US Republicans Shrug Off Pope Francis’ Climate Message

cartoon popeThe reactions [to the papal encyclical] suggested that the pontiff’s desire to translate his climate views into real action to combat greenhouse gases could fall flat, at least as far as the American political system is concerned. –Erica Werner and Matthew Daly, Associated Press, 18 June 2015

Pope Francis’ call for dramatic action on climate change drew a round of shrugs from congressional Republicans on Thursday, while many of the party’s presidential candidates ignored it entirely. “I don’t want to be disrespectful, but I don’t consider him an expert on environmental issues,” said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, a senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, in a comment echoed by a number of other Republicans. Even Capitol Hill’s many Catholics, despite their religion’s reverence for the holy father, seemed unmoved by his urgent plea to save the planet.  –Erica Werner and Matthew Daly, Associated Press, 18 June 2015

Like other environmental activists, the pope — who might now be considered the world’s leading green — is using global warming to prosecute a deeply ecological, anti-capitalist agenda. The pope’s green Peronism is hardly going to persuade American conservatives to join his climate crusade. Indeed, the pope invites disagreement with his views. “The Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics,” the Pope writes in Laudato si.’ “But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate.” Surely everyone can agree with that. –Rupert Darwall, National Review, 18 June 2015

A new Pew Research Center survey, released as Pope Francis publishes an encyclical on the environment and climate change, finds that 71% of self-identified American Catholics believe the earth is getting warmer, but only 47% attribute the perceived warming to human activity. –Susan Berry, Breitbart News, 17 June 2015

Pope Francis’s plunge into the climate change debate has caused uneasiness in the heartland of European conservative Catholicism in Poland, exposing the dilemma for Catholics who are devout but prefer their leaders to steer clear of “liberal” causes. For many Poles, coal is a national security issue. Without it, the country would need to import much more gas from Russia, making it dependent on a former overlord which it views with deep suspicion. Piotr Naimski, a member of parliament who is drafting energy policy for Law and Justice, would not comment directly on the encyclical but said: “All actions related to climate policy should be based on local needs.” –Pawel Sobczak and Jakub Iglewski, Reuters, 18 June 2015

The Pope has released an Encyclical on Care for our Common Home. It is rather long. It has good things. It has bad things. Carbon dioxide is referred to as pollution, which is a nonsense (outside the US legal system). Para 24 offers the alarmist claptrap you would expect to find in a Greenpeace magazine. Para 25 suggests that the poor are vulnerable to climate change because of where they live. Actually, they’re vulnerable because they’re poor. The Pope misdiagnoses, and thus recommends the wrong treatment. Economic growth is the prime strategy against the disproportionate impacts of climate change on the poor. —Richard Tol, 19 June 2015

We have, in the UK, devised the most blatant transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich – and I am slightly surprised that it is so strongly supported by those who consider themselves to be the tribunes of the people and politically on the Left. I refer to our system of heavily subsidizing wealthy landlords to have wind farms on their land, so that the poor can be supplied with one of the most expensive forms of electricity known to man. However, the greatest immorality of all concerns those in the developing world. There are still hundreds of millions of people in these countries in dire poverty, suffering all the ills that this brings, in terms of malnutrition, preventable disease, and premature death. Asking these countries to abandon the cheapest available sources of energy is, at the very least, asking them to delay the conquest of malnutrition, to perpetuate the incidence of preventable disease, and to increase the number of premature deaths. Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked. –Nigel Lawson, Financial Post, 18 June 2015

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    LDeaux

    |

    The Marxist Left has changed the language yet again. Choice used to mean freedom and was good. So eugenic murder was changed to abortion, then choice (still murder). Natural history and 4.6 billion years of climate change caught up to the AGW crowd so global warming is our, climate change is in. Except nobody in science denies climates change. They are always changing. Is CO2 the reason. Oh hell no and it would take 5,000 words to print all the simple chemistry, physics and mathematics reasons in Thermodynamics to explain that its a very small component of eK in A. But it is reality. Man’s impact on CO2 is sadly for the suffocating in O2 botanical world not really significant. The pope needs a science advisor who does not belong to the College of Cardinals, perhaps one from the biology department at the University of Notre Dame would be better.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    LDeaux

    |

    Quick science rundown on why CO2 is a NOT a modern driver of climate.

    1) Assume eK is all the stored kenetic energy within an open gas system.

    2) Assume +eK is new energy input and -eK is energy expelled. In our entropic Solar System, the primary source of e is the sun, while contributions do come aditionally as a result of planet cooling from within. Keep in mind, heat from within does not last forever. With each passing half life the heavy radioactive decay deep within the earth cools and eventually the earth will no longer have a liquid metalic core or a magnetic field of any significance. But EeK is always decreasing, the heat dissapating through techtonics to oceans and continents, absorbed by the atmosphere and convected eventually to space. EeK does effect climate long term.
    4) A is composed of mainly O2 and N2, with very little of anything else. CO2 is about 380 moleculer parts per million. Consider H2O (water) is about 100 x as common. Combined they account for 4% of A and 99.9% of GHG.
    5) GHG alarmists would have us believe that A is only warm because of CO2. In the first place water by weight makes up 40 x the GHG mass as CO2 and by weight is 21% more powerful at heat forcing compared to CO2. The two gases combined are certainly not the only reason the A receives and stores eK in thermodynamic transferance. Oceans and Land masses transfer heat from their surface into A by radiating heat (eK) those thermal masses have absorbed from the Sun in all wave lengths. While absorption in very narrow wavelengths of across the entire electromagnetic light spectrum applies to C, CO2, H2O and N2, the common transfer of eK from conversion of all Sc to eK occores in normal heat transferance by molecular excitation. Your electric oven undergoes climate change with the application of e to the system in the absence of increased CO2.
    6) Mathematically, for A:eK the sum of all energy present at equalibrium is the value of global climate and results in some actual temperature level.
    7) A:eK is always in flux to some degree and therefore, so is climate.
    8) A:eK accounts heats when e is added at a rate higher than it is evaporated away.
    9) Finally the ratios of all transferance of eK as it relates to all forms of eK stored within A is important so here are the realities and think of the A as if it were your oven, and the oceans, land masses as if sides of the oven, and the sun as the heat coil.
    10) The ratios for eK accumulation and dissapation to within A are called heat energy forcing values. HFeV for all A:CO2 = 1/50th of water. HVeV for water and CO2 combined = 1/18th of all other reasons the A:Tm (thermal mass) stores eK in the first place. Therefore, it is ludicrous to think CO2 (manmade or otherwise) in such trace amounts is a primary driver of climate. Its impact on climate is less than 1/1800th of the reason A:eK exists at all.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Climate change has not changed because it has always changed and always will .

    A pinch or two of added human originated Co2 is not about to alter the direction of our climate is headed .

    Plants will thank us though .

    Thank goodness the “earth has a fever “
    and not a cold .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Emanuelle Goldstein

    |

    Apparently the Catholic Church is every bit as political today as it was in Galileo’s time.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    LDeaux Re ..eK explanation

    They started losing me in school math when they introduced the alphabet so please excuse the lack of grasp of your explanation . I get the point you are making though .

    Assuming things are as you describe and
    presumably commonly accepted as fact ,
    I wonder how and why scary mann made global warming could ever have even gotten lift off ?

    Do the warmies take issue with your explanation and if not why so ? Where do they differ ?
    Natural occurring climate variables seem impossible to confidently weigh
    so how can climate models ,for example ,
    take this trace gas and blow it up into some planet killer when plants love it ?

    Any comments of explanation greatly appreciated .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    By gosh, I think I’ve got it !

    This might be saber-rattling.
    The DOPE may be pitching for the Nobel Peace prize.

    Think of all the sub IQ’s who won it.
    Think of the international terrorist murderer who won it.
    Think of the head of state who won it for no apparent reason.

    The DOPE is right in line.
    He’s parroting UN, IPCC, and Nobel committee gibberish.
    He just might get it.

    We’ll get to laugh again !

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.