Just When I Though The New Pope Was Cool–He Goes All Global Warming And Anti-Capitalism

https://grantcoulson.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/incentiveseverywherepicturecorrect1.jpg?w=444&h=288

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives. It’s not their money, of course they’ll waste it.

   The purpose of the media is to protect us from reality.

National Post

God is green
New Papal encyclical on the perils of climate change set to condemn capitalism

Peter Foster

Along time ago, the British satirical magazine Private Eye would occasionally append a humorous phonograph record. One such had a track that started “And now, The Pope speaks out on The Pill.” There followed the voice of one of Dr. Who’s Daleks declaring “I-am-the-Pope. You-will-obey.”

A lot has happened to the Catholic Church since then, although not in its views towards contraception. In the wake of horrendous sexual scandals and a continued decline in membership, the Church has turned to an Argentinian “progressive,” Pope Francis. He does not have very progressive views on contraception, abortion, or gender bias, but he is onside with homosexuality. More important, he will soon deliver an encyclical — a lengthy epistle of more than usual moral heft — on the progressive issue of our age: projected catastrophic man-made climate change.

<insert>

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary
H. L. Mencken

    The most popular hobgoblin of modern times is Global Warming. The rules are, 1) Create an air of hysteria, 2) Fuel the hysteria, not with data, but with the hypothetical results of computer models, and 3) Ask for billions to rectify the non-existent problem.

The timing of this encyclical is hardly random. It is obviously designed to call Catholics to pressure their governments to “take action” at the UN’s 21st Conference of the Parties, COP, in Paris later this year. In this light, the recent announcement of the Pope’s role in President Obama’s decision to ease relations with Cuba becomes more intriguing. Have the White House and the Vatican been cooking up other schemes of mutual progressive interest?

<insert>

     I’m hoping for a massive winter storm to keep attendance down.

Obviously the Pope will not be able to claim to speak ex cathedra, that is, with divine authority, on climate science, although most alarmists will regard that as a shame. Some have suggested that he is “pro-science” because he has come to terms with the Big Bang theory and Evolution, but unfortunately Francis has also confirmed himself to be economically challenged, a defining characteristic of progressivism.

<insert>

    Progressives have no idea about wealth creation, only about how wealth should be redistributed.

The contents of the encyclical were adumbrated in a recent joint statement from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Science. One has only to look at some of the signatories to know what its conclusions will be. They include Jeffrey Sachs, the UN development guru famous for orchestrating development disasters; Naomi Oreskes, who is famous for a monstrously mendacious study denying that scientifically-qualified climate skeptics exist; and Sir Martin Rees, a former president of the Royal Society who not only strongly supported the conclusions of the egregiouslybiased Stern Review, but also led a campaign against ExxonMobil.

The statement reads like any UN document, full of condemnation of the capitalist system, and pointing to a “better world” brought about by more global “cooperation” and “participatory democracy” (that is, democracy from which those who don’t think the right way are excluded).

In practicality it ranks with hoping for another miracle of loaves and fishes: productivity from wishful thinking.

It aims not merely at stabilizing the climate but “giving energy access to all.” It briefly acknowledges amazing technological advances, but glosses over the enormous improvement in the lot of the poor worldwide, and ritually conflates inequality with inequity. It calls for a vague but insidious “appropriate and sustainable organization of production and a fair distribution of its fruits.” It castigates market forces as “bereft of ethics.” It ritually criticizes the shortcomings of GDP, calling presumably for something along the lines of Gross Ecological Happiness. It peddles the typically primitive zero-sum notion that to have something is to deprive somebody else of it. It speaks as if those poor people made sick by indoor fires are the result of globalization rather than of its absence.

<insert>

    The progressive cant is always–if unequal then inequity was at work. These people don’t know many marginal people whose efforts, or lack of it, explains all their lack of reward.

It nowhere mentions the inconvenient truth of the absence of global warming in the past eighteen years. It wails about food insecurity without mentioning the role of subsidized biofuels — a key climate policy — in creating it. It peddles the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) “to guide planetary-scale actions after 2015.” It calls for “universal access to public services” (a policy that should be of some interest to those who will be forced to pay for such access), and “ethical finance reform,” and throws in opposition to forced labour and sexual exploitation for good measure.

“We need, above all,” it concludes, “to change our convictions and attitudes, and combat the globalization of indifference with its culture of waste and idolatry of money.” The New Socialist Man will become the New Vatican Man.

Some see this initiative as an “interfaith issue” that will bring all religions together. The CBC’s The Current earlier this week had a segment that sounded like the introduction to a joke. It featured a Catholic ecological theologian, a green Muslim, a desperately-keen-to-be-with-it evangelical, and a clip from a rabbi. Host Anna Maria Tremonti noted that the Dalai Lama had signed onto 350 parts per million in 2008. The theologian declared, astonishingly, that climate had not been a moral issue to date. In fact, it has been nothing but. The green Muslim seemed to look to climate to bring Muslims away from the lures of wicked materialism.

One might forgive the Pope for his good intentions if his approach to solving possibly non-existent problems didn’t threaten — indeed guarantee — to create some very real ones. What the poor need is more capitalist investment and fossil-fuelled growth, not more moral posturing and destructive aid. Meanwhile the Pope’s involvement in such a flagrantly political issue is likely — particularly given the inevitable failure awaiting COP 21 — to further roil and divide an already tottering institution, not make it seem more “relevant.”

Obedience to the Pope on contraception remains a controversial moral issue. Obedience on the climate agenda would be outright immoral.

<end>

      I keep thinking I’m hearing the last gasps of this nonsense, but Global Warming has more lives than the monster in a movie monster franchise.

Government Job or Respect–Which’ll It Be?
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson, Ph.D.
Author, “Days of Songs and Mirrors: A Jacobite in the ‘45.”
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: