Pope confirms AGW is faith system

Washington: A draft of an environmental encyclical by Pope Francis says "the bulk of global warming" is caused by human activity. He calls on people - especially the world's rich - to take steps to mitigate the damage by reducing consumption and reliance on fossil fuels.
Pope Benedict proposed we should recognise that the natural environment is full of wounds produced by our irresponsible behaviour. In words likely to anger some of his conservative critics, the Pope backs the science of climate change, saying "plenty of scientific studies point out that the last decades of global warming have been mostly caused by the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide and others) especially generated by human action".
It's not often the case but the Pope and I are in lockstep. His encyclical confirms what I have always believed, that belief in AGW is a faith system, a religion. I have long referred to the more extreme followers of AGW as members of The Church of the Latter Day Alarmists. Damn. I got it right again.

26 comments

  • The Pope has read the science. See – http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.short
    Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can do the same.
    Obviously, that description does not apply to right wing extremist Tony Abbott, who wears his Catholicism like a badge.
    Hence – “Metronome Tone” he who swings this way and that, depending on what he thinks will please the cabal of corrupt vested interest keeping him in government.

  • The science is simple, 18.5 years of zero warming as noted by the most accurate instruments available to science – satellite measurements, CO2 based global warming theory simply cannot survive this one fact, as it requires that increased CO2 = increased Temps you dumb shit.

    When reality conflicts with your theory, as a rule of thumb it is not reality that is at fault.

    Global Warming relies on 4 points,
    1. Adjusting the figures, ie faking earlier temperatures to fit current religious doctrine.
    2. Proxy measurements, ie using inaccurate and frequently fake data to produce the required result.
    3. Computer modelling, anyone who has significant knowledge of computers can tell you that the computer models are essentially fake, they are modelling a system we don’t understand well enough to model, with systems not powerful enough to model it even if wee did understand it.
    4, The natural vanity of the left, give them a cause that will allow them to pretend to be all knowing and use it to oppress others and they will embrace it with both arms.

    We’ve been down this “end of the world, you must give up your rights to us so humanity can survive” religious bullshit road before, I’ve survived more of these Apocalypses than Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I expect that once this Apocalypse gets kicked to the curb (like the Peak Oil, Overpopulation, End of Resources, SARS, Swine Flu, Ice Age, etc, etc), I’ll survive the next few too.

    • you dumb shit
      So individuals who put credibility on (for example) the 97% of climate scientists who spend their professional lives investigating the issue, are dumb shits, but those who listen to opinionistas like Bolt are smart.
      Just read the study posted above which shows that 97% of the 1372 scientists who make a living out of studying climate change believe that is is a threat.
      Bolt believes it is a scam. Obviously you believe Bolt knows more about the science than the 1372 climate scientists.
      We will soon have a Commissioner for Windfarms, because they “might” have deleterious health effects, despite the fact there 25+ studies which cannot establish any evidence that they do so.
      There is no evidence that pigs “might” fly, but surely, the possibility needs investigation.
      Armed with that logic, we quite obviously need a Commissioner for Pigs.

      • 97% of the scientists that responded to the enquiry Booby….there are actually lots more than the number you quote as the finite number of climate scientists, lots more.
        I’ll try to explain it in simple terms…..if enquiries were sent out to say 400 (for a number) and submissions were received by 100, that means 25% of respondents actually make submissions. Then 97 of the 100 actually agree with the point you are trying to validate then it is erroneous or misleading to claim that 97% of the overall number agree on anything. The fact is that making that claim is criminal in its intent. 97% of 25% is a little closer to a result of 24%. Numbers are not your forte Numbers. By the way on your own blog you can’t get the numbers right either….closer to 90 Americans die each day as a result of firearms and about 60% of those are suicides. Apart from that about 88 Americans die daily as the result of vehicular trauma. These death by firearms figures place the U.S. 11th or 12th on global per capita figures, but you can’t let an opportunity to knock white Americans go by…..even latching on to the recent tragedy.

        • It would help if you read the study and noted its methodology. The authors did not call submissions.
          We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC (SI Materials and Methods). We tallied the number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher (defined here as expertise) and counted the number of citations for each of the researcher’s four highest-cited papers

          closer to 90 Americans die each day as a result of firearms and about 60% of those are suicides
          Bloody disgraceful, isn’t it?

          These death by firearms figures place the U.S. 11th or 12th on global per capita figures
          Absolutely. Up there with Columbia, South Africa and Mexico. No other developed country (with the exception of South Africa) comes near it. And there are idiots in our political class (like Leyonhjelm) who aspire to that.

      • and the dumb shit proves beyond doubt that he is a dumb shit.

        It doesn’t matter how many people say it is warming when it isn’t.

        The majority thought the earth was flat. one mans empirical measurements proved it wasn’t. The majority (including the church) thought the sun revolved around the earth. one mans empirical measurements proved it didn’t.

        Numbers, science isn’t a democracy, it is a about measurable, provable, repeatable, fact and 18.5 years of zero detectable global warming when CO2 concentrations have significantly increased and CO2 based AGW theory demands warming in that circumstance, proves that the theory is false.

        I know it is too much to ask that you stop making a fool of yourself, but at least stick to matters of opinion rather than measurable (and measured) fact.

        You’re welcome.

          • Courts are not arbiters of science, they, oddly enough, do law.

            It must suck being so stupid as to believe that a court can prove a scientific point.

            The most accurate tools available to science, satellite measurements, have found no warming at all for the last 18.5 years, wheel out a railroad engineer to say otherwise (oops, that’s already been done as head of the IPCC), but it doesn’t change actual, observed, fact. you know, what we used to call science.

          • Legal action taken by 886/17,000,000 population successful…..couldn’t find the basis for the findings in your link. Was it a point of law, an opinion based on an opinion (like Papa), or actual scientific evidence presented by scientists qualified in the field of climatology, and where the defence can call rebuttal evidence?

          • The major basis for the judgement was a point of law – the tort of negligence. The court found on the basis of evidence – not opinion.
            Read the case notes here – http://www.utrechtjournal.org/articles/10.5334/ujiel.ci/

          • Insufficient information for my enquiring mind 173…. The first reference is superficial newspaper report and the second link is to an opinion piece in a legal journal by Fox outlining the case for the plaintiff without addressing the case of the defendant or in fact the finding.
            The case began in 2012 and seems to rely on beliefs of that time and broadly disseminated by IPCC. It would appear that the Netherlands only promised 17% reductions and 886 citizens decided that it wasn’t enough. The Court has indicated that 25% would be nice. I am hoping the court was made aware of IPCC wonderment at the apparent drop in the rate of warming that indicates that by comparison to the increase in CO2, it is difficult to correlate the two.

          • wonderment at the apparent drop in the rate of warming that indicates that by comparison to the increase in CO2, it is difficult to correlate the two
            That statement neatly encapsulates your abysmal ignorance of the science, and is the bullshit meme latched on to by Bolt and others.
            Anyone promoting that rubbish demonstrates such a lack of knowledge basic statistics. They don’t know the difference between a rate and a trend, something taught in first year stats at most Universities.
            There is no simple direct correlation between the presence of CO2 and temperature increase. The second follows the first, but it’s not linear. The relationship is multi-factorial and complex. The deniers lack both the concentration span and grey matter to even attempt to understand it, and beclown themselves every time they promote it.

          • “There is no simple direct correlation between the presence of CO2 and temperature increase, the relationship is multi-factorial and complex”….. at last you have latched onto the basics of why AGW is considered tripe by so many. Originally lauded as a catastrophic anthropogenic problem when in actual fact moisture in the air has a warming effect that makes the effect of CO2 appear minimal.
            Rates and trends…..rate of warming is the speed at which it occurs and trend is the direction it is heading in. The rate of warming has decelerated and the trend would indicate that because of the almost unnoticeable variation (although upward) can be treated as negligible. Get with the science Ms 173…. Insulting those with a differing opinion only indicates that you cannot put forward an argument worth replying to. It does not indicate a greater understanding of the subject….but then a headmaster is not used to being questioned is she.

        • because of the almost unnoticeable variation (although upward) can be treated as negligible
          That is tripe, and you know it.
          At least you don’t make the claim “no warming since __________(enter a figure plucked from Bolt’s backside)”.
          The deniers have only one pot to piss in, and it overflowed some time ago….
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026240790761255X

          • Nice try Ms but the link to find the articles you would like me to read would necessitate personal expenditure. Without reading the articles I did some background on the persons who put it together. Those mentioned are either editors (previously journalists) or journalists with a green bent. No scientists there. Forgive me if I am wrong but don’t journalists report what they perceive as information given by others but not necessarily within a field necessarily fully understood by themselves. That appears to be your main gripe with Andrew Bolt I believe. You seem to think that your Journalists are more believable…..probably because they agree with you.
            You really should source your information better.

          • Poor Princess, reality doesn’t agree with you.

            I doubt that even you are stupid enough to really believe in AGW (and I have enormous respect for just how stupid you really are numbers), in reality this is just a wonderful chance to lash out at western civilisation and help the left stamp on the little people (all for their own good of course).
            A really good guide to how much anyone REALLY believes in AGW is what they personally are prepared to give up to prevent it, and all of the priests of AGW and most of their acolytes live in big, energy intensive homes and travel extensively (see the sainted Suzuki, Gore, Obama, Pachauri, etc etc and don’t get me started on the Hollywood hypocrites) – honestly, if anyone who actually believed this AGW religious horseshit, behaves that way you can only conclude that, by their own standards, they were an utterly unethical sociopathic monster, killing billions and wiping out entire species for their own gratification.

          • the link to find the articles you would like me to read would necessitate personal expenditure
            Says it all really. You’re not prepared to spend the price of a cup of coffee to have your ignorance challenged……….
            The authors are editors of scientific journals. You don’t get to edit such a journal without the required credentials. Bolt is simply bankrolled by Newscorp. They have paid his damages (as they did in the case of Popovic – http://www.crikey.com.au/2004/05/17/bolt-vs-popovic-in-the-high-court/) but they were careful enough with their dollar not to fund an appeal on his breach of 18C because they knew they would lose.

          • As I tried to point out, a journalist is a journalist is a journalist. You are an author and a blogger and an ex-headmaster schooled in whatever it takes to carry out those particular roles. If you think these journalists have scientific credentials apart from reporting on what others have written or espoused please point those credentials out. Don’t merely make an unfounded statement. My enquiries didn’t indicate any scientific qualifications. I am a believer in first hand evidence, not something that may be the result of a consensus of opinion as the result of a Chinese whisper. You haven’t convinced me yet.
            Price of a cup of coffee….that’s nothing to a yuppie latte sipper that enjoys topless bars in Qld. I am a little different to you in many ways…one of those is I won’t pay for coffee in a café or restaurant because of the price. Milkshake is cheaper and more satisfying. We should live within our budget….something left thinkers simply do not understand or wish to learn. But you know that don’t you.

        • Harry – you wrote abut the good life led by the warmies and how little of it they are prepared to give up for the planet.

          About 18 months ago I asked Qantas to tell me the percentage of travelers who paid extra to offset their portion of their flight’s emissions.

          Obviously classified info as I got nowhere. I assume from this the percentage is bouncing around zero.

  • People with a modicum of intelligence have read the science and agree – The climate changes…always has…always will. Most of those people, excluding of course, you and your Latter Day Alarmist mates, also realize that we don’t have to strip the economy in a mad rush to address the issue. You have to remember that a lot of different people have different agendas. The Greens, for example want to crush our economy; kill of our cheap power before reliable alternatives are available; stop cattle and sheep farming; stop mining with it’s associated billions in income and tens of thousands of jobs and generally stop all that makes Australia what it is.
    It was never going to rain again so the Greens forced Desal plants on us costing the economy billions. All sitting idle now because, shock-horror, it did rain. They also stopped the building of all dams because of a spotted frog or some other insignificant animal that they had planted in the vicinity to stop society and agriculture expanding. Councils have raised rates and in some cases stopped development near the coast because the Arctic and Antarctic were all gong to melt and the sea would rise. Shock-horror, the seas didn’t rise and won’t for centuries, if ever, but people are still paying increased rates.

    The GBR is not under threat but the Greens quote spurious sources to suggest we are killing it when cyclones do more damage that mankind ever will and it recovers – again – an again as it has for centuries. They are just dishonest and dangerous and yet you believe every word they utter.

    Oh, and Tony Abbott does what the majority of Australians want him to do. It is not about staying in power it is doing what is best for the country. The Australians want the government to address Climate change in a rational and practical manner. They do not want us to respond to every alarmist who features on the ABC and just close down the economy .

    The ALP are the people who do anything to stay in power as clearly outlined in the Killing Season.

  • You have to remember that a lot of different people have different agendas.
    Care to specify Pope Francis’ agenda?
    people are still paying increased rates.
    My heart bleeds.
    kill of (sic) our cheap power before reliable alternatives are available;
    That’s funny. I’m still waiting for our power bill to go down. The carbon tax was responsible for the steep rise, dontcha know?
    The GBR is not under threat
    It is, and the only point of contention is the listing. Without the regulatory frameworks related to sediment and herbicide runoff (introduced despite the noisy protests of a range of vested interests) it would be in a much worse state.
    Viva il Papa!

    • Pope’s Agenda
      He needs a distraction from all the perverted priests hitting the news,
      He needs to attract the younger generation and as they haven’t been out in the world long enough to work out that most of the left wing alarmists rubbish they were fed at high school is iffy he might get them in the fold, and
      He just might be a left winger himself’
      Your bleeding heart is typical of your type who advocate change based on doubtful science irregardless of the cost.
      Your power bill will not go down while the ALP in the chair in QLD. Get used to it.

      The GBR is not under any threat that it can’t recover from.

  • There are 1.2 billion of us worldwide, Kev, and we’re not going anywhere. The Pope has written to each and every one of us, and my family and I will surely be hearing about it on Sunday at Mater Dei.
    Every APRE will be workshopping the encyclical with staff in every Catholic school in the country come Monday, in preparation for embedding it in the SOSE units in the curriculum.
    As for a “bleeding heart” – thank you, it’s a badge of honour – http://1735099.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/confessions-of-bleeding-heart.html

  • Actually I agree with those that say the climate is changing in areas but only because the Earth is changing it’s axis. Some places are getting warmer while others are getting cooler. And obviously the reason for this is the fact that millions of tons of ore and coal is being removed from Australia ( making us lighter ) and transported overseas ( making them heavier ) Simple.

Leave a Reply to Kev Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *