Climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists, study claims

IF you think the science of human-caused climate change is some sort of hoax and you might think too that the Apollo moon landings might have been faked or that Britain’s Royal family maybe, just maybe, conspired to assassinate Princess Diana because they didn’t like her very much?

Or that there really is this secret New World Order group with designs on global domination.

The study, titled The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science and published in the journal PLOS ONE, finds the strong predictor for the dismissal of the science of human-caused climate change.

The study indicates that climate change deniers often engage in what’s known as “motivated reasoning” – the tendency to accept without criticism any evidence that suits your belief while you ignore or reject the evidence that challenges what you think.

For example, climate science deniers might laser-in on the fact that last September, the amount of floating sea ice in the Arctic “recovered” from the previous year’s record low. Yet the same group ignores how 2013 still delivered the sixth lowest level on the satellite record and perhaps the sixth lowest in more than a thousand years.

Don’t mention the 275,000,000,000 tonnes of ice every year that’s “very likely” been melting from the world’s glaciers between 1993 and 2009.

This “motivated reasoning” might also cause some to view the latest United Nations climate report as yet more evidence that climate science is an elaborate cloaking device for lefty socialists to take over the world while they melt the world’s ice with a top secret invisible ray gun.

Sociologist Kari Norgaard claims there have been extremely well-organized, well-funded climate-skeptic campaigns. Those are backed by fossil fuel companies in particular, and the same PR firms who helped the tobacco industry deny the link between cancer and smoking are involved with magnifying doubt around climate change.

Norgaard says Climate change is disturbing. It’s something we don’t want to think about. So what we do in our everyday lives is create a world where it’s not there, and keep it distant.

For relatively privileged people, we don’t have to see the impact in everyday life. “I can read about different flood regimes in Bangladesh, or people in the Maldives losing their islands to sea level rise, or highways in Alaska that are altered as permafrost changes. But that’s not my life. We have a vast capacity for this.”

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “Climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists, study claims

  1. The problem is that governments use climate change to impose new taxes, much like they use anything they can to impose taxes that don’t seem like taxes. Here in Canada, car emission testing began several years ago in a program that was designed to be not-for profit. Now that the majority of problem cars are off the road, the program continues and is now raking in a considerable profit.

    The problem is when profit becomes the agenda, there is a backlash against the reason that is being used to unnecessarily take taxpayer money.

    Does climate change exist due to humanity? Absolutely. Is it the sole reason? That’s questionable. We should continue to strive to appreciate and take care of our environment regardless. We should also strive for more responsible governing that doesn’t lead to backlashes against significant problems.

    Like

    • Thank you for demonstrating the study.
      – conspiracy?
      “The problem is that governments use climate change to impose new taxes, much like they use anything they can to impose taxes that don’t seem like taxes.”
      Checked

      – double standard and illogical conclusion?
      “The problem is when profit becomes the agenda”
      Checked

      -Uneducated?
      “Does climate change exist due to humanity? Absolutely. Is it the sole reason? That’s questionable”
      Checked

      – fact free and sources?
      hm..no where to be found
      Checked
      Thank you for proven the study right.

      Like

    • I’ve had this theory that the oceans will fall back to their ‘created’ depth when god finishes his bath and gets his big bum out of our tub. 🙂

      Like

      • What other kind would THE Almighty have?
        ….the theory has it that’s what caused the Great Flood, too.
        Fortunately he hasn’t yet thought to fart bubbles into the bathtub! 😯

        Like

    • There’s a word for idiots who base all their smart-arse opinions on false premises.
      They all ignore the basic ~ and EASILY demonstrable ~ fact that for EVERY actions there is an equal and opposite REaction.

      ‘God’ notwithstanding EVERY effect has a cause: and EVERY cause an effect.
      What the effect might be, and to what degree, may be open to discussion (hopefully by qualified people who follow scientific principles),

      But the principle is absolute and inviolate: demonstrated in EVERY SINGLE facet of nature we’ve come to understand.

      If you cause shit to hit the fan then the efffect is that it splatters.
      Anything else is nonsense.

      Like

      • True enough, but the basic premises are wrong across the board. Greenhouse gases act as a blanket to keep heat in; they are NOT a storage facility for heat radiated from the sun. Gas ~ any gas ~ is a VERY poor storer (or transmitter, for that matter) of heat. The denser the material the better it stores heat. Compare steel and cast iron, for example, for heat retention.

        Go outside at 1 am after a typical sort of summer day and see for yourself.
        eg. Last night, after the wind swung around to the south I went outside to check on the progress of a local bushfire and got some goosebumps on my bare skin because of the brisk temperature of the air which originated in Antarctica. The concrete on the driveway, and the tiles on the roof were still quite warm. A couple of local cats were enjoying the heat of the bitumen on the road out the front. (and if you’ve ever lived in the scrub you’ll have seen snakes and lizards laying about on the bare-dirt tracks, making the most of the retained heat ~ even if the air temperature is well down.

        Needless to say there are all sorts of variations and details that can be nitpicked or wot-iffed, but I don’t have time to go into detail ~ lots that needs doing around here. But happy to go into it another time if you like.
        …and after I’ve caught up with my ‘real’ mail.

        Like

    • Hmmm, so these Professors, scientists etc. who say there is no way man is causing Climate Change and that the changes in climate have always been – ? dont know what they are talking about?

      Are we to believe scientists and science or not?

      OR….. is there room for debate in science then?

      Like

      • That’s about it, I think.
        Climate-change has been with us since the world was a ball of very hot gas, and continues to do its work.
        The difference is that (apart from a few dramatic exceptions) the change has generally given living organisms time to adapt, mutate….er, ‘evolve’.
        This time around the presence of uncontrolled and virtually unrestricable homosaps has accelerated the process that organic evolution, by and large, will not have the time to work.
        That we’re driving our species to a speedy extinction is a given; unfortunately we look like taking the rest of ‘Creation’ down with us.

        But, so long as we can go on in our parasitic, aquisitory way, who cares, right?

        Like

      • 99%? I think that has well and truly been debunked. Even the Professors in this video say that.

        Like

      • Well, (” Even the Professors in this video say that.), to quote that other famous whore:- “They WOULD say that. wouldn’t they?”

        In either case ~ and true to my oft-stated view: ‘Belief’ isn’t worth anything without confirming facts.

        And apart from the more detailed posts I’ve left her (one of which has disappeared) two basic FACTS are that:-
        1…..human populations are growing at unprecedented rates, and
        2…. Human populations are using more energy than was even imaginable
        less than 100 years ago, and
        3…..the use of energy creates heat, and
        4…..at the same time produces gases which act as an insulator so that
        the produced heat cannot (effectively) escape into space, and
        5……that simultaneously the (multitude of) effects of historically-
        unprecedented levels of heat are obvious to Blind Freddy and
        undeniable.

        And even though I know those with a religious bent (sic!) can usually
        explain why 2+2 = 3 (or 5 or 0.3324 or gronkles), just this once I’d like them to stick to the facts…and explain what 2+2 actually DOES add up to.

        For example, Kathleen, we all know where the energy to burn your breakfast
        toast came from…..but where do you say it went?

        In fact, we also know where the energy that allowed you to get out of bed, walk to your kitchen and burn your toast ~ the whole time adjusting to keep your body at the correct temperature to function at all ~ came from. (Last night’s dinner, in case you’re wondering.) ….where do you suppose it went to after it was converted to heat whilst performing its function?

        ….and do try to leave your ‘belief’ outside the door; tell us what you KNOW
        ……and can demonstrate.

        Like

      • A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

        A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

        Like

      • Why would they sat that Dabbles? It doesn’t benefit them financially. It’s the ones who support man induced climate change that make the buckaroos.

        Like

      • Oh dear, Kate!….”Why would they sat that Dabbles?”
        Not even god understands human motivations ! 😆

        (…and if I tried to answer that question then MY motivations would be open to question.)

        Like

    • Summary
      The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science. Scepticism in science is a healthy thing, and the presence of orthodox scientific scepticism in climate change is
      ubiquitous. Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate
      science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views.

      http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/27

      Like

      • “……..that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).”

        Nothing in the video at 3:58 contradicts that.

        Like

      • And that makes the point beautifully. Anyone who understands the principles and working of solar panels knows that actual heat reduces the electrical output by up to 25% of the nominal, laboratory-established rating of the panels.

        ie. given the same amount of sunlight (photons) panels produce more power at altitude, extreme latitudes, etc.
        For a little over thirty years (according to my own records, and confirmed by ‘official’ statistics) the average production of panels has yielded much less than their nominal rating in the summer months of high temperatures and a little(variably) more than nominal ratings in the winter months, all else being more or less equal.

        That’s to say the winters remain at the historical temperatures and the amount of sunlight, on average, does too. However while the amount of sunlight hitting the panels is only slightly less than a few decades ago (accounted for by a denser atmosphere which needs to be penetrated by the required wavelengths of sunlight ) the output of power (conversion) of the panels has fallen markedly, attributable ONLY to excessive heat caused by excessive carbon in the atmosphere.
        (I’ve got top-quality panels up, and they produce up to 18.2% less efficiently
        on a stinking hot day like today than they do on a cool/breezy but bright winter’s day with about 30% light cloud cover. Spring and autumn I produce an average of about 13kwh a day; today (hot sun, temperature near the mid-40s and the temperature of the panels reached almost 100^C, I produced 10.8kwh. Over 30 years I’ve noticed the difference increasing, though the actual amount of sunlight falling on the panels remains, of course, constant.

        There are a number of other confirming facts. eg. Careful comparison measurements have shown me, unmistakenly, that larger panels are up to 20% less efficient than smaller ones, all else being equal.(Same brand,production lines, raw material, etc.) The only explanation I can come up with is that the smaller smaller-mass panels dissipate the heat more readily.
        Temperature measurements on 170-watt Perlight panels (18kg) show they run (on a particular occasion) at up to 20% more efficiently than larger but larger but otherwise identical Perlight panels (220watt), weighing 26kg at converting sunlight to electricity.

        And there are other comparative indicators; eg. ‘Zone 4’ measuring equal amounts of power-production in comparisn to insolation stretches from Tasmania to nearly Gladstone in Qld. Records over several decades show the difference is increasing in a linear mode. There’s no explanation for that other than excessive heat retention…..and we KNOW the atmosphere is what retains heat.
        ….and that Qld produces more local heat than does Tassie.

        Clearly the amosphere IS becoming more dense.
        And that translates directly into more heat being retained.

        But perhaps it’s not carbon as gas. Perhaps it’s just carbon-units (as people); and the more people there are the more compressed the gases between them become…which not only retains heat, bit actually generates it.

        In either case, if our species stopped breeding like fungus in a …..er, ‘greenhouse’, the problem would cure itself.

        Like

      • My pleasure Strewth. Efficiency generally ( but particularly in energy production and use) is one of my favourite preoccupations ~ though people often find it boring ~ and I do like the measurable certainties the subject deals with and the many innovative uses such certainties can be put to. But other than an interest and long experience/experimentation I have no qualifications, so I try not to sound off too often.

        Will brag, though, that I built from scrap a ‘hydraulic-ram pump’ once, which ran on the principles mooted 250 years ago. It has the effect of using gravity to do work, and is simple and foolproof. The very idea strikes me as poetry in motion, as they used to say.
        Best quotes to buy a clumsy, difficult and hard-to-set-up commercial model started at about $3k….when I had a bank-account of about $80.
        After a couple of religious-type ‘inspirations’ I built a better version for a total cost of $0.00. (other than about an hour’s work.)
        Will tell you sometime about the hydro-generator I built once, also from scrap stuff picked up at the local tip.

        For now, however, I feel a rush of immodesty sneaking up on me, so will duck out. 😉

        Like

      • “So because they were consecutive, that make it Climate Change?”

        I can really see you point on this one. To me it’s kinda like the example of when a sick person get’s better and somebody gives credit to God. Well sick people get better all the time.

        But (as I understand it) climate change makes a few predictions, One of which is that the world overall will get hotter. And another is that there will be more extreme weather, droughts, floods, hot, cold, storms etc there is more chance of severe weather events happening according to climate change.

        That doesn’t mean that any one particular extreme weather event is conclusive proof of climate change though,

        But in the last few years, New Zealand has had one of the worst droughts on record, so has the USA. Queensland has had some remarkable cyclones and flooding. There have been worse than average tornadoes in the USA last year, as well as some extreme forest fires. The northwest passage became clear without the use of an icebreaker for the first time in recorded history. Europe has had some remarkably warm winters, Brittan some of their coldest. Both Brittan and Europe have had some extreme flooding as has South America. Just a few months ago there were unseasonal fires in NSW and we have the heatwaves in Victoria. And most recently the polar vortex in the USA (that’s just from my memory there’s probably been lots more)

        Now for some events there’s a lot of factors in play – urbanisation and land clearing can affect flooding, fuel loads can affect fires.

        But still, at the very least, all those events are consistent with the theory of climate change.

        Like

      • Well observed Bubba, all these things happening around the world are (in my view) the attempt of the natural world, aka ecology, to re-balance itself again.
        As to god in this, god have given us free will. That is an absolute law for god which it will not break. What sort of free will it would be if we can’t do as we like. There are consequences to every cause of course and we will have to bare the effects of our free will. No, god will not jump to our rescue. That would be against all principles of creation. Like there are not virgins waiting for suicide bombers, there is no quick fix by some amazing god for the lack of care we displaying. And there is a very good reason for that.

        Like

  2. Funny how we do our best to get out of responsibility. I say we are the sole cause of climate change. Totally responsible. We create collectively but unconsciously. If you were flying lately over China and India, you would have noticed the incredible pollution in the air. At Hong Kong airport the visibility was less that 100 meters when I was landing there to change plane. I have friend in India, who can and does testify of the heavy pollution of the country in the name of profit. Australia is not much better, using chemical farming, producing steel the most polluting way, digging holes in the ground (mines) and leaving it once finished. Could go on. And then there on the personal level of pollution, each of us produces lots of rubbish. Oh yes we are good citizen, we dispose our rubbish in proper way into the bins provided. Well where and what you think this rubbish goes? Big pile of rubbish called tip, or refuse to use more modern word. It does not just disappear by magic. We buy the Chinese “cheap” stuff only to through it away because it ‘s rubbish and doesn’t work. Instead producing quality, lasting products we keep replacing the low quality regularly. Isn’t this waste of resources? I believe it is. We became a society of consumers, trying to fill the void in our heart with things. Oh yes, we get a kick out of our new acquisitions, for a short while and then we need another fix. Another thing. And I am not mentioning the anger, impatience, resentment and outright hate some feel. All this contributes to the changes of our planet, some irreversibly. We can’t resurrect extinct species, trees we so mindlessly cull take 50 years to regrow to worthwhile size, soils we destroy by our mindless farming take even longer to replenish. And you still believe we not responsible? If so you are blind or ignorant.
    Hope this makes it bit clearer.

    Like

      • It is indeed; but at the end of the day we have to produce every larger quantities of everything to cater to the needs of our exponentially-expanding, unrestricted, populations.
        …and there’s no end in sight.

        Just to set the record straight:- ‘cheap rubbish’ may only last half the time of ‘quality goods’ (of which I’m not certain anyway*) , but it can cost much less than half the resources.
        A friend of mine got into serious (bushfire) trouble today, due to the failure of a very expensive ($6800) piece of ‘top-quality’ electrical equipment.
        I have a unit that does the same job, has never failed in four years, and cost my $168.
        Value and price are two very different things.

        What’s the price/value difference between a gold-plated watch and the same watch made out of recycled beer-cans?

        ….oh, and don’t lay big odds that we can’t (or won’t soon be able to) resurrect extinct species.

        (There are those who’d tell you my mother has already done so! 🙂 )

        Like

      • So do I ~but it’s not easy when one man’s ‘pollution’ is another man’s ‘natural resource’ (whatever).
        …and do keep in mind that ‘greenhouse gases’ are, in fact, air-pollution.
        Are you old enough to remember the London ‘smogs’?

        There never was a better example the ordinary person could actually see (and apparently taste!) of air-pollution/carbon-based greenhouse-gases. (No accumulated heat from the sun stored in these peasoupers; the sun couldn’t penetrate them!)

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2012/dec/05/60-years-great-smog-london-in-pictures

        …….and you could check out the links at the bottom of this page if you wanted to. Fossil-fuels are carbon-based: and makes up the bulk of greenhouse gases.
        https://www.google.com.au/#q=london+smog-1960s&revid=200248782

        Like

      • Dr. Karl Krzylkinski (??) was this morning talking about some serious periods of ‘climate-change’ going back two billion years.

        He made the point that the entire planet was a ball of ice from pole to pole 750 million years ago ~ and the only exceptions were the very tops of a number of volcanoes which spewed forth mainly carbon dioxide for a few million years, until enough of a blanket of gas accumulated to trap enough heat from sunlight to thaw out the planet.
        He explained it all much better than I could, but the lesson is the same greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.

        ….and there’s not much volcanic activity around these days.

        Plenty on it at https://www.google/#q=global+freezing+750+million+years+ago
        but it’s not something I’d ever read much about.

        Like

  3. And one more thing, if you give me the argument of natural disasters as not been caused by humanity, well think again. All the things we do mentioned previously upset the natural balance of nature and the natural disasters are the attempts of nature to re balance itself. No we have no excuse. It is up to us to stop our destructive nature before is too late. The nature has disposed of humanity before, leaving just few to carry on. There is no guarantee it will not happen again. Escaping to the Cosmos is not the answer either. We must simply take care. Believing in god or not. After all we all share this planet. Put away your differences, religious hatred, scientific squabbles and pull at the same rope. We do not have much time to change. I am not trying to scare you, I just view what is all around and wonder why more can’t see this as well. I tell you that you will not escape to heavens, not to other planets. It is not the purpose of our lives here. We here to remember that we were created perfect, loving and caring. To discover this after we pass away from here is too late. So please, ask you heart for answers. You r heart know it all. No science, nor church will give yo solution. You must have your own based on the state of your heart. I say Namaste to you.

    Like

  4. Climate change deniers cannot seem to grasp the mechanics of how a warmer world changes climate patterns, bringing colder weather to some areas. They also seem to think that because there are other factors affecting climate, that lets CO2 completely off the hook.

    Personally, I’ve found political persuasion seems to be a factor. I wonder if this is so, and if so what are the implications.

    Like

    • Political persuasion works both ways.

      Also believing some scientists and professors and not believing others (as in the ones in the video I linked) is also a matter of choice isn’t it.

      It seems some people want to call people who don’t believe in man caused climate change ‘deniers’ and the opposite side of the fence we would see those who, despite being constantly challenged seem to want to believe that man is the cause ‘blind in their belief’

      Like

      • Is Wattsupwiththat – Fox News?
        Is Joanne Nova – Fox News?

        Fox news doesn’t rule the world Bubba. Get over it.

        Like

      • As I stated elsewhere ( and consistently): ‘belief’ without proofs are irrelevant.
        I know that’s a concept hard for some to grasp.

        Like

      • Hey Kathleen,

        “Fox news doesn’t rule the world Bubba”

        IT sure seems to rule your world though, either that or it’s just an amazing coincidence that your opinion seems to be in lockstep with theirs.

        Like

      • Bubba, you just assumed that these opinions were from Fox News. They weren’t. That’s your fixation.

        You may well go to John Stewart for your information, but that doesn’t bother me.

        Like

      • “You may well go to John Stewart for your information….”

        Jon Stewart ? Yeah of course for information on scientific theory we should go to an American television presenter.

        What a great idea [end sarcasm]

        Like

    • Quite so. And let’s never forget the indirect impact of those other dangerous components, the increase ( and concentration) of which can NOT be attributed to ‘natural processes’.
      eg. my lungs aren’t much effected by the ‘standard’ greenhouse gases like co2, but will kill me because they can’t deal very well with C0 ~ a silent killer which, for some reason (another of god’s stuff-ups??) living tissue prefers to oxygen, given a choice.
      Evolution has geared us to deal with the small amounts of the stuff occurring naturally; BUT:-
      http://www.ghgonline.org/otherco.htm

      Perhaps it’s time to invent body-orofice-sized catalytic converters?

      Like

  5. From over at Andrew Bolt’s site.

    Professor Richard S. Lindzen, arguably the world’s most prominent climate scientist, testifies to the US House Committee on Science and Technology:

    ” I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes.

    The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such….

    Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

    In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.”

    But this is about faith, not reason.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/richard_lindzen_cool_it_on_the_climate/

    Like

      • Hang on a sec, that film you put up earlier said that carbon had nuthin to do with warming.

        Now this prof. tells us that carbon is a factor in global warming.

        Make up your mind 🙂

        Like

  6. This is not about what science or religion says. This is a choice, personal choice. The bible tell us we are the guardians, keepers of the earth, abstracting from the bible, we are the highest intelligence on this planet and therefore responsible by default for its upkeep. It still comes to what we individually choose. No scientist will save your hide, you must. The whole argument about who says what is totally fruitless. It is skirting the issue, so “I” am not responsible. Just look at it from personal view, see what you really feel inside you, not what others are saying. This has been the greatest brainwashing ever, relying on what someone else has said. Think your own original thoughts and don’t repeat someone else opinions. Interesting how the unbelievers fight the believers and yet fell for the same bait, someone’s thoughts.
    The great debates will not save this planet from human abuse and I am sure anyone out there if honest will need to admit we are great abusers.
    If we all act responsibly and manage our close environment, which includes our own backyard, home and private life, our planet would be sparkling clean and happy. The world will change as we change. No any other way. Neither god or science is our salvation in this case. I say again to those who believe in god, god gave man free choice. Full stop.
    God will not step in to fix what man has done; it would violate the first contract between god and man.
    Point number two; god have given man all the tools to man’s disposal god has. It is up to man to remember and use it.
    Point three; we have co-created everything that is in the physical universe. Including the law of cause and effect. We better remember and keep this law. It will work regardless of believe as atheists or religion affiliation. Totally and mercilessly.
    This law is like gravity, it will work under all conditions while we unaware. The only time we can be free of it is when we arouse from our sleep (dream) and become who we really are. Or what churches call Jesus experience. Not the past man who pioneered this experience for all of us, but the present one, which is the individual soul within you. This is the one that must awaken and given the priority of decision.
    We all struggle with letting the soul to make decisions to greater or lesser degree. Myself included. But there will not be any other way out of our deep sleep, which we call human.

    Like

  7. Yes, we are to be stewards of the earth, not slaves to it though.

    “In December 2007, Pope Benedict released a statement on the environment (actually an early version of his 2008 World Day of Peace address) in which he explained that we must not selfishly consider nature “to be at the complete disposal of our own interests,” and we must preserve the earth for future generations. He noted, however, that the international community must base its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement. Always, the simple dignity of human life must come first.

    Because the pope did not uncritically accept every assertion of fact set forth by environmentalists, and because he recognized the special need to care for humanity, one account of this speech—which was widely reprinted—called it a “surprise attack” on the theory that man-made carbon emissions are creating global warming. The Daily Mail from London reported: “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” (Simon Caldwell, “The Pope Condemns the Climate Change Prophets of Doom,” December 13, 2007).

    Of course, the Daily Mail article was nonsense. The pope did nothing more than explain the need to examine the evidence and consider the impact on people, including the poor who are often the most severely affected. Rather than embrace this logical advice, some environmentalists were angered because he did not blindly accept their claims. When environmentalism becomes a religion, any departure from the party line becomes heresy. ” Catholic Answers (not Fox News Bubba in case you’re wondering)

    Like

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