Obviously, Time Magazine, and writer Christopher J. Hale, a member in good standing with the Cult of Climastrology, don’t see this as hysteria, but super awesome. I covered this a bit in previous posts, but, it bears repeating (especially the part about Warmists, who are mostly Leftists, failing to listen to the Pope on most other things, especially abortion)
The 5 Most Important Points of Pope Francis’s Climate Change Encyclical
(skipping straight to those points)
1. Climate change is real, and it’s getting worse. Though some politicians in the U.S. still argue about the reality of the climate change, Pope Francis doesn’t mince words: “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day,†he says.
Of course, there has been a long pause in statistically significant warming. Some data even shows a slight decrease in temps. And, as a challenge, this is no different than any of the other Holocene warm and cool periods. Hint: Mankind has tended to do better during warm periods than cool ones.
2. Human beings are a major contributor to climate change.
Yet, the Pope isn’t giving up his own fossil fueled travel, and hasn’t recommended that Vatican City go completely “carbon neutral”. Weird, eh?
3. Climate change disproportionately affects the poor.
Um, pretty much most things disproportionately affect the poor. Know what would help them? Affordable energy. Stop using food as fuel. Stop pissing away money on idiotic “climate change” initiatives, which line the pockets of rich Warmists.
4. We can and must make things better. Some of those who study climate change believe this process to be irreversible, too far gone. But Francis—whose first major letter was entitled Joy of the Gospel—says he doesn’t believe we should be robbed of hope. “Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new startâ€
Which is interesting, because the policies of the Cult of Climastrology will institute governmental dominance over citizens, decrease liberty, and make things worse.
5. Individuals can help, but politicians must lead the charge. Francis argues that personal responsibility is an important step toward reversing climate change, but that political and structural transformations are needed for lasting change. “Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in lifestyles, models of production and consumption, and the established structures of power which today govern societies.â€
And there it is, the call for more Government. That’s what this is all about. Bigger and bigger government with more control over people, private entities, and economies. While minimizing the need for Warmists, including himself, to act on their beliefs within their own lives.
http://phys.org/news/2007-07-vatican-carbon-neutral.html
I believe that the Vatican has been carbon neutral since 2007
The Pope’s world travels will result in a negative carbon footprint if he is responsible for a tiny carbon pollution reduction from many people.
The Pope joins a long long list of religious leaders to speak out about carbon pollution and climate change. Apparently Teach you must think all of them are in the “far lefty” group.
Is the Pope a commie? Rush seems to think so.
His Holiness is pretty much a standard Catholic priest: very liberal on the social justice issues, and very traditional on the moral issues.
And we all have a duty to be good stewards of our planet, but we also have a duty to work and try to prosper and better ourselves and our world, and those things, while compatible with cleaning up after ourselves, are not compatible with the pre-industrial economy (but with post-industrial results) that the left want to use to combat global warming.
It could be argued that for most of human history, we had very little in the way of carbon emissions; we also had bubonic plague, subsistence living, feudal overlords, little bathing, decaying teeth and a 45 year lifespan. Somehow, the warmists think that we can go back to the 14th century, but still have a 21st century lifestyle.
(A broadband connection will deliver superior audio and video quality).
At 5ft 9inches, Chicharito is not only lightening fast and has great control on and off the ball.
t quite manage to do that, be it for the National Hockey League,
the country.
Dana,
When we burn up all the fossil fuels in a hundred years or so, will humankind return to the 14th century?
Why, I thought we were going to have used them all up by 2025? Must’ve been more sleeping dinosaurs decaying! :)
In a hundred years, we might have the technology to no longer need fossil fuels; the problem for climatastrophers is that they think we can abandon fossil fuels almost immediately, when we don’t have the technology to replace them.
Except, of course, for nuclear power plants: we know how to build them, but the left, naturally, are aghast at the thought.
Dana in the US no one can build anymore nukes because they cant get insurance for them. Without insurance no one will finance the billions that it will cost to build one.
Solar costs keep dropping, please tell me that fossil fuels will cost no more in 100 years than they do now. The rightwing is just afraid to lose money on coal plants or nukes, Coal fly ash ?? sorry but you no longer can just throw it in the river. like before,
As for your “why I thought we were going to run out of them by 2025….”
How about Nuclear power? gee I tought that by 2025 we were going to have all that nuke electricity that was going to be too cheap to even meter”
Solar costs have fallen by 2/3 in 6 years.
Wind is now competitive with fossil power costs. By 2020 solar will be competitive
Government dominance over citizens Teach just what (other than taking away your incandescent bulbs and making you use CFLs) has our government done to you in the last 6 years? Aren’t your taxes lower under Obama?
Did his Obamacare make your grannie go before a death panel?
John touches on my profession:
It wasn’t being just “thrown in the river;” the ready-mixed concrete industry has been using flyash as a pozzolan for decades, to the extent that hydraulic cement concrete quality flyash is in short supply in many areas. I used to use flyash, but we can’t get it here anymore. Low quality bottom ash has to be landfilled.
The ready-mixed concrete industry also uses the leftover slag from iron ore smelting, in the form of ground granulated blast furnace slag, a different type of pozzolan, and valuable enough that it is often more expensive than cement. I use slag in all of my PennDOT and specification mixes.
John asked:
No, they are not. Other than the two years in which the employee’s part of Social Security was reduced from 6.2% to 4.2%, tax rates haven’t been lowered for actual working Americans. I had to send in $5089 to the Infernal Revenue Service last April.
More, while the tax rates look the same, once you start hitting certain income thresholds — and those thresholds are less than $200,000 — you start losing deductions, such as costs for improving or maintaining rental property.
We have to pay taxes to have a civilized society, but we should all have to pay the same in taxes, and by that I mean the same dollar amount, not just the same percentage of income.
John wrote:
Really? Then we shouldn’t have anything to worry about, right? Windmills and solar panels, all discretely tucked out of sight of Hyannisport, will provide all of our electricity needs, right?
If your statements are true, then entrepreneurs will build them, to make money, and we wouldn’t need Barack Hussein Obama to force people to do it.
This is why it’s impossible to parody wingnuttery.
The arithmetic is pretty simple. Let’s say the current expenditures are $3,300,000,000,000 with 330,000,000 citizens. Therefore each citizen owes $10,000 per year. Not bad for me. But that first year accountant, who makes $50,000, with a stay at home wife and child, owes $30,000 or 60% of his salary to Uncle Sam. Warren Buffett, living alone, owes $10,000 or 0.001% of his compensation.
So the less you make the greater percentage you pay!
How about those on Social Security taking home a princely $18,000 and paying $10,000 to maintain a civilized society?
Conservative argue that we’re spending too much of taxpayers money. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt and Defense accounts for over 75% of federal expenses. What will you cut and how much?
Dana typed:
The problem for Deniers is they mislead. We need to gradually transition from fossil fuels. We need to start that transition now.
Build em. I have no problem with wind and solar being built. Its not us. Its not us deniers that are against other energy sources…Its your very own coalition that is against them being built.
Everytime someone tries to build a farm they get tied up in court for years by the greenies or peta or any one of a number of your coalition partners that vote for your candidates but block your agenda.
BUILD THEM!!!! By the 1000’s. You dont need to convice the deniers….you need to convince your own coalition that they need to be built…..
Wind and solar is borderline profitable so dont expect corporations to spring up and build them.
and the problem with that is that if the government tries to subsidize these farms it would cost in the trillions to get enough built, running and maintained…..
there you go….if the democrats look at it in that light they can unionize all the workers and created 10 million union jobs and tell greenies and peta to go FF themselves….then we will get thing rolling on the renewables.
“Wind is competitive with fossil fuel power costs. By 2020 solar will be competitive.” Not by a long-shot, John. Take away the government subsidies, and they’d become even less competitive than they are now. But anyway, if that wind power dream you’re having in your head were true, why would China be building all those coal power plants? Is physics over there different than here? Why don’t they build windmills and needlessly kill a lot of birds like we do?
Jeffrey wrote:
Meaning, the harder you work, the more of what you earn you get to keep.
This county did just fine before the passage of the pernicious sixteenth amendment. The Framers, who wery very wise men, believed that citizens should be taxed as citizens, period. What we have now is the less productive people voting for themselves the fruits of the labors of the harder-working people.
Are you making another funny?
Meaning, the more you get compensated, the more you get to keep. There fixed it for you.
So your answer for the hard-working accountant is to find a higher paying job or work to repeal the 16th Amendment. In the meantime you’d take 60% of his compensation so that you could pay less.
In any event, we’ll never repeal the 16th Amendment nor will we commit suicide by adopting your silly idea.
Agreed that those collecting Social Security and Medicare, eating up almost 1/2 of our yearly expenditures, are not as productive as hard-working and experienced workers. Would you cut them off immediately? Are you complaining about Social Security recipients or lazy Negroes?