Posts tagged with: Environmental skepticism

Blog author: bwalker
Tuesday, August 4, 2015

US Democratic leader Pelosi calls papal encyclical an asset in climate change
Fox Business

Pelosi said Pope Francis’ encyclical “really made an important impression on the world” and noted that citizens “who might reject a policy initiative spoken by a government official in the United States, really cannot ignore his holiness Pope Francis on the subject.” Pelosi made the comments Monday during a visit to the Milan Expo 2015 world’s fair focusing on food security issues, and as President Obama prepared to unveil later in the day new regulations demanding steep greenhouse gas cuts from U.S. power plants.

Obama says climate change a danger to future generations, national security
Fox News Latino

Obama also said Monday that, as Pope Francis made clear in his encyclical on climate change, the fight against this global problem is “a moral obligation.”

US President Obama unveils Clean Power Plan
Vatican Radio

The Clean Power Plan is widely seen as the cornerstone of President Obama’s desire to secure a global treaty at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris this December, an event which Pope Francis’ recently-released Encyclical Laudato si’ also seeks to influence.

Heartland Daily Podcast – Craig Idso: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
H. Sterling Burnett, Somewhat Reasonable

Burnett and Idso discuss the work of the center in general and in particular his response to the Pope Francis’s comments and encyclical on climate change. In his recently released paper, “Stewardship and Sustainable Development in a World of Rising Atmospheric CO2: A Biblical Perspective on Humanity’s Relationship to the Biosphere,” Idso agrees with the Pope that we must be concerned with making the world a better place for present and future generations. In contrast to the pontiff, however, Idso argues increased CO2 and continued, broadened use of fossil fuels is the way to accomplish that goal.


Blog author: bwalker
Tuesday, July 14, 2015

A Hindu Reflection on Pope’s Climate Change Encyclical
Sunita Viswanath, Huffington Post

Through this Encyclical, the Pope has invited every person on the planet into dialogue on the many pressing ecological issues facing humanity – and their impact on the poorest people of the world. As I read the Ramayana and lose myself in the beautiful descriptions of forests, lakes and roaring confluences of rivers, each such site is revealed to me as holy. I am filled with renewed conviction that the only thing I can do in the face of gargantuan challenges such as global warming and global hunger and poverty is to try and keep my heart as clear as the river where Valmiki bathed, and learn to transform my grief and despair into selfless service (seva).

Pope Francis’ Call for Climate Action
Gina McCarthy, Huffington Post

Earlier this year in a series of meetings at the Vatican on the Encyclical with key Papal advisors, Cardinal Turkson laid out our moral obligation to act on climate change not only from the compelling scientific data, but also from his own firsthand experience in Ghana. The meetings ended with a sense of urgency, but also with a feeling of opportunity and hope.

Boehner versus the pope
Bill Press, The Hill

The pope also condemned capitalism because of its role in development of global warming, thereby putting “at risk our common home, sister and mother earth.” As in his recently published encyclical Laudato Si’, Francis preached that climate change is real, that its primary cause is human activity and that political leaders have a moral duty to do something about it. This certainly won’t sit well with Congress’s Republican posse of climate deniers.

This Catholic supports climate fix
Tom Engelmann, Quad-City Times

Republicans, can you see the reality of what’s happening? Sens. Joni Ernst, Chuck Grassley? I wanted to write before when the Pope’s encyclical came out and the Quad-City Times interviewed the vice-chair of the Scott County Republican party to demonstrate Catholic opposition to the Pope’s words. At that time, the only point he made was the Pope should keep his nose out of politics and stick to morality.


Blog author: bwalker
Friday, June 26, 2015

The Pope, the Globe, and the Facts
Cal Thomas,

Is it worth radically altering our economies and lifestyles and giving government even more power over us for a climate change faith that has not been fully debated and is problematic at best and wrong at worst?

The Pope’s “Science Advisor” Is an Atheist Who Worships the Earth
The Rush Limbaugh Show

The word for it in the story that I found, one of the most credible stories, is a pantheist, which is a variation of atheist. A pantheist is somebody that believes the earth is a living organism that has the equivalent of a brain and reacts to horrible things done to it by humans.

U.S. has the strategy to back up Pope’s climate change appeal
The Lowell Sun

What’s the most efficient way of reducing harmful emissions? MIT Energy Economics Professor Christopher Knittel shows that revenue-neutral surcharges on emissions are far more efficient than present regulations. Present laws require new cars to be more fuel-efficient. For instance, electric cars get the equivalent of 100 mpg.

Heed the pope’s call for action on climate change
James Corbett, Seacoast Online

In contrast to the Pope, the President, and the majority of the American people, however, climate deniers and their allies in Congress are still trying to block public health and environmental safeguards. On the day the encyclical was released, the Senate Appropriations Committee advanced a bill aimed at dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Clean Power Plan, which sets the first ever federal limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. It’s time for polluters and their congressional allies to stop trying to block action on climate, and start working to protect our public health, our environment, and our future.


I’ll admit – it’s been a long time since I’ve posted a Global Warming Consensus Alert because, frankly, any “consensus” that existed was blown apart by the release of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit e-mails, which revealed a whole bunch of underhanded activity on the part of scientists promoting the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. What’s the point anymore? The unshakeable climate “consensus” has been shown to be the fraud that it always was, and the catastrophic climate change scare is receding as a political issue. It seemed like the time was right to retire the Consensus Watch series.

And then the 10:10 Campaign decided to release what has to be the most amazingly awful public relations campaign in the history of public relations campaigns.

To be honest, I’d never heard of the 10:10 campaign before last night, so in that sense, their PR ploy has been successful. It appears to be another one of the seemingly countless organizations that spring up to encourage people to make reductions in their carbon output. Their schtick is that we all need to commit to reducing our carbon output by 10% a year starting this year. (An aside to the businesses that have signed up for this campaign: just what do you anticipate that you’ll be doing in 10 years when you wind your carbon emissions down to zero?) And with October 10 coming up (10.10.10 – clever), they released a promo film on YouTube to, I suppose, raise awareness for their cause.

The video stars Gillian Anderson of X-Files fame, features music by Radiohead, and may just be the worst attempt at public relations in history. CONTENT WARNING: if you think you might be the kind of person who gets offended at graphic footage of people being blown up for not adhering to a scientific theory, you might not want to watch.

Fantastic PR idea, isn’t it? It’s nice to know that there are people who are willing to finance a high-quality film production depicting the casual extermination of individuals like me who haven’t bought into the idea that human activity is the sole cause of a coming climate Armageddon. And honestly, I can’t decide what’s creepier: the portrayal of people so casually murdering others for the crime of not buying into a panic based on a scientific orthodoxy that began to unravel a year ago, or the murderers’ completely nonchalant response to the horrified reactions of the children and office workers who had just been doused in the blood and entrails of the exploded global warming skeptics. It would seem to me that if you’re going to create a film where the heroes commit gruesome crimes, it would be best to have any witnesses to said crimes not react with revulsion and horror in order to establish that your heroes are actually good people, and not, you know, brutal, inhuman beasts.

Kill Em' All

Suggested Logo for 10:10 Campaign

Part of me feels guilty for blogging about this because it is a transparent ploy for attention on the part of people who deserve nothing but contempt, but on the other hand, this film is such a compact and powerful demonstration of the contempt for human life that undergirds much of the modern environmental movement that I can’t resist sharing it. After all, the prerequisite for being comfortable with producing a film that depicts the casual, gruesome murder of one’s ideological opponents (for the greater good, of course) is the belief that human life has no inherent value, and that humans, far from being the crown of creation, are in fact not part of creation at all, but instead a destructive parasite that leeches off of and destroys the pristine beauty of Mother Earth. One may protest that the good folks at 10:10 are just “playing around” or “being funny” or “trying to make a point.” Nonsense. The issue at hand is a disagreement within the scientific community over the interpretation of data. The world is not in imminent danger of destruction. The 10:10 Campaign has no business casually dehumanizing people who simply disagree with them.

(I suppose it might be worthwhile to note the irony of climate alarmists creating a fictional world where they are allowed to exterminate their political opponents after spending years demonizing skeptics even to the point of comparing them to Nazi sympathizers who deny the reality of the Holocaust. Oh, and here’s a link to a nice, breezy article about the film at an environmentally themed website. “It would be so much easier to tackle global climate change if these naysayers were blown up like BP’s oil well.” Yeah, killing all the people who disagree with you would make it easier for you to get your longed-for public consensus.)

David Burge, who those of us in the blogosphere know better as Iowahawk, left a comment on the original YouTube video (that has since been made “private,” ideally out of shame but more likely because it had accomplished its intended purpose of creating “buzz”) that provides a good bit of perspective on this film, and nicely sums up my thoughts on the matter:

In order for your “No Pressure” advert to have been made, I am assuming several writers pitched a professionally-prepared storyboard to a committee, detailing shot-by-shot each second of the film. The committee approved it, along with a minimum $250,000 budget to hire actors, director, & crew. Each scene probably took 3-10 takes, and weeks of post production by special effects wizards.

At no time did a single person involved in this cluster**** say, “hey, maybe it isn’t the best PR to air our fantasies about detonating the people who don’t agree with us into a mist of blood meat and bone fragments.”

This has got to be the biggest FAIL in the entire history of the internet. Anyone remotely associated with the production of this film should forever be banished from any public institution in the English speaking world, and immediately referred for psychiatric evaluation.

Amen. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go get a bunch of plastic, douse it in oil and set it aflame in honor of the 10:10 Campaign.