Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Pope on global warming: Don’t get hysterical

posted at 7:05 pm on December 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

The Daily Mail’s overselling the force of his remarks considerably. But even so…

I think he might have won me back.

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.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement…

“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.

Pretty basic, actually, but let’s not kill a sweet narrative — especially one that sees fit to snicker, “senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.” Your exit question: What’s motivating this? Is the Pope really a righteous skeptic? Or, per what the Mail has to say about his warning not to privilege the lives of animals over humans, is he trying to head off the green fundies at the pass?


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Do I hear An AMEN for the Pope?

OBX Pete on December 11, 2007 at 7:10 PM

is he trying to head off the green fundies at the pass?

Ha. Man AP, you can spot a conspiracy a mile off. And way to link those stories into blog harmony. Truly artistic.

peski on December 11, 2007 at 7:13 PM

AMEN!

annoyinglittletwerp on December 11, 2007 at 7:13 PM

I’m lighting a candle and going to mass.

Kini on December 11, 2007 at 7:13 PM

Be fruitful and multiply, because we need a fresh new workforce to replenish the social security solvency.

Over taxed Aussies legally immigrated will help also.

Keeping up with the Muslims (as in pop growth)

Kini on December 11, 2007 at 7:19 PM

He will backtrack as soon as they burn a church or kill some nuns…..errrr

BL@KBIRD on December 11, 2007 at 7:21 PM

Unfortunately for the Church, the last time they told someone they’d better have scientifically verifiable proof before they spout off, it was Galileo. Look how well that turned out, The G-man got house arrest in his villa in Tuscany, and the Church got painted as anti-science (albeit hundreds of years later).

Iblis on December 11, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Get thee behind me Al Gore…

elgeneralisimo on December 11, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Or, per what the Mail has to say about his warning not to privilege the lives of animals over humans, is he trying to head off the green fundies at the pass?

His warning not to privilege the lives of animals over humans is based on the Bible:

What is man that thou art mindful of him … ? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea.

I can’t speak for the Vatican but my guess is that Pope Benedict has realised that the evangelical environmental movement is merely another manifestation of neo-paganism. They worship the earth and demand sacrifice from one and all to sate its wrath.

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 7:26 PM

One thing is global warming policies hurt the very poor, as “sustainable development” often means cutting off any ability for poorer, less developed nations to economically progress, and thus they stay mired in third-world conditions. Maybe concern for the possible “culling the human population” argument as well. It’s a recognition that this tenuous global warming theory has in its supposed solutions an anti-human slant.

brak on December 11, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Pretty good. Let’s hear something from the Pope about Mugabe, Chavez, and Cuba next.

JiangxiDad on December 11, 2007 at 7:32 PM

I think he might have won me back.

He lost ya?

It’s very nice to see the Pope come out with this statement. The global warming hysterics need to really stop and think. Of course, the Pope and his predecessor were still wrong about the Iraq war, but this IS the Church…(yes, I’m Catholic)

JetBoy on December 11, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Get thee behind me Al Gore…

elgeneralisimo on December 11, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Shudder the thought of the Goracle as an alter boy.

Kini on December 11, 2007 at 7:35 PM

I’m probably farthest from an authority on what the Pope’s meaning might be, but I think it is entirely reasoned for a religious leader of immense influence to caution impressionable people who respect him, regarding any ideology which is rapidly or perhaps artificially inflated, or any threat by the same token.

Guidance, wisdom etc are just a few of the small things positive religion can bring to people’s lives.

saus on December 11, 2007 at 7:39 PM

Pretty good. Let’s hear something from the Pope about Mugabe, Chavez, and Cuba next.

John Paul II’s visit to Cuba was one of the most overlooked incidents of the last decade. The first time a Pope ever went to Cuba. They (the Cuban government) initially opposed it but he said he was going to go anyway and Fidel et al. backed down. It didn’t have a destabillising effect on the Cuban regime but it was worthwhile all the same.

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 7:40 PM

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 7:40 PM

Yes, it was wonderful. I meant that hopefully the Pope can intimidate Raul.

JiangxiDad on December 11, 2007 at 7:45 PM

This is great! I am an athiest who disagrees with global warming theory. My wife is a democrat yet relatively devout catholic. I wonder how the lefty catholics will feel about this? How about the concept of Papal infallability?

redshirt on December 11, 2007 at 7:48 PM

I wonder how the lefty catholics will feel about this? How about the concept of Papal infallability?

Please ask your wife and let us know. I hope he has tremendous influence.

JiangxiDad on December 11, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Of course, the Pope and his predecessor were still wrong about the Iraq war, but this IS the Church…(yes, I’m Catholic)

No they weren’t. Chaldean Christians are being chased out of the country or subjected to dhimmi rule. Meanwhile what are the chances that Iraq becomes a functioning stable democracy or a genuine US ally after the troops have gone home? Sharia law is constitutional in Iraq. Neoconservatism works in relatively apolitical countries like South Korea and the Philippines but “democracy” cannot replace Islamic law in majority-Muslim countries.

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 7:51 PM

How about the concept of Papal infallability?

redshirt on December 11, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Papal infallibility only applies to pronouncements made ex cathreda regarding matters of theological doctrine. It does not apply to political issues such as this (or the Iraq War). “Papal infallibility” is not relevant here it all, just the opinion of a highly intelligent man.

WillBarrett on December 11, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Yes, it was wonderful. I meant that hopefully the Pope can intimidate Raul.

Yeah, I hope so too.

How about the concept of Papal infallability?

Papal infallability refers to official judgment on Catholic dogma. It doesn’t mean that whatever the Pope says at any given moment is unassailable.

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Take the Global Warming Quiz

Kini on December 11, 2007 at 7:58 PM

If you really want to know how the Pope thinks, watch Father Ted.

thejackal on December 11, 2007 at 8:01 PM

Amen. Kinda makes you wonder where he comes up with all that other cocoo chit. Doesn’t it? ]sarcasm[

Griz on December 11, 2007 at 8:05 PM

If you really want to know how the Pope thinks, watch Father Ted.

I don’t know what to make of this statement. Father Ted was a great sitcom. I’ve seen every episode about five times at least. All my friends insist on putting on reruns constantly to the point of tedium.

It’s one of the best satires of parochical Irish Catholicism (and Catholicism in general) ever committed to screen. It hardly rivals John Huston’s screen adaptation of James Joyce’s The Dead in eloquence or film-making but the trueness of the caricatures are enough to make it funny and relevant.

But what has got to do with the Pope? Like I said I don’t know what to make of this statement.

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 8:18 PM

I think he might have won me back.

May have won me back. Might would be for a present counter-to-fact subjunctive.

(Just sayin’…)

Tzetzes on December 11, 2007 at 8:25 PM

Sounds like the grand poo-bah is a little put off by the competition from the Goracle

conservnut on December 11, 2007 at 8:30 PM

He will backtrack as soon as they burn a church or kill some nuns…..errrr

BL@KBIRD on December 11, 2007 at 7:21 PM

They’ll torch the Popemobile.

Frozen Tex on December 11, 2007 at 8:36 PM

The voice of reason.

Zorro on December 11, 2007 at 8:36 PM

No they weren’t. Chaldean Christians are being chased out of the country or subjected to dhimmi rule. Meanwhile what are the chances that Iraq becomes a functioning stable democracy or a genuine US ally after the troops have gone home? Sharia law is constitutional in Iraq. Neoconservatism works in relatively apolitical countries like South Korea and the Philippines but “democracy” cannot replace Islamic law in majority-Muslim countries.

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Actually, some neighborhoods are asking the Christians to come back now. Check out Michael Yon’s blog.

Frozen Tex on December 11, 2007 at 8:37 PM

Do I hear An AMEN for the Pope?

OBX Pete on December 11, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Bing, right out of the box. Nice, Pete.

Amen, Ben!

On the Exit Question, it is curious. Seems like only yesterday, his Holiness was all about The Stewardship.

Jaibones on December 11, 2007 at 8:45 PM

Unfortunately for the Church, the last time they told someone they’d better have scientifically verifiable proof before they spout off, it was Galileo. Look how well that turned out, The G-man got house arrest in his villa in Tuscany, and the Church got painted as anti-science (albeit hundreds of years later).

Iblis on December 11, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Excellent point. You’re my hero.

Your exit question: What’s motivating this? Is the Pope really a righteous skeptic?

I think the Pope is trying to defuse the leftism that has the Catholic church in the 3rd world tied in knots. Ever since Paul VI’s endorsement (or near endorsement) of communism, the church has had to deal with people that want to de-mystify the doctrine and make Jesus into some sort of revolutionary. In the 20th century it took the form of out and out Marxism, but now it seems to be mutating into environmentalism. It isn’t just the animal rights folks, as your link suggests, but they are a big part of it.

JackOfClubs on December 11, 2007 at 8:49 PM

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 7:51 PM

South Korea and the Philippines are apolitical?

Cipherprime on December 11, 2007 at 8:54 PM

Here is the Pope’s full speech.

And here is the section the quote is from:

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. 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. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. 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. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. 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.

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. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth’s energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 8:54 PM

Actually, some neighborhoods are asking the Christians to come back now. Check out Michael Yon’s blog.

I’m well aware of that. But when US troops leave what then? Is religious pluralism achievable without the permanent presence of the US? Can Iraqi Christians survive in Baghdad, the seat of the Caliph, without the presence of a non-Muslim standing army? I think not.

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 8:55 PM

South Korea and the Philippines are apolitical?

Compared to Islam, yes. They dropped authoritarianism like a hot potato when the opportunity arose. The democratic revolutions in those countries saw them throw off their autocratic restraints. Perhaps non-ideological would be a more accurate term.

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 9:01 PM

aengus on December 11, 2007 at 9:01 PM

I don’t wan’t to be pedantic w/ someone I probably agree with. Most of the South Koreans and Phillipin-aio I have met (having lived in Japan and the S. Pacific for over 20 years), are very political, often religious, and sometimes idealogical (like visiting Democratic Underground, but, ummm, more conspiricy oriented — but with reason!).

So, to you, “non-ideological” and/or “apolitical” mean that they en masse are not stark raving mad and or a member of some conspiracy believer club, like over 50% of every other human you’ve ever met? I’m sorry: they’re humans. ipso facto: they are insane, just like you and me. And they have *more* variations in politics than we do. For God sake, in the PI, they have more than 50 languages! We just have Fox and CNN with the same language. That does not lead to understanding.

I think, though: I understand your point. You mean to say that they have taken every chance possible to resist authoritarianism. Well to that, two points: (a) they’ve had the protection of United States guns to help; and (b) look at their governments today and since the wars — they’ve made their democratic mistakes as well.

Again: I think I mostly agree w/ your point, but your examples were very messy…

Cipherprime on December 11, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Papa Bene! I hope he has a few more years. He’s one of the good guys.

Connie on December 11, 2007 at 9:21 PM

Wonder if this will have any effect on Liberal Protestants, who have made Global Warming a central doctrine?

Nah!

Hening on December 11, 2007 at 9:22 PM

Cool. It is sometimes tough to be a Catholic given the “sometimes a bit” out of touch nature of the papacy, and the rampant liberalism of the US Bishops…this is good medicine though. Rock On Ratz!!!!

Dirthead on December 11, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Global Warming has morphed into a false religion for the secular humanists. They intend to link all the world’s problems to global warming so they can use that bugaboo to implement forced wealth distribution and other manifestations of their agenda. What else would you expect from a bunch of faithless socialists?

The GW crowd isusing the excuse of drowning polar bears (they swim BTW) to interject a whole doctrine based on a very skewed kind of “faith.” Al Gore is a false Messiah for this movement. The Pope is right to question.

highhopes on December 11, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Wonder if this will have any effect on Liberal Protestants, who have made Global Warming a central doctrine?

Nope. These so-called “Christians” abandoned the faith years ago.

highhopes on December 11, 2007 at 10:02 PM

I think the Pope is trying to defuse the leftism that has the Catholic church in the 3rd world tied in knots.

Yeah the lefties take “The worker should enjoy the fruits of his labor” and turn it into liberation theology, which is a no-no.

Its about time the people who ushered in modern science got back in the game.

Iblis on December 11, 2007 at 10:33 PM

Your exit question: What’s motivating this? Is the Pope really a righteous skeptic?

That, or he’s not happy with the competition for the faithful.

Pablo on December 11, 2007 at 11:02 PM

I was thrilled that he was cleaning up after Pope John XXIII’s Second Vatican Council. Now this! Heart be still!

sinsing on December 12, 2007 at 12:53 AM

Religious wars. Global-warmingism 1, Catholicism 1.

saved on December 12, 2007 at 5:09 AM

Wow, I’m glad to read this…I had thought he was jumping on the man-made global warming bandwagon based on previous statements.

deedledee on December 12, 2007 at 7:09 AM

Perfect.

I mean, who would issue death threats against the Pope?

Ryan Gandy on December 12, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.