USCCB taken to task on global warm-mongering

WARNIING:  Very long post today.  Rainy weather chased me indoors and I have been penning a letter to my Bishop who supports the pope's encyclical on global warming.  Still tinkering and in a bit irony, Lex jr. is helping me.

As country kid who spent his youth bailing hay and camping out down by the creek and most of his adult life trapesing across America’s parks while “camping” with the US Marine Corps, I concur with your thoughts on protecting the planet’s resources found in the June 28^th edition of Today’s Catholic – with the exception of attributing global warming to greenhouse gasses.

First, the Earth’s climate has been changing since Genesis.  Between 800-1200, long before man started “destroying the environment” with the internal combustion engine, the Vikings were farming in Greenland and Iceland.  Why do “most scientists” choose to ignore that fact when telling us CO₂ is responsible for today’s warming?  Then there was the mini ice age in the 1500s.   The only thing consistent about the Earth’s temperature is that it is always changing.

Second, relying on “most scientists” or what is often referred to as scientific consensus is folly.  Consensus is how prom queens are elected and has nothing to do with science.  When Al Gore relies on “scientific consensus” to say, “The debate on global warming is over” you know two things are certain; the debate is raging and he’s losing.  An indication of the “science” Gore understands is that he once told an audience that the temperature of the center of the earth was “several million degrees.”  He was only off by…several million degrees.  The Earth’s core temperature is estimated to be 10,000 degree. 

Then consider the lengths “most scientists” will go to make sure their finding go unchallenged.  They place temperature monitoring equipment on airport runways where the equipment is exposed to jet exhaust, or on roof tops next to air conditioner discharge units, or next to black top parking lots.   

Then there are the 2009 e-mails from the East Anglia climate research unit that proves its scientists were willing lie about, make up and/or hide data to ensure nothing contradicted their point of view.

Then there’s Mann’s “hockey stick,” a pivotal piece in the climate hysteria.  It was proven to be a statistical fraud in 2003, yet it is still circulated as an accurate portrayal of the Earth’s warming.  Mann, no fool, calls his statistical method intellectual property and refuses to share or allow others to examine or review his code.  That would be Mann’s version of Al Gore’s “the debate is over.”

Then there’s NASA’s erroneous claim that 2014 hottest year on record.  It wasn’t even close.  That erroneous report occurred after NASA was caught artificially inflating US temperature by .15 degree in 2007.

Forget the fact that every single prediction made by “most scientist” to date with regard to the Earth’s warming has been wrong in spectacular fashion, why should we accept the word of “most scientists” who admit and have been caught lying about data, making it up and hiding it?  If they are so sure why not just publish the real data?  And isn’t odd that even the climate alarmist have to admit that there hasn’t been any warming for over 18 years now?  They are calling it a “pause.”  I refer to it as “the cycle.”

Third, the hypocrisy of the “global warming” crowd is stunning.  A chief spokesman for the cause, Al Gore, has gotten very rich off of the global warming hysteria that he stokes.  He lives a life of luxury jetting to and fro to tell us to stop driving our cars.  He has a fleet of SUVs and a 10,000 square foot home that uses more than 20 times the electricity of a normal home.  Gore claims he offsets his fossil fuel use by buying “carbon credits”…from himself.  In the Marine Corps we referred to such an arrangement as a “self-licking ice cream cone.”  So I guess if I want to show the world how committed I am to saving the planet I will buy some carbon credits from myself.

The global climate alarmists want the little people to eschew fossil fuels while they all jet into Davos aboard separate private jets, reside in 5 star accommodations and dine on the finest fresh foods and wine all flown in to pamper this elite group who would have the rest of us walking to work, residing in 400 square foot apartments and living on distilled water and an environmentally friendly gruel.  My question is, if the people who actually believe this nonsense are unwilling to curb their own lifestyle to save the planet why should I?

Fourth, what if the planet is warming?  Why is it assumed that a certain temperature is best?  We know that the Earth has warmed and cooled in cycles since day one so who’s to say this +.15 degree is worse than that -.15 degree.  Wouldn’t a longer warmer growing season make food more plentiful?  Wouldn’t warmer winters be welcomed by most?

Fifth, given the power of the sun, volcanos, ocean currents, hurricanes, winds aloft etc. even if believe man is impacting the climate his impact since the beginning of time is less than the eruption of a single volcano.   His contribution to global warming is less than one season of the sun’s solar flares.

I could go on but here’s the point.  I believe that the real goal of the climate alarmists is to destroy capitalism.  Notice the pressure is always on the US and west to curb fossil fuel use to save the planet when in fact it is the under developed countries using old technologies, less clean energy sources and less efficient manufacturing methods that contributes the most to the problem they describe as manmade global warming.  Well over 90% of the Earth’s CO₂ emissions occur naturally.  Those that are “manmade” occur primarily in under developed countries.  To the extent that these are countries and their citizens are poor it is due more to the uneven distribution of capitalism than it is of the uneven distribution of capital. So if the church wants to curb world-wide CO₂ emissions and ease poverty, the best way to do so would be to encourage well-regulated capitalism.  

This is the third letter I’ve written to you.  The first was to encourage you to get the diocese out of the Boy Scouts after that organization relented on accepting homosexual Scouts.  I warned that 99.99% of homosexuals have about as much interest in joining the Boy Scouts for purposes other than subverting them as Al Gore and Michal Mann have in learning the truth about man’s effect on the Earth’s climate. I warned that the BSA policy was an untenable one and that the BSA would soon relent and allow homosexual Scout leaders.  Recently, the President of the BSA, Robert Gates, acknowledged as much.  The leftist radical homosexual agenda has little to with acceptance these day.  Its target is Christians in general and Catholics in particular.

The second letter was an effort to encourage the USCCB to reconsider its support for open borders.  A country 18 trillion dollars in debt is not exactly the poster child for a society fit to throw its doors open to all.  I warned that such a policy would soon lead to a one party state and I believe that we are well on our way to the end.

Here’s a scenario I believe will occur soon.  Once America becomes a one party state do to its failure to control its own borders, that one party will require that the Catholic Church marry homosexuals or lose it tax exempt status.  (That is if the pope doesn’t have another of his, “who am I to judge” moments and direct priests to marry homosexuals first.)  It will not make one bit of difference to the leftist running the country that the Church stood with the radicals on open borders insanity and the global warming charade.  The leftist goal is to turn America into a socialist state.  In order to do that the left has mocked, attacked and is in the process of destroying every traditional institution in America.  Marriage, family, sexuality, citizenship, the Boy Scouts, the military, privacy, religious freedom, the right of association are all under withering political attack with very little push back.  To say anything happening in America today is not political is to ignore the goals of the political left. It is all political. 

I watch the demise of the country in slow motion and wonder if anyone cares.  There is no political opposition.  They all seem more afraid of being called a “global warming denier” or a racist, or a homophobe than standing against the policies destroying the nation.  I would like to see the USCCB stand opposed to the political movement that would abolish the Catholic Church today if it could, but am always amazed/disappointed when it joins forces with a political movement intent on destroying it.      

Alas, I must concede that I am the outlier here.  Of all the causes the pope and the USCCB could chose to use their influence to affect, I don’t see global warming in the 100.  So I have to wonder why.