The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

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.

A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change.

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists.

But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.


we don't need a pope who is a climate change denialist
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#5
How the fuck is some dip shit who doesn't know fuck all about science going to be talking about Global Warming? That fucking dolt believes in creationism and all that frilly Bible fairy tale bullshit. I'm surprised that guy even knows what Global Warming is, let alone that we live on a planet called, "Earth."

Maybe the next time there's a massive genocide in Europe, he can go celebrate the leader of the murdering country's birthday.....like in WW2 when the pope and all them celebrated Hitler's birthday.
 
Nov 27, 2006
5,648
21
0
36
#6
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.
Thank you, someone finally said it
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#8
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.
Thank you, someone finally said it
this further illustrates that the pope doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about
 

DubbC415

Mickey Fallon
Sep 10, 2002
22,620
6,984
0
38
Tomato Alley
#10
^^^what the fuck does it matter? oh, because we're big bad humans, let us be idiots and not give a fuck about the earth that allows us to live here! lets fuck everything up because we're the only thing thats important!
 
Nov 27, 2006
5,648
21
0
36
#11
^^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.
Read that again, we should care for animals but not to the point where it becomes more important than saving humans
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#12
We have way too many humans on this planet and less and less animals, I definitely think that if human lives will have to be sacrificed in order to save an endangered species, for example, the decision should be easy and it should benefit the animal
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#14
^^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.
Read that again, we should care for animals but not to the point where it becomes more important than saving humans
^^^LOL slowing down/stopping global warming is quite possibly going to save mankind you idiot! Jesus Christ!!! Do you honestly think anybody would care about climate change if it meant there would be no more fucking ant eaters and jellyfish?? Are you fucking kidding me?
 
Nov 27, 2006
5,648
21
0
36
#16
the point isn't that we shouldn't stop global warming or save animals the point is that there are more pressing issues in the world like the situation in Darfur or Iraq that are directly affecting humans right now that we should be focused on. We shouldn't put the lives of animals above human lives
 
Nov 27, 2006
5,648
21
0
36
#18
so if we can't take care of the issues that are killing people now, how are we gonna deal with an issue that may or may not end up costing people their lives?
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#19
the point isn't that we shouldn't stop global warming or save animals the point is that there are more pressing issues in the world like the situation in Darfur or Iraq that are directly affecting humans right now that we should be focused on. We shouldn't put the lives of animals above human lives
Those situations are directly related to, and in the case of Darfur, a direct consequence of climate change

If you want to solve a problem, you fight its cause, not its symptoms
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#20
We have way too many humans on this planet and less and less animals, I definitely think that if human lives will have to be sacrificed in order to save an endangered species, for example, the decision should be easy and it should benefit the animal
100% agreed.

And lets not all forget...HUMANS ARE ANIMALS.