The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom

Daily Mail UK | Simon Caldwell | Dec. 12, 2007

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.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

“Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow,” he said in the message entitled “The Human Family, A Community of Peace”.

“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.”

Efforts to protect the environment should seek “agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances”, the Pope said.

He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to “choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions” in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet.

The Pope’s message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations.

His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.

. . . more

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

13 thoughts on “The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom”

  1. Here is what the Pope really said:

    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

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html

    A call for alternative energy and greater efficiency? If that’s how the Pope bashes environmentalists, he’s being awfully subtle.

    But does he mention “dogma” and “prophets of doom”? Well, here’s the exact quote:

    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.

    I searched for the words “Prophet” or “Doom” in the text of the Pope’s message. They aren’t there. “Prophets of Doom” is the creation of the ideologically biased writer at the Daily Mail who blatantly misintepreted the content of the Pope’s message.

  2. Aleth.. love the name. 🙂

    The first time I read this I was wondering: Why do I, an Orthodox Christian care what the Arch-Heretic thinks, writes or says? Second, why is it posted here? Is it that the Arch-Heretic seems to agree with this Right-Wing Blog or are there people here excited about converting, by ecumenical union to Roman Catholicism?

    For the record, I haven’t seen any evidence to support man-made global warming. I only share my opinion here so that no-one gets confused about where I stand on the GW issue. Yeah, I have no steak in that fire – I am generally and honestly curious…

  3. Aletheometer writes:

    I searched for the words “Prophet” or “Doom” in the text of the Pope’s message. They aren’t there. “Prophets of Doom” is the creation of the ideologically biased writer at the Daily Mail who blatantly misintepreted the content of the Pope’s message.

    You won’t find it in the Pope’s writing because it would be imprudent for him to speak that way. He’s not a columnist or politician.

    Note this phrase however:

    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…

    In the language of ecclesiastical diplomacy, the Pope is sounding the caution about the ideological thinking driving the rush to judgment about global warming.

    BTW, your name should really be spelled aletheameter (or: alithiameter).

  4. The Pope is certainly correct to advise against an excessive or fanatical focus on a single issue to the detriment of other equally important considerations.

    However, no where in his statements do we see any scepticism regarding the findings of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding Global Warming or any other comment that would suggest that the Pope himself has become a Global warming skeptic. Benedict is clearly more concerned about how we respond to Global warming and worried that economic disruptions could result that endanger the poor.

    “Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man,” said the pope in his message.

    “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.

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hO72VPhNC6CY2tts2YU4ONAJAwWw

    Are the costs of adressing Global Warming greater than the benefits? Thankfully Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow has performed an economic cost/benefit analysis that explores that question.

    Critics of the report don’t think serious action to limit carbon dioxide emissions is justified, because there remains substantial uncertainty about the extent of the costs of global climate change, and because these costs will be incurred far in the future.

    However, I believe that Stern’s fundamental conclusion is justified: We are much better off reducing carbon dioxide emissions substantially than risking the consequences of failing to act, even if, unlike Stern, one heavily discounts uncertainty and the future.

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/12/13/2003392376

    ..A straightforward calculation shows that mitigation is better than business as usual — that is, the present value of the benefits exceeds the present value of the costs — for any social rate of time preference less than 8.5 percent. No estimate of the pure rate of time preference, even by those who believe in relatively strong discounting of the future, has ever approached 8.5 percent.

    These calculations indicate that, even with higher discounting, the Stern Review estimates of future benefits and costs imply that mitigation makes economic sense. These calculations rely on the report’s projected time profiles for benefits and its estimate of annual costs, about which there is much disagreement. Still, I believe there can be little serious argument about the importance of a policy aimed at avoiding major further increases in carbon dioxide emissions.

  5. Note 4. Aletheameter writes:

    However, no where in his statements do we see any scepticism regarding the findings of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding Global Warming or any other comment that would suggest that the Pope himself has become a Global warming skeptic. Benedict is clearly more concerned about how we respond to Global warming and worried that economic disruptions could result that endanger the poor.

    Nope. You are misreading the Vaticanese. Wait a few weeks when more thoughtful commentary emerges that analyzes the Pope’s statement.

    You are reading his statements through a political filter (“Benedict is clearly more concerned about how we respond to Global warming…”). Rather, Pope Benedict is warning about the ideological and apocalyptic character of the ideas that inform the global warming movement, and urging that more scientific care be taken before we accept at face value the hypothesis that global warming is in fact man-made.

    This hypothesis, if accepted before all the facts are in, threatens to hurt the emerging economies the most. That is his warning.

  6. I admit I like “Aletheometer” quote from the Pope above.

    **{got to love it, and explicitly anti-Christian writer creates an anti-Christian children’s book series and someone feels like it is within decency to come to an explicitly Christian site and use the name. Hey Chris, can I use an offensive name too? I think I will. How about “Dark_Heart_of_Christ”. Who could complain, it’s the liberal round table after all and anything goes…:) }**

    The Pope mentions:

    “The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. ”

    Not really, unless he knows something we don’t. Plenty of oil to burn and burn and burn for the next 500 years or so, then plenty of nuclear after that.

    “…on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, ”

    “on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for”

    Why? This would be a true extravagance, investing unnecessarily in “alternative resources” when the existing ones are fine. The Pope might indeed be on to something, but he assumes too much of the same ground he is allegedly criticizing…

  7. The pope, as usual, and consistent with Catholic thinking on a whole range of subjects, advises prudent action.

    The problem with 99% of the talk about global warming, is that it is hopelessly abstract. It never deals with the simple arithmetic of the situation. To truly balance CO2 emissions with natural uptake, the world would have to cut 80-90% of current emissions. It ain’t going to happen. The only way a meaningful dent could be made in emissions is by massive implementation of nuclear power – something most “warmers” resist. (Which reveals the fraud, BTW) Even going nuclear would only get you part way there, and everything else – windmills and the like – is fantasy. Good grief, cattle alone account for something like 12% of emissions.

    A good example of prudential thinking on this issue is found here http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=165020

    For you warmers out there, check out the full list of signatories and the associated credentials. If you think that there is only a small band of industry-funded “skeptics” you are gullible and wrong.

  8. Father: Your wish is granted. Here is a nice commentary discussing why the Pope’s views concerning the dangers of Relativism are so urgent, and so misunderstood.

    The Vatican’s Relative Truth

    While the Vatican may have its differences with United Nations agencies over sex, it also sees the organization as the lone realistic possibility for putting a human face on international politics and economics — what Pope John Paul II called a “globalization of solidarity.”

    Moreover, Benedict undeniably has a point about relativism. From China to Iran to Zimbabwe, it’s common for authoritarian regimes to argue that rights like freedom of the press, religion and dissent represent Western — or even Anglo-American — traditions. If human rights are to be protected in a 21st century increasingly shaped by non-Western actors like China and the so-called Shiite axis from Lebanon to Central Asia, then a belief in objective truth grounded in universal human nature is critical. That’s hardly just a Catholic concern, but no one on the global scene is making the argument with the clarity of Benedict XVI.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/opinion/19allen.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

  9. The commentary is not at all sufficient. First of all, it’s the National Catholic Reporter, essentially the mouthpiece of the Catholic left wing. Nothing wrong with that on its face of course, but reading the piece it’s clear that although reluctantly having to face the fact that secularization is indeed a religious view with profound consequences for the culture, they go on with a dubious hypothesis about why the Pope’s present path is ill advised. They posit that the Regensburg speech was a mistake (which the NCR characterizes as a political misstep while ignoring the superb analysis), castigate the Auschwitz statement which in fact is true, etc. In short, the NCR is in fact a secular organ, or at least an apologist for the secular left despite it’s claim to speak for Catholicism.

    As I indicated upstream, wait for the thinkers, not the activists. You will have to extend your reach beyond the NYT as well.

  10. The National Catholic Reporter agreed with the substance of the Pope’s remark’s “(In each case, Benedict was actually trying to make a deeper point worth hearing.”) but thought that his remarks could have been communicated in a more culturally sensitive manner.

    I think the Pope’s argument that a world that loses it’s moorings to “a belief in objective truth grounded in universal human nature” is a world at risk to the next Hitler of Stalin, is very compelling.

  11. It is compelling, but one that the NCR, and most liberals to extent they understand the impending consequences of secularism, accept very reluctantly. They fought against the point for years, often through high-mindedness, which is still evident in the shallow critique offered towards the Pope’s Regensburg address, perceiving it, as they do, primarily as an offense against the Muslims rather then grappling with the profound theological truths (seen by the Byzantines centuries earlier) it contained.

    You have to understand Dean, that communicating the truth contained in the address in “a more culturally sensitive manner” is a cultural impossibility. Muslim outrage was addressed toward what was essentially a private talk to a small group of academics. The only approach that would satisfy your culturally sensitive criteria is not to say anything at all.

    Utopian illusions fall hard. And when they fall, it is usually through suffering rather than persuasion since the illusions function more on the level of idolatry than wrong-headedness. They can cling to the soul like a barnacle. That the NCR appears to be emerging from a deep sleep is a good thing, but it is clear the fog of night has yet to lift.

  12. Fr. Hans writes: ” . . . Muslim outrage was addressed toward what was essentially a private talk to a small group of academics.”

    I don’t know much about the history of Islam, but modern Islam seems very strange to me. It’s hard to make fun of Islam because what happens in the religion is so weird that the religion essentially makes fun of itself. Modern Islam may be the first self-mocking religion. You can’t make a joke about something that is itself a joke.

    I remember a couple of years ago when a convention of North American Islamic clergy and scholars issued a fatwa stating that it was wrong to kill innocent people in terrorist attacks. . . . . I don’t know about the rest of you, but I already pretty much had that one figured out without the assistance of the fatwa. What kind of religion is it that requires a special proclamation by religious leaders so that the followers know that it’s wrong to blow up people?

    In Iraq, after the U.S. removes a dictatorship, the first thing that the followers of Allah do is to loot the country. Now one might think that theft would be wrong, but apparently there was no fatwa in place to tell them that. After looting the country, they then set about to kill and torture each other in the most hideous ways possible.

    But for the followers of Allah, that’s just all in a day’s work, and nothing to get upset about. But when an uncomplimentary cartoon of the Prophet appears in a Dutch newspaper, then it’s time to man the barricades. Meanwhile, the Iraqis continue to butcher each other, and others of their religion murder and plot to murder other people around the world. Again, nothing to worry about there. But when the pope makes a reference to Islam that might be interpreted as slightly critical of Islam, there is “outrage.”

    Most recently we have the Saudi woman who was gang raped, and then sentenced to be punished, and whose sentence was then doubled when her attorney complained. And why not?

    And then there is the teacher in Sudan whose students named a teddy bear “Mohammed” — a common name for men — and suddently the streets are filled with people waving weapons and calling for her death.

    Somehow, in the midst of all this absolute insanity, we’re supposed to be “sensitive.” How is one supposed to be sensitive to a religion that is a parody of religion? Call me insensitive, but I just don’t get it. As far as I can tell, the only reason that you’d be sensitive to Islam is the same reason that you’d be “sensitive” to the Mafia: so you don’t get your throat cut.

  13. Jim, It does not sound as if you are confused. You’ve got the point, just like the Mafia is a philanthropic organization providing needed services to the immigrant population (in the old days); and the gangs provide protection for the all members (not); Islam is a religion of peace. (Blood in, blood out bro!)

Comments are closed.