again

I wonder.

Student at Clinton Q&A told to ask about climate change

On the '08 campaign trail, Hillary Clinton staffers have been taking heat for apparently trying to plant questions among audiences in what are intended to be open Q&A sessions.

CNN has an exclusive interview with a Grinnell College sophmore who was approached (and did so) in Iowa.

The planted topic? Clinton's planned response to the effects of global warming and climate change:

Gallo-Chasanoff, whose story was first reported in the campus newspaper, said what happened was really pretty simple: She says a senior Clinton staffer asked if she'd like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.

"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said Monday night.

"'I don't think that's a good idea," the staffer said, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, "because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans."

He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.

"The top one was planned specifically for a college student," she added. " It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question."

Topping that sheet of paper was the following: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?"

You can watch the student describe how she was approached.

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.

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.

Get ready for it: Al Gore, Nobel Laureate

The signs are lining up:

Sen. Barbara Boxer's office just contacted us to say former Vice President Al Gore has been called "overseas" for a trip related to his work on global warming and has canceled his scheduled appearance Thursday in San Francisco at a fundraiser for Boxer's re-election effort. So the Boxer fundraiser -- which was to include Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne -- is off until Nov. 9.

Here's a note Boxer sent supporters about the change:

I just got a call from Vice President Al Gore. He told me that he needs to travel abroad tomorrow for an exciting and urgent mission that could result in a major breakthrough in the fight against global warming.

*choke* *gag*

Update: From reader gregg in the comments, topical news that a UK judge has ruled that Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is guilty of nine major untruthful claims itself.

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 alterior motives and then say that the debate has already been settled. More background about Al Gore's track record of avoiding challenge:

But the point is that Gore and his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" aren't the last word. In March, the New York Times reported that while they praise Gore for raising awareness about warming, a number of scientists see exaggerations and errors in some of his assertions. "They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism," the Times wrote. For example, Gore forecasts sea levels rising up to 20 feet, flooding parts of New York and Florida. But the U.N. panel's actual estimate is that seas will rise 7 to 23 inches in this century.

As for the Gore camp's statement about Exxon funding, Bast says those contributions are too little to control Heartland policy and amount to "far less than what Heartland spends speaking out on climate change."

The Heartland case is not the first time Gore has ducked a forum. Earlier this year he canceled an interview with Denmark's largest newspaper when he learned it would include questions from Bjorn Lomborg, respected author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. "Gore's sermon is not one that will stand scrutiny," says Christopher C. Horner, another one of Heartland's debate candidates, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.

It's a good tactic, in principle: decide for yourself that the debate is finished and then dismiss any further protests that come from the opposition! If only we all had that solipsistic luxury.

This tactic of Al Gore's will become ever more viable as legitimate debate is steamrolled by political pressure, especially if he wins the 2007 Nobel Peace prize, as numerous reports suggest.

Gag.

AmP quote of the day

Financial Times:

“This is an emergency,” Mr Gore told the opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative. “I think that the key to fighting global poverty is to have the wealthy nations and the developing nations join together to reduce global warming … I think what we need is a global Marshall plan to make the creation of jobs around the reduction of carbon the central principle for how we develop this.”

Some other quotations from the article:

Robert Zoellick, the head of the World Bank, sounded a sceptical note on the developing world’s ability and desire to reduce carbon emissions, however. Poorer countries are worried aid is going to be “hijacked” by the climate change agenda, Mr Zoellick said.

... “There is some sensitivity in the developing world that resources that can be channelled to climate change will come at the expense of other development needs,” Mr Zoellick said. “It needn’t be that way, it shouldn’t be that way… but it is the responsibility of the developed world to reassure the developing world that it doesn’t come at their expense and instead can come in support of their aims of overcoming poverty.”

"Every place I went, people are very worried that developed countries are going to hijack spending,” he added. “We have to explain how it fits their energy and growth needs.”

... The World Bank estimates that 1.6bn people around the world do not have access to electricity. The developing world currently has a funding gap of around half of the $160bn investment needed annually to fulfil growing demand for electricity, the bank says.

UK tabloid claim: "Pope to make climate action a moral obligation"

The UK Independent is making some big claims today and I'm going to attempt to give some clarification and context:

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.

The New York speech is likely to contain an appeal for sustainable development, and it will follow an unprecedented Encyclical (a message to the wider church) on the subject, senior diplomatic sources have told The Independent.

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".

While Pope Benedict may speak about stewardship of creation, I highly doubt such an appeal would constitute the "centerpiece" of his entire US tour. It is also imprecise to say that Pope Benedict has the authority to "invent" new moral causes, strictly speaking. The Pope can, however, emphasize to the Church that stewardship of creation is an important duty, in line with previously revealed truth. In other words, don't expect to see Pope Benedict adding an eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt use only hybrid cars." He'd be the last person to do that.

More interesting is the UK Independent claim about an "unprecedented Encyclical" on the same topic. This claim contradicts all previous reporting as to the subject matter of his next encyclical, with the dominant strain of rumor proposing a topic involved with economics. [related: What do we know for sure about the Pope's next Encylical?] I'm sure they'd like an encyclical on climate change, but I'd like to see them hold their breaths for that.

The next claim that this UN address will follow an "environmental blitz at the Vatican" is similarly biased. Pope Benedict has been very active on many issues (issues, incidentally, that don't make it into popular reporting), stewardship of creation being one of them. As for climate change "affecting the poorest people on the planet", all he actually said was that scarsity of water is a problem in some areas: it is, but the cause of that problem is not global warming. [related: What Pope Benedict said about Creation at Loreto]. It is true that the Catholic Church teaches we have a duty to "protect creation" - that's nothing new. What constitutes protecting creation in today's world is what Pope Benedict would be addressing. And so far, it's a very different message than what the global warming lobby want to hear. But that doesn't seem to bother them.

Back to the text of the UK Independent article:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of the Catholic Church in the UK, said last night: "This is a crucial issue both today and for all future generations. We are the stewards of creation and we need to take that responsibility seriously and co-operate to care for the created world."

I wonder if the Cardinal knew he was being interviewed for an article that seeks to reveal Pope Benedict's plans for his UN speech, and for the universal church, months prior to its delivery. I hope not.

Much of the rest of the article operates upon the principle that Pope Benedict's topic and message is already a done deal, and works through the implications (as the author sees it) of Pope Benedict getting firmly on the climate change bandwagon. Some of the author's history, however, is similarly incomplete:

News of the speech comes as Vatican City has become the first fully carbon-neutral state in the world, after announcing it is offsetting its carbon footprint by planting a forest in Hungary and installing solar panels on the roof of St Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Once again, the Vatican's Hungarian forest initiative provides eager reporters the "evidence" they need to claim that the Vatican is going green the way reporters want to see that happen. To clarify, the Vatican accepted the offer of a 3rd party company to plant a forest in Hungary. It's good to plant forests, and that's about all you can claim about the decision. I've blogged extensively on this (in my view, imprudent for several reasons) collaboration: "The Vatican and Planktos: strange bedfellows or sign of the times?" and again here: "Wait a minute, wasn't the selling of indulgences a bad thing?."

As for installing solar panels on the roof. Sure, that's true. I'm sure the Vatican also has low-flush toilets now (or again, maybe not). Electricity isn't cheap, and I'm not sure what more you can really claim about the choice to incorporate some solar energy.

Oddly enough, I think the last paragraph is more revealing that it might desire:

UK diplomats have held a number of behind-the-scenes meetings with Vatican officials on the environment. A Whitehall source said last night: "Benedict is the spiritual head of 19 per cent of the world's population and a highly respected figure. If the Pope's words are taken on board by his community that is one big constituency for change and could well turn the tide on climate change and environmental degradation."

Exactly, of course the global warming lobby wants the Catholic Church on its side. Once they can make the claim that global warming initiatives - as they see them - are a moral obligation (with sinfulness and culpability attached to ignoring it) as opposed to a simple act of prudence with two valid outcomes, they'll have successfully increased the size of their adherents. And here's the rub: even if they don't get the Catholic Church to say what they want, they can publish articles like these to convince people that the Catholic Church in fact does endorse their views.

What the Vatican must decide, and soon, is if it will continue to allow articles and reports such as this one to put words in Pope Benedict's mouth. If the Vatican doesn't speak, they will continue to speak for him.

Moreover, when he does speak, proposing a parallel track to their message isn't as effective. Unless he makes the distinctions and shows where Christian stewardship of creation is different than secular environmentalism, his audience might not be able to make the distinction. In this vacuum, the press accounts carry the day.

Of course, in general, when he does make the distinctions, the media is very good at chopping up his comments into sound bytes digestible for their purposes. In these situations, the Vatican press agency needs to be as pro-active on correcting these (often times intentional) errors in transmission as they have been on such issues as, for instance, Pope Benedict's comments on the Mexican legislators and whether they were excommunicated.

Think there's a scientific consensus on man-made Global Warming?

There isn't:

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see." (source)

And it's significant to point out that many of these "dissenters" claim that global warming, if it were to happen, would be beneficial to humanity. Why again, are we so worried?

Conservationism - when properly ordered to the good of man - is laudable. That's what Pope Benedict has been promoting. Most initiatives you see promoted by the environmentalists, however, actually harm or inhibit the proximate good of particular humans for the purpose of avoiding unproven, temporally-distant catastrophes that they claim will be caused by global warming. This is not prudence. On a personal level it is silly, and when made into policy or the new "liberal orthodoxy", it is grossly negligent.

More fear mongering greets UN reality check

Reuters today has an article entitled "Industrial nations shy away from stiff 2020 goals" which reveals that many nations at U.N. talks don't want to bind themselves to drasticly reducing their CO2 emissions.

This entirely reasonable decision given the economic drawbacks (and negative impact on people) was met with these kinds of quotations from global warming fear mongerers:

"This is voting for the apocalypse," said Stephanie Tunmore of environmental group Greenpeace. "The 25-40 percent range is needed to help avert dangerous climate change" such as more powerful storms, rising seas and melting glaciers, she said.

"Japan is willing to let the typhoons roll in and the water flow onto its coastal land. Switzerland is committed to melt all its remaining glaciers," environmentalists said in a newsletter.

The U.S. so far has not signed on to the Kyoto treaty. Bush, however, is calling a meeting of "major emitters" here in DC September 27-28th. It's amazing to read about what the EU is intending to do about emissions.

If you want an excellent, one-article thorough debunking of the global warming agenda (and which includes a discussion of its fanatical persecution of dissenting viewpoints), Thomas Derr offers it at First Things.

I applaud him for making the point that global warming alarmists are experiencing serious historical amnesia.

The Vatican and Planktos: strange bedfellows or sign of the times?

A news wire headline caught my attention this evening:

"Vatican to Become World's First Carbon Neutral Sovereign State"

Now what, I asked myself, does that headline exactly mean? So I read on:

"Planktos/KlimaFa's New Vatican Climate Forest Initiative to Fully Green the Holy See"

"By agreement with the Vatican, Planktos/KlimaFa is now pleased and honored to announce that the Holy See plans to become the first entirely carbon neutral sovereign state, and it has chosen KlimaFa ecorestoration offsets to achieve this historic goal. In a brief ceremony on July 5th the Vatican declared that it had gratefully accepted KlimaFa's offer to create a new Vatican Climate Forest in Europe that will initially offset all of the Holy See's CO2 emissions for this year."

I think there's a bit of smudging occurring in this first paragraph. Either the Vatican decided to become the "first entirely carbon neutral sovereign state" and chose Planktos/Klimafa as the means to that "historical goal" or Planktos/Klimafa approached the Vatican and the Vatican in turn signed-off on it. I think the latter is more probably the case, given that the paragraph mentions an offer proposed by Planktos/Klimafa which the Vatican later accepted.

Now, there's a whole bevy of questions that this decision raises for me, and since this story seems to tie-in many threads that I've been reading through recently, I'm going to give it an extended treatment.

Planktos/Klimafa's proposal is straightforward enough: plant as many trees as are needed to equalize the Vatican City State's yearly CO2 output. The site chosen for this reforestation (or "ecorestoration" as they call it) is Hungary's Bükk National Park, where they will plant "thousands of hectares of new native species, mixed forest growth...". This plan, in itself, seems unquestionably good to me. Planting trees is a great thing, and I'm happy when it happens.

What gets me thinking, however, is the whole context of this agreement, and especially the views of Planktos/Klimafa and how they are marketing their cooperation with the Vatican.

As a further quick clarification, Klimafa is the European subsidiary of Planktos, a for-profit organization that claims to be the "world's leading ecorestoration firm." On the Planktos main website, one can view a picture of Cardinal Poupard (president of the Pontifical Council of Culture) receiving a plaque from the president and chief executive of Planktos, Russ George with the caption "Vatican to Go Green with Planktos/Klimafa" (update: I've placed the same picture at the top of this blog post).

Clicking through that picture/caption, one can find the Planktos/Klimafa news release which includes a video of the Vatican acceptance ceremony and their full press release. Also included with the press release packet is the text of Cardinal Poupard's address to the leaders of Planktos (available here in PDF), which I've reproduced below (the italicized parts are not included in the Planktos/Klimafa press release text, as I'll make note of next):

As President of the Pontifical Council of Culture; I am honored to receive this donation from the leaders of Planktos-Klimafa. This donation means an entire section of a national park in central Europe will be reforested. In this way, the Vatican will do its small part in contributing to the elimination of polluting emissions from CO2 which is threatening the survival of this planet.

As the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, had recently stated, the international community needs to respect and encourage a ‘Green Culture,’ characterized by ethical values. The Book of Genesis tells us of a beginning in which God placed man as guardian over the earth to make it fruitful. When man forgets that he is a faithful servant of this earth, it becomes a desert that threatens the survival of all creation. The earth itself turns against man.

Environmental protection is not, therefore, a political issue - it's not enough to have a simple commitment from a few people. Instead, it is necessary, as it is underlined by His Holiness, to have the dawn of a new culture, of new attitudes and of a new mode of living that makes man aware of his place as a caretaker of the earth.

The Pontifical Council of Culture pledges its complete collaboration and deeply thanks those responsible at Planktos-KlimaFa for this significant donation.

I realize, of course, that for considerations of space Planktos/Klimafa (hereafter "PK") had to limit itself to excerpts from Cardinal Poupard's text. I don't find it surprising, however, that PK decided to drop the somewhat enigmatic line "The earth itself turns against man" [update: Mark Shea contributes] as well as the paragraph that stresses how true environmentalism should not be inspired so much by political considerations as from much deeper and more thorough understandings of who man is and how he is to relate to God's creation.

PK goes on to claim that the planting of these trees will "offer many rewarding new eco-forestry jobs to struggling rural communities" (i.e., people will be given jobs planting the trees) and there will be "increasing eco-tourism employment opportunities as these beautiful woodlands mature" (i.e. people will be given jobs as park rangers).

More disturbing to me is this paragraph:

Planktos/KlimaFa has further committed to work with the Vatican and the Pontifical Council of Culture to develop methods to calculate the CO2 emissions of individual Catholic churches and offer ecorestoration options to turn their carbon footprints green.

The press release makes no mention about how the Vatican has received this offer, or even if the offer has been presented. But just think for a moment what a huge project this would be - steadily going individual church by individual church and reducing (or "equalizing") their carbon footprint?! Would PK, a for-profit, organization, also donate all the money that such a project would require?

When PK says it is a for-profit firm, they mean it. At the Planktos Store, you can, for instance, purchase a 100% Vehicle Emission Reduction for a Midsize Vehicle ... for $30:

The average mid-size or full-size car gets 19-28 mpg and is responsible for 6 tons of CO2 emissions per year. 6 tons of CO2 equivalents will be retired on your behalf to negate 100% of your automobile's annual carbon footprint.

Do you own a large home? Its yearly carbon footprint can be "erased" for $100. Don't worry, they also do event planning: "Meetings, conferences, weddings, or classrooms, you can green them all. Just fill out the form below and Planktos will contact you. Together we will calculate the carbon footprint for your event." For only $10, you can relieve Mother Nature of 2 tons of its excess, human-created C02 baggage. I'm not making any of this up.

PK's methods for this "erasing" or "replacing" of human-created carbon footprints is controversial. While they offered the Vatican the option of planting trees, PK's favorite technique for removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere is by artificially creating plankton colonies (because plankton colonies are consumers of Co2 and produce oxygen). Put very simply, the plan involves dumping large amounts of iron into the oceans for plankton to feed upon. This project has encountered fierce, widespread criticism from within environmentalist circles and beyond.

Indeed, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a "scientific body set up by the United Nations to assess the risk of human-induced climate change" calls the procedure "unproven." Now, I should note here that I disagree with many of the IPCC's conclusions, but the fact remains that they are considered by many environmentalists to be a benchmark for protocol and, in this case, even the IPCC has doubts.

The BBC reports:

In its [the IPCC's] Working Group Three report, released this year, it said: "Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilisation to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects.

According to documents passed by the US government to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the company [Planktos] planned to deposit 100 tonnes of iron ore powder this month in a 100 sq km area of ocean hundreds of kilometres west of the Galapagos Islands. The Canada-based ETC environmental campaign group has asked the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to launch an immediate and full investigation into Planktos' activities.

Just take a pause and look at those numbers. 100 tonnes of iron ore powder this month? Now, read how Russ George (yes, that's the same guy seen above giving Cardinal Poupard his commendation plaque) responds to these concerns:

Russ George, president and chief executive of Planktos, countered that its work built on many years of study, and that the company would collaborate with "scores of scientists and engineers from international ocean science institutions both aboard ship and ashore to develop this form of ocean stewardship in a scientifically, environmentally, and economically viable form".

He added: "This is work that must be done if we are to reverse the apocalyptic collapse of the ocean ecosystem as well as the climate crisis it is helping to accelerate.
"We are the first responders to a planetary medical emergency."

And this kind of language ("apocalyptic," "medical emergency," etc) when he is on-record with the BBC!

The controversy that the BBC sites is the tip of the iceburg in terms of the questioning surrounding PK's techniques. Without at all attempting an exaustive coverage, here's one website that links to this website which has a very long story/interview on Russ George and his company:

Russ George is a California businessman with a big idea: you give him some money and he will seed the ocean with iron, causing phytoplankton to grow. The process is called Iron fertilization, and is designed to take carbon out of the atmosphere to help you mitigate your contribution to global warming. It is one of a number of business ideas that have grown out of the global demand for carbon trading schemes, and it’s becoming a big business. Russ George and his foundation Planktos is creating quite a stir: Nature, the BBC, and a host of major newspapers have reported on his business venture.

For the past year, through a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism, journalist Wendy Williams has been investigating global warming mitigation stories. What she found behind all the media hoopla about Russ George was surprising: A man and his carbon trading scheme sorely lacking in scientific credentials.

A very troubling quotation from him:

I asked to see his research papers. They weren’t done yet.

“It’s really more of a business experiment than a scientific experiment,” he [Russ George] said.

And finally:

"To say that George [Russ] has shocked and angered much of the scientific community is an understatement. Indeed I found many who were profoundly concerned by the increasingly popularized notion that scattering iron in the oceans could help solve global warming."

Now, granted, I can't vouch for the objectivity of these non-mainstream sources I'm citing. It is clear, however, from my research thus far, that there is significant and vocal opposition to some of PK's plans from within the environmentalist community.

Russ George has responded to these accusations, most notably submitting a letter to the Ottawa Citizen. That letter is available here, along with links to previous stories criticizing PK. Planktos also has a fact sheet published on their website that tries to answer the challenges being voiced. I can't say that I find their counter-arguments enough to totally assuage the criticisms noted and linked.

For those of you patient enough to have read all of the above - I'll finally come to my point (which, actually, I'll convert into three simple questions):

• Is Russ George the kind of person and Planktos/KlimaFa the kind of company that the Vatican should be collaborating with and promising future support?
• Should the Vatican allow its actions to be featured in the press releases of a website that sells ecologically-conscientious people peace-of-mind by seeding the oceans with iron?
• Did the Vatican do its research on this gentleman and his company's other operations?

If the answer to these three questions is yes, well then it might be time to purchase a share in Plankton, because their stock is still reasonably-priced and I just gave out one heck of a tip about their new Vatican deal.

If you are still undecided, go back to this page and re-watch the press release video and ask yourself what you see. Is this a beneficent philanthropist collaborating with the Vatican to plant some trees in Hungary, or is it a business-savy CEO gaining a valuable endorsement for his company and its activities?

I haven't come to a decision myself. But my unease about the association of the Vatican with a for-profit like Planktos/Klimafa has not been relieved by the research I have done thus far. I remain open to more evidence.

Update: CNA has brief coverage of this story today.

"Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming" - Inhofe blog @ EPW

From the Inhofe blog at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public works:

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.
In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )

[List of names and backgrounds follow...]

The Vatican's UN intervention re: climate change

Dom makes the point I was going to make before (and better than) me:

The comments by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See’s observer at the United Nations on global climate change got a lot of attention in the press and blogosphere.

The archbishop threw the Vatican’s weight behind the climate change “consensus”, including that “the scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable.”

The only problem is that “evidence” is a lie because it is based on the lies in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s false reports. As I blogged in March, Orson Scott Card debunked this report as myth at length.

...

It’s sad to see Archbishop Migliore being taken in by the falsehoods of the IPCC. It’s sad that in a time when we have to be wary of an ecumenism that verges on irenicism and syncretism, that the Vatican’s top diplomat the international body appears to have conceded as true the teachings of the fundamentalist modern pseudo-science religion of “climate change.”

I just got a whole packet of reading material on this subject, and look forward to delving into it in the coming weeks. Unfortunately, I have a rather busy travel schedule ahead. Would it be too ironic to be reading this material aboard a jumbo jet?

BettNet on statistics showing greenhouse gas pollutions down

More grist for the (hopefully energy-efficient/minimal-waste-producing) mill:

"To sum up: Even as population grew, American industry grew, the amount of energy consumed grew, and the amount Americans used their cars grew, greenhouse gas emissions went down. Despite everything that environmental extremists tell us we need to do to “save the environment” from the “human-caused” catastrophe of global warming, the reality is that it’s already being done without the draconian measures they suggest are necessary." [More...]

CNS's excellent coverage of the Vatican's seminar on global warming

I'd like to copy the whole article, but I'll restrain myself and just pull about every other quotation, along with my comments in italics. Hopefully this adds some clarification to the discussion. You can read for yourself here.

First, things got somewhat rowdy:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Despite being held in a cool, climate-controlled conference room, some early discussions at a Vatican-sponsored seminar on global warming and climate change got pretty heated.

The rifts and tensions still dividing the global debate on the causes of and remedies for drastic climatic shifts were gently simmering in the small microcosm of the two-day Vatican meeting.

The seminar, sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, gathered some 80 experts representing the scientific, political, economic and spiritual sides of the climate-change debate at the Vatican April 26-27 to discuss "Climate Change and Development."

"I have to commend the planners," said Lucia Silecchia, a professor of environmental law at The Catholic University of America in Washington, because "nobody can accuse them of bringing in a group of people who will agree with each other."

Disagreements even spilled out into the corridor during the closed-door seminar's first morning break when a Vatican official had to use his pastoral prowess to calm one participant."

The scientific community has been so divided and so bitter" over the climate-change debate that experts who disagree with each other don't talk to each other, Silecchia told Catholic News Service.

Martino made some good clarifications to reporters (that weren't presented in most MSM reports I read):

Nonetheless, he [Martino] said, the Vatican is cautious about what sort of pronouncements it makes about global warming.

Church leaders are aware scientific findings can sometimes be skewed by special-interest groups or overblown by an audience-hungry media.

This tendency to take ambiguous scientific findings and skew them for gain comprises about 100% of my disagreement with the enviromentalist lobby.

The church does not want to curb sustainable development, especially in impoverished nations, nor does it see population control as a way to conserve dwindling resources. There is a middle ground, many church leaders say, that sees sustainable economic growth, the environment and human development as partners, not enemies.

But when 5 percent of the world's population gobbles up 20 percent of the earth's resources, lifestyle changes are important, said Cardinal Martino and Pope Benedict XVI.

I can agree with all of these points. So often, however, environmentalists propose exactly "curbing sustainable development, especially in impoverished nations" and "population control" (think the United Nations and their horrible-coercive programs) as the solution to limited resources (and I would add "failures in distribution" to the causes of global hunger and poverty).

Silecchia [ professor of environmental law at The Catholic University of America in Washington] said in some ways the environmental movement "has become its own new religion," and this could be offset by a wider recognition of the church's own tradition of God asking people to be stewards of creation.

That's right. The best way to oppose the growth of this "new religion" is to demonstrate how the Christian tradition and Catholic church already provide guidance on issues of economic and ecological responsibility. We have the principles within our tradition and don't need to be frightened by fear mongers.

Australian Bishop Christopher Toohey of Wilcannia-Forbes said the church's message of hope and love of life can offer direction and inspiration, which "is somewhat missing" in the world debate.

"The church is not just another voice telling people to conserve energy and preserve the planet. It has the potential to bring its vast tradition to shed light on a troubled human family," he wrote.

The church can "provide motivation, inspiration, love for life itself and for the earth and all of creation, to genuinely love those things and care for them," he told CNS.

Instead of letting disagreements in the global warming debate continue to stall decisive action, "we have a Christian duty to live simple, responsible lives whether climate change is happening or not," he said.

Amen. Whether climate change is happening or not (I remain unconvinced by those who argue that it is, drastically, and by demonstrable recent human activity), we do need to be good stewards of our property.

As a postscript, this AP coverage seems to have Martino admitting that global warming could actually be beneficial to humanity, or at least acknowledging that many people are of that opinion:

VATICAN CITY: Vatican officials closed a conference on climate change Friday that heard from scientists, ministers and religious leaders about the negative — and sometimes positive — impacts of climate change.

"Not all the scientific world is crying disaster," Cardinal Renato Martino, who heads the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, told Vatican Radio at the start of the two-day conference he hosted.

"There are a good number of scientists who consistently don't view these climactic changes in a negative light, and in fact say that these phenomena recur over the course of years and eras and sometimes they can have favorable results for agriculture and development."

That said, some of the invited panelists were of the view that a warming planet is not all bad.

Among them was Craig Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. The organization publishes the weekly online newsletter CO2 Science, which often reports on what it says are the benefits of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Other invited guests disputed any benefits, saying the increase in global temperatures was dangerous to the Earth and its most vulnerable people. [More...]

Well, I'm happy to see that both sides of the debate were represented at the J&P's conference.

Pope Benedict, climate change & Cardinal Martino.

Reuters ran a story today entitled, "Pope should talk climate change with Bush: cardinal".

I realize this is a sensitive issue with many people, but it's important and I'm interested.

Going on what the article says, Cardinal Martino said that he "believes the Pontiff should raise the dangers of climate change and global warming with U.S. President George W. Bush when the two meet in June."

Admittedly, Martino was careful with his remarks, saying "It's not for me to say what the Pope and President Bush should discuss but certainly they will discuss current issues and therefore I imagine and I hope they will (discuss climate change)," [continuing:] "It certainly merits it."

Martino's council for justice and peace is hosting a conference on "climate change and development" this weekend, which prompted the Reuters story as well as a message from the Pope, in which he said that he hoped studies could lead to "lifestyles and production and consumer methods that aim to respect creation and (aim for) sustainable progress." All very fine and good.

Of course, I'd like to see his full message (and this is the cue for industrious readers to pop me an email or drop a link in the combox!) so I can see whether the Pope actually came out and said anything about "manmade global warming." My understanding is that to this point he has not.

Martino went on to claim that willfull damage to the environment is a sin. Now, I have no problem with this statement, as long as it is specified. Burning down trees needlessly or contaminating drinking water can be wrong, but I've often seen the concept of good stewardship twisted into some sort of moral imperative that we all (to randomly pick an example, but not an extreme one) use halogen lightbulbs or buy electric cars.

And I get especially nervous when Martino says that (according to the Reuters article) "all religious groups should be involved in environmental causes and raise awareness about global warming." I also don't feel comfortable when he makes comments like this:

"We have to start at the level of elementary schools, to make sure children are taught to respect nature and be aware of the problems of the world. We can't wait until they are older. This has to be done naturally in religion classes, in religious groups everywhere," Martino said.

In a perfect world we could educate children about anything and everything. But I think that in practice, especially in elementary school, the lion's share of time in religion class should be spent on, well, God, the Sacraments, the Saints, Virtues, Commandments, and the list goes on for quite awhile. Nevertheless, we'd all count ourselves successful if kids manage to receive even an entry-level formation in those areas.

I'm not saying that Cardinal Martino is suggesting global warming and ecology replace these subjects, but I do think that in elementary education, Cardinal Martino's set of issues are actually far down on the list of objective priorities, especially in religion class.

Let the parents spend their time fighting about global warming and CO2 emissions.

I'm sure this isn't my last post on this topic, so we'll leave it here for now.

Update: From Gabe in the comments:

I think Cardinal Pell's comments on global warming in which he calls global warming "superstition," "nonsense," and "semi-religious" make a lot more sense than Cardinal Martino's comments.

I'm glad I just got finished saying in another post that it is "always well worth listening to Cardinal Pell", because it just came true again. And I knew I had heard someone else credible (and episcopal) describe the enthusiasm of global-warming advocates as being "semi-religious."

Update 2: Zenit has released some partial coverage of the conference here.

[photo: Alessia Pierdomenico/Reuters]

Climate change and the USCCB

I'm trying to figure out what the relationship status is between the USCCB and the various global warming lobbies. This article by CNS, "Nuncio says by living simply Catholics can help protect the earth", I think may provide some clues. Unfortunately, I have a very busy afternoon and won't be able to add my comments until later.

In the meantime, I'd love to hear yours.

Letting the air out of global warming hype/myths

Jimmy Akin links to this devastating video which debunks the myths surrounding the claims about global warming caused by humans. I post this because global warming is in many ways steadily becoming the new "secular religion". For that reason, it's important to be informed.

I watched the first 20 minutes of the presentation before being recalled to thesis work, but what I saw was quite solid.

Update: And, like clockwork, appears this headline/story: London churches to receive guidebooks on reducing energy consumption.

The title of the guidebooks? "For Creed and Creation: A Simple Guidebook for Running a Greener Church."