At first glance, one might question the relevance of religious opinions on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. However, given the cult-like fervor being exhibited on this subject by the media of late, maybe what the world needs is a little balance to add a modicum of sanity to the growing hysteria.
With that in mind, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, wrote on op-ed in the Sunday Telegraph last week cautioning readers about the zealotry being exhibited by those convinced that man is destroying the planet (emphasis mine throughout):
We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters, as some zealots have been presenting extreme scenarios to frighten us.
They claim ocean levels are about to rise spectacularly, there could be the occasional tsunami as high as an eight-storey building, and the Amazon Basin could be destroyed as the ice cap in the Arctic and Greenland melts.
The Cardinal then gave some recent examples of just how absurd the zealotry is getting:
An overseas magazine called for Nuremberg-style trials for global-warming sceptics, and a US television correspondent compared sceptics to ''Holocaust deniers''.
A local newspaper editorial's complaint about the doomsayers' religious enthusiasm is unfair to mainstream Christianity.
He continued:
What we were seeing from the doomsayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria -- semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition.
The Cardinal then presented some facts:
We know that enormous climate changes have occurred in world history-- for example, the ice ages and Noah's flood, when human causation could only have been negligible.
Nor should it be too surprising to learn that during the past 100 years, the media has alternated between promoting fear of anew ice age and fear of global warming.
Terrible droughts are not infrequent in Australian history, sometimes lasting seven or eight years.
We all know that a cool January doesn't mean much in the long run.
But neither does evidence based on only a few years.
Scaremongers have used temperature fluctuations over limited periods and in a few places to misrepresent longer patterns.
Warming evidence is mixed and often exaggerated but can be reassuring.
Global warming has been increasing constantly since 1975 at the rate of less than one-fifth of a degree Celsius per decade.
The concentration of carbon dioxide increased surface temperatures more in winter than in summer, especially in mid and high latitudes over land, while there was a global cooling of the stratosphere.
Britain's University of East Anglia climate research unit found global temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2005, and a NASA satellite recently found the southern hemisphere had not warmed in the past 25 years.
Is mild global warming a northern phenomenon?
We may have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg as large as an aircraft carrier off Dunedin, but we should be consoled by the news that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there.
The Cardinal marvelously concluded:
The science is certainly more complicated than the propaganda.
Well, not to the doomsayers.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Unfortunately, he'll be writt
February 20, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Mica the MagnificentUnfortunately, he'll be written off as a right wing religious nut by the MSM. Global warming is the accepted religion now.
They like me, they really really like me! - - Al Gore hanging out in Hollywood as their latest golden boy
Michael Crichton
February 20, 2007 - 10:50 ET by P.J. GladnickThere was a great interview last night on Charlie Rose with Michael Cricthton. The subject was global warming. Charlie seemed flustered over the fact that Crichton did not buy into the Global Warming dogma.
Chuck must not be a regular
February 20, 2007 - 11:05 ET by DyneChuck must not be a regular reader of Michael Crichton's books. State of Fear contains more sources and data that debunk AGW in one place than anywhere else I've seen, not to mention the argument about GW between two characters perfectly parallel what we see in real life today: scientific facts vs. "everybody knows it."
I see now why I never watch Charlie Rose anymore
February 20, 2007 - 13:29 ET by SportPoliticsI see now why I never watch Charlie Rose anymore. He's an insane leftist true believer. His questions are damned ridiculous, and Crichton has an amazing amount of self control. Crichton talked about the viscious attacks he has recieved for his stance on AGW, and dumb*** Rose said " What are youtalking about ?" - of course in the same very interview Rose had been shrieking and wailing from a liberal perspective and attacking over and over again. When Crichton made a devastating rebuttal to one of Rose's truther questions, Rose ignored it entirely and immediately asked " What is your greatest regret ?" It was an amazing jump, and I saw absolute liberal denial in it. The type we see here when some trolling idiot gets hammered to the ground, and instantly flees off or attacks or changes the subject entirely. It was fascinating watching that idiot Charlie with his stupid questions, and Crichton handle him with kindness and point after point after point, which Charlie,like any insane liberal,immediately ignored, and failed to comment back upon. I noted Crichton is no fool, and brought up his 1967 pro-abortion stance, and said he was correct before Roe-vs-Wade and is 40 years later, and is just as certain he will be correct about AGW forty years from now. This pointing out his stance on abortion from 1967 was like kicking every liberal idiot in the crotch, since it disarmed their insane conservative hatred. It wasalso amazing how Charlie Rose picked a dozen liberal iconic gods,and asked Crichton what he thought about them,one byone, over and over throughout the interview. Crichton each time answered with gigantic praise for the liberal god Rose mentioned, not giving the jackass an inch to go off his rocker about Crichtons "personal opinion" of Charlie's and the left's jerkoff "heroes". It was just so enlightening, and so disgusting to watch that piece of crap Rose work. I always want to beat the crap out of a liberal after watching them open their piehole anymore. We conservatives need a deathmatch cartoon where the liberal gets pummelled to pieces as the conservative vocally rams the talking points down their throat. We're half the population, where is our fun ?
Charlie seemed frustrated ? He was girlie pitching insanely
February 20, 2007 - 13:01 ET by SportPoliticsCharlie seemed frustrated ?
He was girlie pitching insanely, ranting and picking and picking and giving those "shocking" whines at Crichton, over and over again.
Charlie Rose is a left wing fanatic idiot, now I know.
I suppose we conservatives are cursed with being smart and not given to emotional shrieking lemming tardism. It's amazing how often a liberal can be shown exactly why they what they think is totally wrong, yet they blindly rage onward.
I can hardly wait until the AGW insanity is exposed for what it is. I would like to beat the hell out of a few people in the mean time, and a dozen or more then, but such are disappointments in life.
With all due respect to the d
February 20, 2007 - 10:59 ET by Agnostic frontWith all due respect to the dear Cardinal, what the hell does he know about climatology? His opinions may very well be correct, but his position doesn't carry all that much weight in a scientific discussion.
"However, given the cu
February 20, 2007 - 11:03 ET by MightyMouth"However, given the cult-like fervor being exhibited on this subject by
the media of late, maybe what the world needs is a little balance to
add a modicum of sanity to the growing hysteria."
RIF AF, RIF!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The voice of reason doesn't n
February 20, 2007 - 11:04 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThe voice of reason doesn't necessarily NEED to have a definitive knowledge of anything. But, the Cardinal being a religious person, he is probably relying on his faith that God is calling the shots and the end of the world will come when God has determined it will happen, and there is nothing man can do about it.
His opinion may not have carry any scientific weight, he is mainly encouraging people to remain rational about climate change, because we already have too many people that are irrational and hysterical about it.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
With all due respect to Al
February 20, 2007 - 11:08 ET by DyneWith all due respect to Al Gore, what the hell does he know about climatology? Yet everybody in the MSM has become his disciples and attempts to discredit actual climatologists, or anyone for that matter, who provide legitimate arguments against AGW.
Agnostic Front
February 20, 2007 - 11:25 ET by Noel SheppardAF,
Did you ask your opening question with your tongue in your cheek, or would you like us to give you a few moments to extract your foot from your mouth?
Go ahead. We'll give you a few seconds.
Anyway, were you aware that this entire issue has been brought into the limelight by a former vice president who studied English and government as an undergraduate, and law as a graduate? Or, have you been asleep the past twelve months?
Regardless, and with that in mind, what the hell does Al Gore know about climatology? For that matter, what the hell does Ellen Goodman know? Or Sean Penn? Or Leo DiCaprio? Or Katie Couric? Or any of these morons on television 24/7 telling us the world is about to end if we don't all stop driving cars?
Alas, AF, therein lies the point: what the hell do any of these people know? Yet, you don't seem to mind when they emote their unqualified opinions, do you?
Why might that be? ns
For that matter, Noel, we cou
February 20, 2007 - 20:05 ET by MikeBFor that matter, Noel, we could legitimately ask, "what does a climatologist know about climatology?" Do they know whether or not global mean temps are increasing? Do they know whether carbon dioxide is a precursor to global warming or if increases in carbon dioxide lags global warming? The fact is, they don't know much of anything for sure. There are only hypotheses and conjectures and guesses.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
MikeB
February 20, 2007 - 22:10 ET by Noel SheppardMB,
Of course, it all seems somewhat irrelevant as our liberal friend ran from simple questions.
They do that, don't they? :-) ns
He doesn't need to know anyth
February 20, 2007 - 11:43 ET by NL207He doesn't need to know anything about climatology to apply common sense and good judgement to the facts available.
If his opinions do prove to be correct, then it is a shame if people can't hear them with an open mind.
Last, these global warming scientists: Why do they have such credibility? So much of what theyhave said in the past has proven to off the mark, faulty, or downright false. Why dio they have any credibility? Is this just because they call themselves scientists? How many times can they be just plain wrong before they lose credibility?
I ask the same about Al "Blow
February 20, 2007 - 13:15 ET by gfrrmanI ask the same about Al "Blowhard" Gore.
I think he's trying to keep h
February 21, 2007 - 08:41 ET by hoseI think he's trying to keep his flock from joining the new world religion. The new religion has it's own sins (not recycling?) and an Apocalypse (more hurricanes on the gulf coast, ocean levels rising, stranded polar bears....dogs living with cats!).
We shouldn't listen to him. B
February 21, 2007 - 14:07 ET by danboWe shouldn't listen to him. But we should listen to Al Gore and Barbara Boxer and Kennedy?
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Cardinal Speaks Out Against Global Warming Hysteria
February 20, 2007 - 11:17 ET by JimHAny sense of scientific debate has been completely lost since "Inconvenient Truth" and politics took over. If politicians can opine the issue, certainly so can the clergy. Science has been bought, sold, perverted, abused, rode hard and put away wet. Scientific methods were supposed to be impervious to politics and greed. They aren't. They are just as selfish and greedy as the rest of us. And their opinions and conclusions are for sale to the highest bidder.
The more I study liberalism a
February 20, 2007 - 16:16 ET by Conservative VoiceThe more I study liberalism and their doctorine of Global Warming the more I am convinced this is a religious war, Liberalism vs Christianity. There is an interesting article http://www.renewamerica.us:80/columns/hutchison/070213
that talks about the founding of liberalism, it was very interesting for those interested in history and political science. The thing that caught my eye was the history around the French Revolution, and the battle between the socialists and the Catholic church. Hence I think it is appropriate for a Church representative to expose the false doctorine of liberalism.