Watch: Sen. Whitehouse: I hope Dept of Justice sues ‘vast climate denial apparatus’
Catholic Priest Just Dropped This Major Truth Bomb On The Pope’s Global Warming Advocacy
Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., a retired professor of political philosophy
“The question is: What does Pope Francis make of this spirit that pushes these ecological and political movements that seek to control the world?” writes Schall. “Such anti-Christian forces work to establish a world-state in complete control of nature, population, and economy. The Pope clearly is opposed to abortion, single-sex marriage, and such deviations. But many who seem closest to him certainly advocate these Lord of the World concepts. However we evaluate it, it seems worrisome.”
The 87-year-old priest also challenges Francis’ argument of sustainability. “Briefly, the goal of ecological vision is posed in terms of creating a world that takes into consideration future generations,” he writes. “The consumption of goods must include future usage.”…
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: Pope Francis Recycles (Stale Arguments About Climate)
Pope Francis practices what Mikhail Gorbachev would refer to as “old thinking,” in this case, that free economies can’t solve the “problems of global hunger and poverty,” and that they somehow destroy their natural resources while being incapable of dealing with climate change.
Where does he get this stuff? Since the turn of the 20th century, life expectancy has doubled in the developed world, per capita income has grown elevenfold, and wealth as been democratized far beyond the wildest opium dreams of Karl Marx. This happened in energy-driven free market economies, not the command-and-control world that Francis envisions. Crucially, the developed world brought into existence by overcoming energy poverty is largely immune to the vagaries of weather and climate. Poor countries are not.
Make no mistake: limiting access to energy will keep people poor and life short. Solar energy and windmills are never going to power a major modern city, and therefore they will never run a modern nation. With the exception of geographically-limited hydropower or sometimes unpopular nuclear fusion, the only way to avoid a life of poverty, infirmity, and vulnerability to climate is through the use of fossil fuels. They have been the engine of wealth and progress.…
Flashback 1971: Scientists Predict Burning Coal Will Cause The Next Ice Age
the Washington Post reported on July 9, 1971, quoting Dr. S. I. Rasool of NASA and Columbia University.
According to Rasool, fine dust from fossil fuel use would block out so much sunlight that the Earth’s “average temperature could drop by six degrees.” Rasool added that “such a temperature increase could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”
Basically, pollutants from burning coal and other fuels tend to reflect solar energy back into space. Scientists were worried that such man-made aerosols would block out so much sunlight that global temperatures would drop — just like how volcanoes can cause some atmospheric cooling.…
PRESIDENT OF VATICAN ACADEMY ATTACKS CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTIC
In a rare display of diplomatic indecorum, Margaret Archer, the president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, has lashed out at the author of a recent essay, accusing him of hate speech and moral depravity for questioning the Academy’s position on climate change.
…
Margaret Archer, a 72-year-old former sociology lecturer at the University of Warwick, is the second-highest ranking woman in the Vatican. She was personally chosen by Bishop Sanchez Sorondo last year to replace the highly respected Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon as President of the Academy. Glendon is considered by many to be a pro-life hero and, in a widely publicized move in 2009, turned down the Laetare Medal at the University of Notre Dame, after learning that she would be sharing the stage with President Barack Obama, who supports abortion on demand.
Archer took great offense at Gennarini’s column about his exchange with Bishop Sanchez. In language resembling that used by liberal lobbies, she called it “a hate message” despite the fact that nothing about the piece expressed any sort of animosity toward Sanchez and instead merely questioned the Academy’s move to invite advocates of abortion and population control to speak at a high-profile Vatican event.
Archer, in turn, questioned Gennarini’s credentials while holding up her own. She writes, “We are respected academics who take full responsibility for our actions and have, according to our Statutes, the duty and privilege of advising the Church on matters of Social Doctrine and its application. I am appointed by the Pope and responsible directly to him. I’m afraid that leaves you and your cohort out in the cold.”
Parroting the same charges leveled by Bishop Sanchez Sorondo, she queries, “which lobbyists meet your salary bill?” Without ever answering Gennarini’s central thesis, Archer charges him with having “a minimalistic version of the [Catholic] Creed, consisting of a single item: ‘We believe in the ethical depravity of abortion.’”
…
Last month, Stefano Gennarini, the director of legal studies at the New York and Washington DC-based Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), published a column about a Vatican-sponsored conference concerning global warming, questioning why vocal proponents of abortion and population control had been invited to offer advice to the Holy See.
Gennarini suggested that inviting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, and former Senator Tim Wirth, all of whom hold moral positions at variance …
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: Why Coral Reefs & Shellfish Will Not Die From ‘Ocean Acidification’
Seawater in the open ocean is typically at a pH of 8.0-8.5 on a scale of 0-14, where 0 is the most acidic, 14 is most basic and 7 is neutral. Ocean acidification from increased CO2 is predicted to make the ocean less basic, perhaps to pH 7.5 under so-called worst-case projections.
How do I know that increased CO2 will not kill the coral reefs and shellfish? Let me count the ways.
First, contrary to popular belief, at 400 parts per million (0.04 per cent), CO2 is lower now in the atmosphere than it has been during most of the 550 million years since modern life forms emerged during the Cambrian period. CO2 was about 10 times higher then than it is today.
Corals and shellfish evolved early and have obviously managed to survive through eras of much higher CO2 than present levels. This alone should negate the “predictions” of species extinction from CO2 levels nowhere near the historical maximum.
Second, due to its high concentration of basic elements such as calcium and magnesium, seawater has a powerful buffering capacity to prevent large swings in pH due to the addition of CO2.This self-correcting capacity of seawater will ensure the pH will remain well within levels conducive to calcification, the process whereby shells and coral structures are formed. Marine shells are largely made of calcium carbonate, the carbon of which is derived from the CO2 dissolved in the seawater.
Third, and most interesting, there are freshwater species of clams and mussels that manage to produce calcareous shells at pH 4-5, well into the acidic range. They are able to do this because a mucous layer on their shell allows them to control the pH near the surface and to make calcification possible beneath the mucous layer.
…
Fourth, ocean acidification proponents invariably argue that increased CO2 will also cause the oceans to warm due to a warming climate. Yet they conveniently ignore the fact that when water warms the gases dissolved in it tend to “outgas”.
It’s the same phenomenon that happens in a glass of cold water taken from the fridge and placed on a counter at room temperature. The bubbles that form on the inside of the glass as it warms are the gases that were dissolved in the colder water. So in theory a warmer sea will have less CO2 dissolved in it than a cooler one.
This …