Scientists And Religious Leaders Discuss Cult Of Climastrology At Vatican

I’ve discussed the intersection of “climate change” and organized religion multiple times over the past year or so, as churches and such have become more interested in this mostly political issue, which is based on pushing far Left Progressive doctrine. I haven’t as of yet, dove in to the issue of the Pope coming out as a total Warmist (head to Climate Depot for lots of discussion on the subject at the moment), which is his personal perogative, though, I would think there are other, real world issues that should concern the Pontiff a bit more. That said, this NY Times article caught my attention

Scientists and Religious Leaders Discuss Climate Change at Vatican

The headline simply screams out that this is not a science issue, but a political and pseudo-religious one, more akin to a cult.

For a 2,000-year-old institution hardly known for its mutability, there was a sense of urgency at the Vatican on Tuesday when scientists, diplomats and religious and political leaders discussed climate change and its impact on the world’s poor.

“We are the first generation that can end poverty, and the last generation that can avoid the worst impacts of climate change,” Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations said at an international symposium on climate change organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The event presaged a keenly anticipated papal letter on the environment that Pope Francis is expected to issue in June.

Funny. How did all these people get to the Vatican? Riding bicycles? Just think about how many poor people could be fed and lifted out of poverty if we weren’t spending huge amounts of time, effort, and money on Hotcoldwetdry idiocy. Think how many could be lifted if these fools weren’t blocking the use of proven energy source, like coal and oil, even nuclear and hydrothermal (dams. Yes, envirowackos block dam construction, and even want existing ones torn down).

Mr. Ban met with the pope ahead of the one-day conference here and told reporters afterward that the pope’s message in his scheduled papal teaching, known as an encyclical, would come at “a critical time,” one that “demanded a collective action.”

“Climate change is approaching much faster than one may think,” he said.

Except for that pesky 18+ year Pause.

“I count on his (the Pope’s) moral voice, his moral leadership,” said Mr. Ban, who is leading efforts to come to an agreement on limiting human contributions to global warming, which will be discussed at a climate summit meeting in Paris in December.

Funny how these same Progressives don’t listen when it comes to abortion on demand and gay marriage.But, this is a great article highlighting that it’s not science, it’s a “moral” issue, on of Leftist politics.

If you think that my assertion might be a little over the top, Leftists have spent decades taking over so many sectors, such as education, unions, entertainment, the news media, and others. They’ve had a hatred on for the military and religion for the past 40 years. They spent time trying to destroy them from the outside. Now they are working from the inside to change them. Oh, and then there’s this

EPA To Study What Faith-Based Groups Can Do For Climate Change

The Environmental Protection Agency will be spending $84,000 so churches may be studied to determine how they can help in fighting climate change.

Why destroy what you can co-opt?

Read: Scientists And Religious Leaders Discuss Cult Of Climastrology At Vatican »

CNN Anchor Knows Who’s Really To Blame For #BaltimoreRiots: Veterans

Perhaps she was “just wondering”

(Daily Caller) While conducting an interview with Democratic Maryland Representative Elijiah Cummings, CNN host Brooke Baldwin questioned whether the violence in Baltimore had something to do with the amount of military veterans in the police department.

“Another thing that has to be done here, is we’ve really got to look at our police department,” Cummings began.

“But in what sense?” Baldwin asked. “We talk about training, we talk about having officers — I was talking to the city councilman here last week. He said, ‘Brooke, these people have to live in the communities… or there’s a lack of emotional investment.’”

“And a lot of these young people — I’ve been talking about this so much. A lot of young people — and I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.”

There’s no doubt that the Baltimore PD has some serious issues. It takes a true Leftist, though, to attempt to shift the blame to veterans, rather than considering that so many of the problems can be linked directly to Leftist dogma. Look at Detroit. It was once called the “Paris of the West”. Now it is called the “Mogadishu of the Great Lakes”. Like Detroit, Baltimore has been primarily run by Democrats. The last Republican mayor was Theodore McKeldin, 1963-1967. We rarely ever see the same problems in cities run by Republicans.

The NY Times Editorial Board has a long discussion regarding the problems with the Baltimore PD and justice system, and these problems should not be ignored or poo-poo’d just because the NYTEB brings them up. They end with this

Mr. Obama was right on the mark when he observed on Tuesday that tensions with law enforcement had simmered in African-American communities for decades and now seemed to be bursting into view once a week.

“This has been a slow-rolling crisis,” he said. “This has been going on for a long time. This is not new, and we shouldn’t pretend that it’s new.”

He also said that addressing the problem would require not only new police tactics but new policies aimed at helping communities where jobs have disappeared, improving education and helping ex-offenders find jobs. The big mistake, he said, is that we tend to focus on these communities only when buildings are burning down.

If we want to assign blame, let’s look at the systems put in place and allowed to fester by Democrats, who run the city, not veterans.

Read: CNN Anchor Knows Who’s Really To Blame For #BaltimoreRiots: Veterans »

Warmist Makes Interesting Proposal: Remove All Energy Sector Subsidies

Over at far, far, far Left Washington Monthly, Jeffrey Leonard makes an interesting proposal

Get the Energy Sector off the Dole
Why ending all government subsidies for fuel production will lead to a cleaner energy future—and why Obama has a rare chance to make it happen.

Last September, President Obama promised that the cornerstone of his legislative program for 2011 would be to set an energy policy “that helps us grow at the same time as it deals with climate change in a serious way.”

Today, the president might seem to stand a better chance of refreezing the melting Arctic ice caps. After all, he’s up against a House Republican majority rife with members who openly deny that humans contribute to global warming, as well as members of his own party who are beholden to domestic fossil fuel industries. In November, West Virginia’s new Democratic senator, Joe Manchin, boasted to his constituents that he had secured Harry Reid’s assurance “that cap and trade is dead.”

But not all is lost. If President Obama wants to set us on a path to a sustainable energy future—and a green one, too—he should propose a very simple solution to the current mess: eliminate all energy subsidies. Yes, eliminate them all—for oil, coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, even for wind and solar. It will be better for national security, the balance of payments, the budget deficit, and even, believe it or not, the environment. Indeed, because wind, solar, and other green energy sources get only the tiniest sliver of the overall subsidy pie, they’ll have a competitive advantage in the long term if all subsidies, including the huge ones for fossil fuels, are eliminated. And with anti-pork Tea Partiers loose in Washington and deficit cutting in the air, it’s not as politically inconceivable as you might think.

I agree with this proposal. Let’s eliminate all subsidies. Most of the energy sector actually receives mostly tax breaks, not subsidies, so this wouldn’t effect most energy other than the “alternatives.” This article from 2012 highlights the reality of energy sector subsidies, with $16 billion going to “alternatives” and energy efficiency, and $2.5 billion going to fossil fuels. Without the subsidies, a huge chunk of the “alternative” energy sector would collapse.

What Mr. Leonard is thinking of are really tax breaks (read on in the article for confirmation), most of which are the same types every other company can take advantage of, like percentage depletion allowance, foreign tax credits, domestic manufacturing deductions, R&D, equipment depreciation, etc and so on.

In fact, Heritage called for an end to actual subsidies, without touching the tax breaks, years ago, some of which overlaps Mr. Leonard’s article. Mr. Leonard also is very supportive of nuclear and natural gas. Huh. Personally, I support alternatives, but, as I’ve written time and time again, they need to be competitive without being truly subsidized by government (this applies to most things government throws taxpayer money at, but that’s a separate conversation).

American consumers will feel the pain. But as was evident during the last (albeit short-term) run-up in petroleum prices, which drove gasoline prices over four dollars a gallon in 2008, Americans will respond to higher prices with countless adjustments—in the cars they buy and in their daily routines—that in turn will move the whole economy toward more efficient energy use.

Removing subsidies from the fossil fuels sector will not cause much pain. It would virtually kill the alternatives sector. Removing all tax breaks would cause pain. It would also violate the Constitution regarding equal treatment under the law if it was only applied to energy companies.

The real question to ask is not whether some energy companies, and indeed whole industries focused on certain “protected” or government-favored technologies or fuels, would survive in their current form if we did slash energy subsidies. Imagine where the American economy would be today if the government had decided to protect and continue to subsidize steam engines or whale oil as sources of energy in past eras. The important question is whether the elimination of energy subsidies would constitute good long-term energy policy for America. Never in my lifetime has it been more important to ask this question.

I’ll admit, hyper-Leftist and Warmist Mr. Leonard makes an interesting, non-moonbat case. Unfortunately for alternatives, he’s making a case that would mostly kill it.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Warmist Makes Interesting Proposal: Remove All Energy Sector Subsidies »

Hotcoldwetdry Is The Most Important Story Of Our Lives Or Something

If that’s so, why is it that a very small number of Warmists practice what they preach? This is and interview with “Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of The Guardian, on the massive response to the newspaper’s fossil fuel disinvestment campaign and the urgent need to take action on climate change.”

(The Hindu) The idea for ‘Keep it in the Ground’ — the campaign on disinvestment in fossil fuel–based energy companies launched by The Guardian early this year — was seeded by Editor-in-Chief Alan Rusbridger, who will soon step down from his 20-year leadership of the highly respected media group. In order to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, global temperatures have to stay within a 2°C threshold. This can be achieved if the 200 top fossil fuel companies wind up operations or shift to alternate renewable fuels. The campaign is therefore urging organisations to divest from such companies, and has started by petitioning two of the biggest philanthropic organisations — the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — to do so. The other arm of the campaign is to change readers’ mindsets on the imminent threat of climate change, by telling the story more effectively and through different media. Mr. Rusbridger spoke to Parvathi Menon in London about the campaign.

Why the campaign, and why now?

I have had a feeling for a long time that this is an important story, if not the most important story of our lives. Climate change does pose an existential threat to the species, and we haven’t got long to do something about it. If we go beyond 2° C [in global temperatures] then the consequences are really problematic for millions of people. So if that is right, then it is such an enormous story that you would expect it to be on the front page every day — and it almost never is.

I was thinking about what would I regret not having done as editor and I wished we had done more on this story to wake people up. I came back from Christmas and pulled together a group of staff. Not just the environmental writers, but economic, political and culture writers, graphic design and video people — a big group of about 45 — and asked them what they thought, and there was tremendous enthusiasm to do something. We decided to start with people we admired — the two trusts, because they are in science and health and believe that climate change is a mortal threat. And because they are progressive and intelligent, we thought they might be up to listening to the argument.

Well, that was how the campaign started, and we decided we would do reporting as well, because we are not just a campaign organisation. We will do it in multiple media, we will get poets and artists as well as data people, and investigative reporters — we will throw everything at it. And we would try and suggest ways by which the readers could join in by helping, signing petitions, lobbying, writing and putting pressure on their own places of work.

Interesting. When will the UK Guardian divest its own financial holdings from fossil fuels? When will they stop using fossil fuels to distribute their paper? Oh, and stop using so much power for their website? Hey, this is the most important story of our lives!!!!!!!

Read: Hotcoldwetdry Is The Most Important Story Of Our Lives Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful vegan hot dog, which Everyone Else should be forced to eat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Astute Bloggers, with a post on the twisted minds of Leftists.

Read: If All You See… »

The Winner Of Today’s “Climate Change Helped Cause #baltimoreriots” Is….

Most of the tweets related to the riots and Hotcoldwetdry are snarky, but a few are wackadoodle like the above.

Read: The Winner Of Today’s “Climate Change Helped Cause #baltimoreriots” Is…. »

Dumb Headline Of The Day Regarding #BaltimoreRiots

While I grabbed this at WRAL, the article is an Associated Press article, and the headline is repeated at numerous other news outlets, including Yahoo News, Fox News, and Fresno Bee

Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police response

Do they mean question about how the police treated Freddie Gray, a known criminal (which is no excuse for what happened to him), or as to how the police responded to the riots?

A better question is, do the riots in Baltimore raise questions about the citizens of Baltimore? Some have responded very well, calling for peace and calm. You have the “hero mom delivering the slap heard ’round the world“. Others, not so much.

Read: Dumb Headline Of The Day Regarding #BaltimoreRiots »

As Baltimore Burns, Salon Says Police Morale Can Wait

When you want reasoned, well thought out, rational discourse on a subject, Salon is not where one goes

Police morale can wait: How the Baltimore riots should reshape Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s agenda
As the chaos in Baltimore has shown, it’s far too soon to shift our attention to the grievances of cops

Out of the many invisible and all-powerful forces that govern our universe, the cruelest must be Time. Whether you’re asking it to slow down for selfish reasons or to speed up for someone else, it doesn’t make a difference. Time is relentless and uncaring; it does not listen and it will not stop.

But even though it is ultimately an egalitarian ruler, wreaking havoc on the old, young, good and bad alike, Time seems to hold a special grudge against Loretta Lynch, the woman who, after an unprecedented delay, was finally sworn in on Monday as the 83rd attorney general in the history of the United States.

Of course, Salon’s (very Caucasian) Elias Isquith fails to mention why the nomination was held back (she’s an extremist, as well as Dems having a fit over a bill that would not allow use of the money for abortions). And, of course, Elias had to link the rioting, looting, arson, and general lawlessness to Lynch.

In many ways, the chaos in Baltimore is just the latest iteration of one of America’s saddest and longest-running stories. It is another example of what Martin Luther Kingonce called “the language of the unheard.” King was speaking then of the riots that traumatized much of the country during the summer of 1966. But the social ills he described as kindling for the riot’s fire — poverty, police brutality and malign neglect — are, despite the nearly 49 years that followed, still powerful forces in America today.

For this particular moment, though, it’s Baltimore Police Department’s documented history of lawless violence that’s been identified as the riots’ inspiration. Protestors and rioters — who, it’s worth noting, are usually not the same — cite as their catalyst the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old African-American man and Baltimorean. On April 12, Gray was arrested by officers from the BPD. When police detained Gray and put him in a van for transportation, he was walking; by the time the trip was over, he had a broken neck. He died on April 19th.

In no way should anyone defend the Baltimore PD. The information we’ve seen and the video puts the target for the issue squarely on their backs. Ta-Nehesi Coates notes the numerous violations by the Baltimore PD (as he dinks and dunks around the edges of saying the “protests” are cool). But, let’s consider: Baltimore is a 65% Black city. Of course police will have a heavier presence, simply because of patrol patterns. If they decided to ignore the Black community in favor of mostly patrolling the White and/or Hispanic populations, how would that go?

The city has a Black mayor, police chief, police commissioner, and 43% of the police department is Black. Eight of the fourteen city council members are Black. Not too mention the heavy hand of the Democrat Party in Baltimore. Exactly what have they all done for the Black community? This is much like Detroit, Birmingham, Gary, Indiana, Memphis, and so many other majority Black/Democrat cities with a heavy presence of Blacks/Democrats in government. How are they helping with the “social ills of poverty, police brutality and malign neglect”? They’re running the city!

I’m quite certain that, at least to some extent, Attorney General Lynch would agree. But that’s why it’s so unfortunate that news of her interest in “finding common ground between law enforcement and minority communities” came when it did. Because once the last stone is thrown, the fires are put out, and the state of emergency in Maryland is lifted, what Baltimore and the countless places in the U.S. like it will need is not another conversation. And finding “common ground” won’t be what America needs from its attorney general or its Department of Justice.

Interestingly, Baltimore is a Very Liberal city in a Very Liberal State. Why do these problems with police violence and the riots keep happening mostly in liberal/Democrat areas?

What will be needed, in short, is for the people most apt to use “the language of the unheard” to feel that someone who matters is finally listening. And that those in public office prove with actions that they believe it when they say an African-American life is worth no less than a cop’s. Now is not the time for Lynch to focus on making law enforcement happy. Now is the time for her to promote equal justice. Improving police morale can wait.

Equal justice. Yes. If the officers did wrong, they should be charged. Every looter/rioter caught on tape should be arrested and charged. Every person throwing rocks at the police and assaulting citizens should be arrested and charged. The sad statistic is that Blacks are over-represented within the crime statistics. The only ones making a case that a Black life is worth less than a police officers are those who are looting, rioting, assaulting, and burning property. Liberals/Democrats should take a moment to think why the attitude of Black lives being worth less than police officer lives is so prevalent within Liberal/Democrat cities.

BTW, Ta-Nehesi Coates observes

Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and “nonviolent.” These well-intended pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand the question, it’s worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons, ran. The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?

Gray had a long, long list of arrests for distribution of drugs, ie, he was a known drug dealer. Also for burglary, trespassing, destruction of property, and assault, among others. Of course the police were going to go after him when he ran. That doesn’t excuse what came next. But, Freddie Gray was no saint. The officers were patrolling a high crime area with a high level of drug use and distribution.

As for the “language of the unheard”, what of all the people who now have no jobs thanks to their workplaces being looted, destroyed, and/or burned? How about those who can’t drive to their job because their vehicles have been damaged/burned? How about all those whose property have been damaged, and now have to pay to get it fixed? How about all those who are in fear to simply go to school, the mall, a store, and in their homes? How about those who now have no homes, because they were burned? Where are their voices?

Update: because it’s Salon, here’s more bat guano crazy: Baltimore’s violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategy. Remember that the next time someone on the right is accused of something.

Read: As Baltimore Burns, Salon Says Police Morale Can Wait »

Score One For Religious Freedom: Judge Finds In Favor Of Printer Who Refused To Make Gay Pride T-shirts

If a straight group went to a gay t-shirt printer and ask for a shirt that read “Vote no to gay marriage” and the printer said “no, not going to do it”, would that be discrimination and worthy of a complaint and possible lawsuit? Is that bigoted towards a viewpoint? Or, is it something else? We find out what one judge has ruled

(Washington Post) The day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a historic same-sex marriage case, a Kentucky court has ruled that a Christian T-shirt company has the right not to print gay pride festival shirts.

Hands on Originals (HOO), a Christian T- shirt company in Lexington, Ky., was asked to print shirts by Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) for a 2012 pride festival. When the company turned down the order, the GLSO filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission. Though the commission found in favor of the GLSO, Judge James D. Ishmael of the Fayette Circuit Court reversed the ruling.

“This Court does not fault the Commission in its interest in insuring citizens have equal access to services but that is not what this case is all about,” Ishmael wrote.

Ishmael made a distinction between a company choosing not to print a T-shirt because of the sexual orientation of a potential customer and choosing not to print a T-shirt because of its message.

The owners of the company “are Christians who believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and that they should strive to live consistently with its teachings,” the opinion read. As the company’s Web site states: “It is the prerogative of Hands On Originals to refuse any order that would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions of the ownership.”

It’s the message, not the person/group. Now, if you’re saying to yourself “the Christians are just haters of gays”, well….

The court noted that HOO had also turned down orders for “a strip club, pens promoting a sexually explicit video, and shirts containing a violence related message” — in other words, shirts that it did not agree with that had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Huh. How about that. Obviously, the GLSO is unhappy

“The GLSO is disappointed at Judge Ishmael’s ruling,” the organization said in a statement posted to its Web site. “We feel that this is a reminder that there are still many out there who feel that their citizenship is worth more than that of members of the LGBTQ+ community.  This is merely another battle on what has been a long road to full equality for the LGBTQ+ community; which, despite this decision, has been trending toward equality for all.”

In other words, that want to create a situation where their rights matter more than the rights of HOO. That’s the only way to read it. They want to use Force Of Government on HOO, forcing their viewpoint.

Government “can’t force citizens to surrender free-speech rights or religious freedom in order to run a small business, and this decision affirms that,” Jim Campbell, senior legal counsel for the Alliance for Freedom, an Arizona-based nonprofit that appealed the Commission’s ruling, said as the Lexington Herald-Leader reported. “… The court rightly recognized that the law protects [HOO owner Blaine Adamson’s] decision not to print shirts with messages that conflict with his beliefs, and that no sufficient reason exists for the government to coerce Blaine to act against his conscience in this way.”

It’s not the people/groups, it’s the message. If a straight group went to a gay printer and wanted “Straight Pride” and the printer said “no”, would that be acceptable? You bet. There are dozens of places in Lexington which could have made the t-shirts. GLSO could have gone on-line to have them made (and for probably less money), yet, they apparently went to the one place where they would be turned down.

Really, this isn’t just about religious freedom, but about freedom overall.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Score One For Religious Freedom: Judge Finds In Favor Of Printer Who Refused To Make Gay Pride T-shirts »

Warmists: Let’s Rename It “Climate Ruin”

My suggestion would be for Warmists to practice what they preach, showing that they really believe the mule fritters they’re pushing. Silly me

Climate Ruin vs. Climate Change

“I thought I liked that the USA is now number one in oil and gas, but hey, I don’t want to ruin the climate….”

That’s the reaction we will get when we rebrand from “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” to “Climate Ruin.”

“Global Warming” sounds like a nice respite on a cold winter’s evening.

“Climate Change” is the lukewarm term that rightwing spin maestro Frank Luntz understood would water down concerns about the warming of the planet, as first exposed by Oliver Burkeman in the Guardian,  and Luntz succeeded in making it stick.

What needs to be done?

The terms “Climate Change” or “Global Warming,” or even “Climate Crisis” or “Climate Disruption” do not conjure the urgency to get up and go do something about it.

The term “Climate Ruin” is much closer to the truth, and much more effective.

If it’s so urgent, why do Cult of Climastrology members refuse to change their own lives?

It is sad but true that continuing on our current path with business conducted as usual will ruin the lives of your kids because their climate will be ruined. That message has the kind of impact we need to win this fight.

The term “Climate Ruin” delivers that message. Let’s rebrand now.

Warmists are realizing that their cult is dying. And are unable to actually provide verifiable, replicatable science.

Read: Warmists: Let’s Rename It “Climate Ruin” »

Pirate's Cove