Is Pope Francis greening? As well as moving to the Left? I’m beginning to worry. When Francis talks about the poor, he alludes to the “preferential option for the poor”. The phrase came out of Latin American Liberation Theology, with its neo-Marxist utopian view of socialism. One can certainly detect green affinities in his preaching. Today green ideology leans toward the Left — supposedly it is industrial capitalism that is the major agent in bringing about the global catastrophe that is predicted by the green prophecy. When it comes to global warming, the mantra accompanying the prophetic rhetoric keeps repeating, “The science is all in”. I rather doubt it. I am not a climatologist; but neither is Pope Francis. One may recall that the Church was wrong before in endorsing the pre-Copernican cosmology. -- Peter Berger, The American Interest, 14 January 2015
My Take – The ever popular Pope? Is that what he said? Popular to whom? What I keep hearing is – Who picked this guy? One friend, who is very active in the church said – What do you expect from a Jesuit? That doesn’t sound all that popular to me! Does it to you? Did I miss something! What I don't understand is how can such a well educated man believe moving left is a Christian concept, and green is now the spear point of leftism in an attempt to impose worldwide socialism. The socialist movement has been devastating to humanity, increased poverty, misery and suffering and that's for those that weren't murdered by these socialist governments to the tune of 100 million innocent people according to the Black Book of Communism. Did he ever read a history book? Socialists rail against every imperfection of capitalism, yet capitalism has brought more people out of squalor than any system ever devised by man. Why? Because capitalism is part and parcel of the human genetic paradigm....in short....it's all natural. Socialism is unnatural, brutal and leaves nothing but dystopia in its wake. If that's the history of socialism - and it is - and the Pope is too well educated not to know that history - and he's embracing the green/left movement - I'm wondering if he's sane.
A new Duke University-led study finds that most climate models likely underestimate the degree of decade-to-decade variability occurring in mean surface temperatures as Earth’s atmosphere warms. The models also provide inconsistent explanations of why this variability occurs in the first place. “The inconsistencies we found among the models are a reality check showing we may not know as much as we thought we did,” said lead author Patrick T. Brown. --Duke University, 26 January 2015
A study led by atmospheric physicists at the University of Toronto finds that global warming will not lead to an overall increasingly stormy atmosphere, a topic debated by scientists for decades. Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged. --University of Toronto, 29 January 2015
My Take – New “techniques”, “modeling”, “speculation”, Phil Jones and mystic faith in Anthropogenic Global Warming! Now there’s five aces for ya boy! Sane people who eschew the mystic faith of the warmers have concluded all this claptrap really is fraud! Especially after the scandal of the East Anglia e-mails and the Mann SLAP suits against Tim Ball and Mark Steyn. He lost the Ball suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, because Ball used the “truth” defense, which is called the “Scorched Earth Defense” in Canada and Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata, you know, the stuff Mann refers to as his “dirty laundry”.
As John O’Sullivan says, anyone can “freely dismiss him in the harshest terms as a junk scientist who shilled for a failed global warming cabal. Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.” And he is now facing countersuits. Apparently Mann and his supporters know as little about law as they do about climate science.
Apparently none of that matters, Jones is still being paid, East Anglia is still spouting off, global warming is still being pursued by the activists in and out of government, Mann is till quoted, the universities are still being prodded to turn out all the “necessary facts” –heavy emphasis on necessary – to promote this false narrative, and these “scientists”and their supporters snicker at people of faith and sneer at anyone who disagrees with them claiming they're anti-science – all in the face of reality. The ancient Druids would have gladly embraced these warmers. We need to understand that modern environmentalism’s foundation is the Celtic nature worshipping Druids from the deep, dark, mist covered forests of ancient Germania. Once we understand that, understanding all else they do starts to fall into place.
It’s a sign of utter desperation that President Obama uses a set of flawed data to claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record. Obviously, that it not the case and the Met Office here in the UK has confirmed that it is impossible, statistically speaking, to say which of the last few years were warmer. – Benny Peiser, Sun News TV, 27 January 2015
After Obama Visit, India To Double Coal Output. India’s ambitious plans to more than double coal output to increase power generation will not face the heat of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s commitment to tackle climate change. Ironically, the carbon-emitting fuel got protection from the government’s plans to ramp up its solar power capacity five-fold. Coal was given a wide berth in the Modi-Obama climate and energy deal. --Urmi Goswami, Economic Times of India, 29 January 2015
Despite international pressure, India’s climate negotiators have been reluctant to commit to specific emissions targets in part because the country must depend on coal as its primary energy source for at least the next decade. U.S. officials had hoped to announce a deal on climate change that would be a modest complement to the historic agreement the United States reached with China in November. But little progress has been made because India and China are in very different places in their development, experts say. “The growth of coal is inevitable,” said Navroz K. Dubash, senior fellow at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. --Annie Gowen, The Washington Post, 24 January 2015
To spur the solar sector, and meet its 100 GW solar goal, India is looking for investments to the tune of a $100 billion within a period of 6–7 years — more than half of this is expected to come from abroad. This is where the United States is expected to play an important role. Explaining the US stance in a joint press conference with Modi yesterday, President Obama said, “We very much support India’s ambitious goal for solar energy, and stand ready to speed this expansion with additional financing.” --Anand Upadhyay, CleanTechnica, 26 January 2015
India’s resistance to accept a peak year for emissions was a prime reason why US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi failed to strike a climate deal along the lines of a US-China agreement on emission cuts. The US wanted India to make specific commitments including a peak year for a new climate treaty to be signed at Paris later this year. But India refused as it feared it would have resulted in the world putting India in the same bracket as China on carbon emissions. --Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, 27 January 2015
My Take – India understands three things. Global Warming is based on mystic faith, and will end up on the ash heap of history, their economy absolutely needs reliable energy generation, there’s still money to be harvested by promoting alternatives and blithering idiots like Obama will give it to them. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the offices of foreign leaders after one of Obama’s official visits….or are they in reality vacations. So does it really matter what he talks about since they all apparently think very little of his thought or his skills. Imagine that? A man who never had a job has no skills!
In their haste to install green energy resources at any cost, Europe’s policymakers have deployed their beloved solar panels and wind turbines inefficiently. It simply doesn’t make sense to blanket one’s countryside with solar panels if the sun rarely shines, or to erect row upon row of wind turbines in the doldrums. Green incompetence is one of the greatest threats to the future of our planet; sadly, green incompetence is a theme the mainstream press studiously ignores in the mistaken belief that to expose green idiocy is a bad thing. They are wrong: green dogmatism, lackwit policy planning and corruption (special interests using ‘green’ hype to push worthless boondoggles like ethanol and solar plants in the shade) are among the greatest of the dangers humanity faces at a critical time. --Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, 22 January 2015
My Take – They’ve deployed their solar panels and wind turbines inefficiently? Does it really matter? These devices will be losers and it doesn’t matter where they are and even if they were placed to get the maximum yield due to placement, they aren’t capable of delivering anywhere near what an industrial society needs unless they literally cover the country, and after the maintenance costs are added into the cost of replacing them….which will be a far sooner than any traditional power plant – the economics will be all out of whack. So….who cares where they are they’re going to have to be replaced soon anyway.
The overwhelming majority of Britons believe in climate change but fewer than one in five is very worried about it, new research has revealed. Despite warnings from UN scientists, politicians and even Prince Charles that time is running out to avoid catastrophic global warming, the number of people describing themselves as “very concerned” has more than halved over the past decade. --Emily Gosden, The Daily Telegraph, 29 January 2015
My Take – Wait until the full impact of the cost of energy hits them – The beginning of wisdom is the price of energy. It’s coming! And then we see how many “really” believe in manmade global warming.
The Scottish Government’s moratorium on fracking raises some serious questions about the future success of the Grangemouth industrial complex – and questions too about the motive of ministers. If the economic viability of Grangemouth is dependent on shale oil and gas, and Scotland is at best unsure about whether it wants any fracking to take place, then concerns about jobs and future economic benefit would seem to be legitimate. Why, then, are Scottish ministers now making decisions that could cast doubt on its long-term future? --The Scotsman, 29 January 2015
Ministers have imposed a series of Labour demands on the UK’s fracking industry, in a last-minute move to avert a House of Commons defeat and pave the way for the development of shale oil and gas across Britain. A group of MPs failed on Monday to derail legislation to help fracking companies extract what experts believe are trillions of cubic feet of gas and billions of barrels of oil trapped beneath the UK. But, in a heated Commons debate, the government accepted an opposition amendment that will strengthen controls on the industry. --Christopher Adams and Jim Pickard, Financial Times, 27 January 2015
Why can’t the global-warming catastrophe industry convince the public that the scare underwriting its meal ticket is real? Even the CSIRO’s annual survey last year showed that 53% of Australians reject the official story. In Britain, more of the same, with a new survey showing those who describe themselves “very concerned” about climate change falling to 18%, down from 44% in 2005. My theory is that the global warming industry has made itself so ridiculous over the past 30 years, so hyperventilatingly ludicrous, by predicting ever-more-dire catastrophes by the year 20XX. But then year 20XX comes and goes and life continues as normal. --Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online, 30 January 2015
Editor’s Note: Please note this next article was in 2004.
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year [2005] widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.” --Mark Townsend and Paul Harris, The Guardian, 22 February 2004
Every movement has its nutters. Climate warriors have long ago stopped being civil. But we seem to be entering a new level of radicalisation. In January 2015, a Greenpeace activist called for the beheading of a member of the House of Lords on the website of the Guardian. When challenged, he repeated the call, and again. People who questioned the wisdom of these remarks were attacked or banned. The Guardian actively moderates its comments, but even though Gary Evans’ calls to behead Matt Ridley caused a bit of a stir, it took the editors 32 hours to realize that death threats against political opponents is not really how we like to do things in Britain nowadays. As if on cue, Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader, called for the decriminalisation of belonging to a violent terror group. --Richard Tol blog, 28 January 2015
Syriza’s election victory in Greece has kindled hopes of an environmental champion pushing for greater climate ambition on the European stage, but the party will need to balance its green credentials with a commitment to new coal plants. “If we face fiscal difficulties from abroad in the medium term, then to burn more lignite instead of importing energy will seem a wise thing to do,” a Syriza source said. “If we don’t have money to import petrol then we will burn lignite which is free – not of a carbon footprint – but relatively cheaper. One way or another Greek lignite will be exploited.” --Arthur Nielsen, The Guardian, 26 January 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment