Catholicism and Climate Change

[JasonSB]

2010 - From Jason - Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling, Cai 2008

2010 March: Murray Darling Floods

Ah, yes – the IPCC never predicted global warming could lead to floods, did they? Oh, wait: “Available research suggests a significant future increase in heavy rainfall events in many regions, including some in which the mean rainfall is projected to decrease. The resulting increased flood risk poses challenges to society, physical infrastructure and water quality.” (Emphasis mine.)

So it seems that you have actually provided evidence supporting the IPCC. Congratulations.

I assume you’re not actually trying to claim that the drought is over and now there’s nothing more to worry about in the Murray-Darling, are you? That the “decreasing water supply” has reversed itself? You know, something that actually contradicts that paper?

2010 November: More floods.
2010 Sep: Victorian floods worst in 15 years

“Increased precipitation intensity and variability is projected to increase the risks of flooding and drought in many areas (high confidence).” ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch3s3-es.html

Why are you making my arguments for me?

2010 Aug: Australia’s wheat crop forecast up 14% and may go higher if it stops raining.

Congratulations. You’ve just proven that what’s constraining Australia’s wheat crop is climactic conditions, not insufficient CO2. After all, the bumper crop is not because there was more CO2 this year than last but because the weather played nice. Guess what increased CO2 is going to do to climactic conditions, John…

… [Proof that winter is cold] …
It’s Globull Warming!!

No, just evidence that some people still don’t understand the difference between climate and weather.

Let me explain it this way:

Brisbane has a warmer climate than Melbourne. According to Wikipedia, about 6.5 °C warmer.

Does this mean that it can never be hotter in Melbourne than in Brisbane?

Does this mean that it can never be colder in Brisbane than in Melbourne?

Does this mean that if Melbourne ever gets a heatwave we would immediately assume that the theory that Melbourne has a cooler climate than Brisbane has been disproved and we should now expect Melbourne to have a warmer climate than Brisbane?

If you answered “No” to all of the above because of reasoning like “Even though the normal temperature relationship can be overridden by short-term weather patterns, the long term average difference remains the same” or “Brisbane is closer to the equator so of course it has a warmer climate, duh”, then why don’t you apply the same logic when the climate becomes warmer due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses rather than because you’re moving closer to the equator? Why do you assume that the climate predictions of AGW can be falsified by short-term weather? And why do you think that AGW predicts winter won’t ever be cold again???

However, because some people never quite get it, even when it hits them in the face, there’s this - Scientists Say Global Warming Could Increase Food Production

Did you actually read the paper they’re citing? “Cautiously optimistic” would be a reasonable summation. It’s also worth noting that the reason they are optimistic is not because they think more CO2 will make everything groovy. In fact, they expect problems ranging from increased evaporation rates to higher ozone levels and faster-growing pathogens. The reason they’re “cautiously optimistic” is because they think there are big efficiency gains still on the table and bringing everyone up to the same level of efficiency (together with transgenic approaches to breeding for resistance to the increasing problem of soil-borne pathogens and not too many crop-protecting chemicals being removed) may allow enough food to be grown for the world’s population by 2050.

Meanwhile, the link I provided clearly never “hit you in the face” because you think one paper that has so far only been cited by one other and that is cautiously optimistic that the obstacles presented by AGW can be overcome somehow over-rules all the other peer-reviewed papers pointing out just how big those obstacles are.

And along comes the FAO to say **Sorry to disappoint, but right now we can’t predict exactly how global warming will affect the environment and agriculture. **

Two fairly obvious thoughts spring to mind:

1. Not being able to predict exactly what will happen is not the same as not being able to predict at all.
2. Uncertainty is not your friend. Do you choose not to insure your house because you aren’t certain it’s going to burn down? Things are just as likely to be worse than predicted.

 

[John21652]

Ah, yes – the IPCC never predicted global warming could lead to floods, did they?..

Jason, your responses are becoming more and more shrill and silly. In the process, you are starting to make yourself look really silly. Particularly when you try and support a man like Tim Flannery, whose wild predictions from even nine years ago are starting to make him look very, very sill in his own country.

Australia has just gone through an extended drought. Like it has so many, many times in the past, This one breaks, just as others in the past have done and yet you still make pathetic attempts at suggesting the IPCC predicted this!! This drought, in terms of rainfall, wasn’t anywhere as severe as past droughts, but has been made to appear so by men like Flannery and supported by sychophants like you. However, people like Flannery conveniently leave out little facts like that and people like you fall for his scaremongering. Why, he even predicted sea levels would rise by 100 meteres. Now that is just never going to happen.

So it seems that you have actually provided evidence supporting the IPCC. Congratulations.

Why the IPCC and those who climbed onto the AGW bandwagon now look so silly that no-matter what the weather does, it will always be Climate Change. Even kids see through that tactic.

I assume you’re not actually trying to claim that the drought is over and now there’s nothing more to worry about in the Murray-Darling, are you? That the “decreasing water supply” has reversed itself? You know, something that actually contradicts that paper?

Rather a shallow, stupidly sarcastic comment from someone who has always been so cocksure of himself, Jason. The whole bloody nation is celebrating the breaking of the drought!

Why are you making my arguments for me?
You only think these arguments suit you. This is where you show how deluded you are Jason. Australia has always been a land of extremes. That is what I posted about in that poem , ‘My Country’. Every single farmer in this land will tell you to bank on one good year in seven. That’s the nature of the country. Yet you now attempt to adopt that extreme variability as proof of global warming. Sheeeeesh…

Congratulations. You’ve just proven that what’s constraining Australia’s wheat crop is climactic conditions, not insufficient CO2. After all, the bumper crop is not because there was more CO2 this year than last but because the weather played nice. Guess what increased CO2 is going to do to climactic conditions, John…

That was the point of my post, but in your blind zealotry you missed it. Australia’s wheat crop has always been constrained by climatic conditions. It is expected to increase by the figure I gave you because the drought has broken. Strewth Jason, take your blinkers off.

No, just evidence that some people still don’t understand the difference between climate and weather.

One of the reasons you come across as shrill is because you’d love to think that statement of yours to be true.

Let me explain it this way:

Again your shrill condescension does nothing mnore than make you look very, very silly. Melbourne has had heat waves just forever. It’s weather variables have always been more extreme than Brisbane’s. Of course, you had to look that up in Wikipedia, didn’t you Jason, which is where most of your ‘knowledge’ comes from.

I

f you answered “No” to all of the above because of reasoning like “Even though the normal temperature relationship can be overridden by short-term weather patterns, the long term average difference remains the same” or “Brisbane is closer to the equator so of course it has a warmer climate, duh”, then why don’t you apply the same logic when the climate becomes warmer due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses rather than because you’re moving closer to the equator? Why do you assume that the climate predictions of AGW can be falsified by short-term weather? And why do you think that AGW predicts winter won’t ever be cold again???

I suppose that desperate need of yours to alter meanings is to be expected when your pet ideology is crashing down around your ears. I’m sure one day you will be able to move on…

“Cautiously optimistic” would be a reasonable summation.

And as if we don’t notice the long list of conditional adjectives even the IPCC uses in all its papers.

The reason they’re “cautiously optimistic” is because they think there are big efficiency gains still on the table and bringing everyone up to the same level of efficiency (together with transgenic approaches to breeding for resistance to the increasing problem of soil-borne pathogens and not too many crop-protecting chemicals being removed) may allow enough food to be grown for the world’s population by 2050.

Simply put, it is all about adaptation. Now that’s something the human race has been doing for God knows how long.

Two fairly obvious thoughts spring to mind:

1. Not being able to predict exactly what will happen is not the same as not being able to predict at all.

What a cop out statement that is!!

1. Uncertainty is not your friend…

The IPCC and people like you have made uncertainty your friend. That’s why the conditional adjectives flow through all climate reports and why the pro AGW people try and stifle the debate. And even resort to scaremongering and cheating.

 

[JasonSB]

Jason, your responses are becoming more and more shrill and silly.

You obviously have no idea how ironic that statement is, given the content of your post.

I suppose I’d be upset too if I was caught out lying to try to prove my point.

Maybe you should calm down and ask yourself if being completely ignorant of the science of climate change is hampering your ability to think rationally about the issues. There are plenty of resources out there if you actually want to learn; I’d start with Skeptical Science if I were you. Perhaps start with Climate’s Changed Before. You see, just because something has happened in the past because of natural causes doesn’t mean it can’t be happening now because of human causes. Lightening causes fire. So does arson. We prosecute arsonists. Natural disasters can kill people. So can murderers. We prosecute murderers.

The sun can cause climate change. So can human emissions of greenhouse gasses. The sun is not causing the current climate change. The theory that predicted the current climate change due to emitting greenhouse gasses also predicts that emitting a lot more greenhouse gasses would lead to changes unprecedented during human existance on this planet. The last time CO2 levels were this high “global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland”. What scientific research have you done that has led you to conclude that we can raise them to those levels this time around and the consequences won’t be the same? How can you be so confident of your own ability that you alone can predict that this time will be different? Because you’re a farmer?

BTW, for someone who is so cocksure of what he knows about Australia it’s ironic how your knowledge of it seems so limited. “The whole bloody nation is celebrating the breaking of the drought”?

bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml

Droughts in Australia don’t prove climate change. Neither do floods. But the science that explains the relationship between the various forcings and climate in the past, including GHG’s, does predict tough times ahead for Australia. Even tougher ones for third world countries nearer the equator. You are so convinced that we don’t need to worry about ourselves or about them that you actually ridicule and denigrate those who see what is going on and actually understand the principles involved. Ignorance is bliss.

That was the point of my post, but in your blind zealotry you missed it. Australia’s wheat crop has always been constrained by climatic conditions. It is expected to increase by the figure I gave you because the drought has broken. Strewth Jason, take your blinkers off.

One of us sure is blinkered. Freud would have a field day with your constant projection. I certainly got a good laugh out of it.

And as if we don’t notice the long list of conditional adjectives even the IPCC uses in all its papers.

Note that I’m not objecting to the caveats. They’re normal in real scientific research. What I was objecting to was your complete and utter lack of them in your brazen misinterpretations of anything that you believe supports your view.

Which I’m still waiting for actual support of, BTW. Running out of things to misrepresent?

 

[Raskolnikov]

If I may chime in, admittedly having only read maybe the last ten pages of the thread and not all 63, it seems that many on this thread still cling persitently to the belief that who holds an opinion is reflective of the validity of that opinion. Even if four out of five proponents of AGW were or are entirely politically motivated ideologists, no matter what scandal they might be embroiled in, it doesn’t discredit the opinion itself. Afterall, facts can be exploited and contorted even more easily than falsehoods. Accusing someone of being a fearmongering, apocolyptist hippie or whatever the standard pejorative is for AGW supporters doesn’t address its case any more than, say, accusing a pro-lifer of being a misogynistic theocrat would be a valid argument in favor of abortion.

There is little I can contribute to a scientific discussion on the matter, but on something of a side note, no case can be made that the large scale CO2 emission by human industry is innocuous. Oceanographers have been observing steadily increasing acidity in the oceans in recent decades, corresponding to increasing carbon dioxide content in the water, and corresponding to that, a decline in the quantity of autrophic plankton, which, I believe produce most of the oxygen produced by life (I suppose the green movement was either ignorant of this or figured trees just made better posterboys than plankton ). Naturally, a declining oxygen supply would be rather problematic for our species.

While I know little about the mechanics of global warming itself, I can observe that more than half of the arguments made against it on this thread seem directed at the politics of it rather than the science. As C.S. Lewis pointed out with regard to Marxist and Freudian tendencies to “explain” their opponents’ “mistakes,” one must first prove that that one’s opponent is errant before one can explain *why *he is errant.

 

[4elise]

If I may chime in, admittedly having only read maybe the last ten pages of the thread and not all 63,…

While I know little about the mechanics of global warming itself, I can observe that more than half of the arguments made against it on this thread seem directed at the politics of it rather than the science. As C.S. Lewis pointed out with regard to Marxist and Freudian tendencies to “explain” their opponents’ “mistakes,” one must first prove that that one’s opponent is errant before one can explain *why *he is errant.

Great observations.
From what I’ve read in this thread and others (though no doubt will be accused of bring s plancton-hugger) the ones dismissing the science and continuing to try to draw the debate into other directions - those who do not want to believe that any man made actions could have a negative impact on the global climate - perhaps because they are optimists, or see conspiracies, or are unwilling to make any personal changes or advocator for policy changes that might cost them money… Fortunately the Church is providing leadership: www.catholiccoalitiononclimatechange.org

 

[exoflare]

My question to you guys is, what is the point of wasting your time arguing with AGW cultists? If they were gullible enough to fall for this stuff in the first place, what makes you think they’re even willing to discuss their religion objectively?

 

[4elise]

My question to you guys is, what is the point of wasting your time arguing with AGW cultists? If they were gullible enough to fall for this stuff in the first place, what makes you think they’re even willing to discuss their religion objectively?

Perhaps the discussion continues because many believe climate change is real, our activities are impacting it, and our Catholic Faith calls to take action as individuals to mitigate to the extent we can… i.e. www.CatholicCoalitiononClimateChange.org

You certainly don’t need to waste your time here however because you have apparently already made up your mind, decided that people who believe in AGW are cultists, - exactly what Raskolnikov was suggesting (I believe) two posts ago.

 

[Raskolnikov]

My question to you guys is, what is the point of wasting your time arguing with AGW cultists? If they were gullible enough to fall for this stuff in the first place, what makes you think they’re even willing to discuss their religion objectively?

I’m not sure whether you’re referring to the other thread about some climate change convention at which some activists were praying to Quetzalcoatl or whatever, but judging the bulk of the scientific community by how these activists behaved would be like judging Christians in general by how Fred Phelps behaves.

Given that I attend a research university well known for its science departments, and I know that virtually all of the scientists here (I say virtually only because I haven’t met every one, so I can’t be sure) consider anthropogenic global warming a sufficiently sound theory, I have to disagree with your claim that they are occultists; you are essentially asking me to believe that these people are complete morons, which they most certainly are not.

I wouldn’t deny that a few intelligent, honest scientist have disagreed with the occurrence of global warming, but that’s certainly no grounds to dismiss the majority who disagree.

And what do the opportunistic nuts who exploit the global warming issue for their own ends have to do with the issue itself? Jews were once burned at the stake in the name Christ. Does this tell us something about Christianity, or does it tell us something about the particular people who did the burning? I think the latter. Perhaps you should give the same benefit of the doubt to those who make the case for AGW on a scientific basis without invoking the name of Quetzalcoatl or whatever.

 

[Ender]

Fortunately the Church is providing leadership: www.catholiccoalitiononclimatechange.org

The Church is providing nothing whatever to the science involved in the issue, nor should she as there is no moral question involved in determining the effect of CO2 on the climate. More significantly, it is grossly inaccurate to imply that the opinions expressed by the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change in any way represent the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches we are to be good stewards of the environment, but no one disputes this. The question we are dealing with however, is not *whether *to, but *how *to be good to the environment. That is a practical scientific question about which the Church is completely silent.

Ender

 

[John21652]

More than 1000 Inyternational Scientists Dissent Over Man Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN, IPCC and Gore

“This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report – updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” – features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.”

 

[4elise]

(fromCatholic Coalition on Climate Change)

FROM POPE BENEDICT XVI

The Church May Be Only Hope to Reverse Climate Change

In the recently published book Light of the World: The Pope, The Church, and the Signs of the Times, author Peter Seewald asks the Holy Father that in the absence of a comprehensive international agreement from last year’s climate change summit in Copenhagen, “Doesn’t this outcome necessarily confirm that mankind is altogether incapable of ever resolving a threat such as climate change in a collective effort?”*

The Holy Father responds:
That is in fact a big problem… Meanwhile, in view of the threatening catastrophe, there is the recognition everywhere that we must make moral decisions.* There is also a more or less a pronounced awareness of a global responsibility for it; that ethics must no longer refer merely to one’s own group or one’s own nation, but rather must keep the earth and all people in view…The question is therefore: How can the great moral will, which everybody affirms and everyone invokes, become a personal decision?* For unless that happens, politics remains impotent.* Who, therefore can ensure that this general awareness also penetrates the personal sphere?* This can be done only by an authority that touches the conscience, that is close to the individual and does not merely call for eye-catching events.
In that respect this is a challenge for the Church.* She not only has a major responsibility; she is, I would say, often the only hope.* For she is so close to people’s consciences that she can move them to particular acts of self-denial and can inculcate basic attitudes in souls.

 

[4elise]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1005022.htm

FROM CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE

“WikiLeaks Cable Notes Vatican Commitment to Accord on Climate Change”
By Carol Glatz

“The Vatican was committed to getting countries aligned with the Copenhagen Accord on climate change, according to the first Vatican cable to appear on the WikiLeaks website.
…The cable, titled ‘Green’ pope supports US path forward from Copenhagen,’ was based in part on discussions an embassy official had with Paolo Conversi, a Vatican official at the Secretariat of State, and with U.S. Msgr. James Reinert of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.** The one-page document made no mention of Pope Benedict XVI’s Jan. 11 speech to diplomats in which he was critical of the lack of real commitment to mitigating climate change.** In a lengthy speech, he told ambassadors that have diplomatic relations with the Vatican, including U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Miguel Diaz, that he shared the growing concern caused by economic and political resistance to combating the degradation of the environment.** He said the problem was evident during the U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009. The U.N. Copenhagen conference ended with an agreement on some objectives but failed to reach a comprehensive, binding accord on reducing global emissions.** The pope said he hoped that follow-up conferences in 2010 would lead to effective international policies for protecting the environment because the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states."* Read full article here.

 

[Ender]

The Holy Father responds:
That is in fact a big problem… Meanwhile, in view of the threatening catastrophe, there is the recognition everywhere that we must make moral decisions.*

If there was a threatening catastrophe for which man was responsible and which he could mitigate then there would be moral obligation to act. Given that the likelihood of a catastrophe seems wildly overblown, however, our moral obligations are much less obvious. To quote Professor Lindzen’s testimony before the House last month:

*… the notion that **alarming *warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1005022.htm

FROM CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE

“WikiLeaks Cable Notes Vatican Commitment to Accord on Climate Change”
By Carol Glatz

“The Vatican was committed to getting countries aligned with the Copenhagen Accord on climate change, according to the first Vatican cable to appear on the WikiLeaks website.
…The cable, titled ‘Green’ pope supports US path forward from Copenhagen,’ was based in part on discussions an embassy official had with Paolo Conversi, a Vatican official at the Secretariat of State, and with U.S. Msgr. James Reinert of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.** The one-page document made no mention of Pope Benedict XVI’s Jan. 11 speech to diplomats in which he was critical of the lack of real commitment to mitigating climate change.** In a lengthy speech, he told ambassadors that have diplomatic relations with the Vatican, including U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Miguel Diaz, that he shared the growing concern caused by economic and political resistance to combating the degradation of the environment.** He said the problem was evident during the U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009. The U.N. Copenhagen conference ended with an agreement on some objectives but failed to reach a comprehensive, binding accord on reducing global emissions.** The pope said he hoped that follow-up conferences in 2010 would lead to effective international policies for protecting the environment because the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states."* Read full article here.

Good work, Elise, on both your finds.

Sort of shows that Wikileaks will only find goodness, if it searches out our Church.

Read all about it…top leak…Pope good!

 

[4elise]

Good work, Elise, on both your finds.

Sort of shows that Wikileaks will only find goodness, if it searches out our Church.

Read all about it…top leak…Pope good!

Love it!
:hug3:

Last week of Advent… we wait in JOYFUL hope!

 

[kimmielittle]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1005022.htm

FROM CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE

“WikiLeaks Cable Notes Vatican Commitment to Accord on Climate Change”
By Carol Glatz

“The Vatican was committed to getting countries aligned with the Copenhagen Accord on climate change, according to the first Vatican cable to appear on the WikiLeaks website.
…The cable, titled ‘Green’ pope supports US path forward from Copenhagen,’ was based in part on discussions an embassy official had with Paolo Conversi, a Vatican official at the Secretariat of State, and with U.S. Msgr. James Reinert of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.** The one-page document made no mention of Pope Benedict XVI’s Jan. 11 speech to diplomats in which he was critical of the lack of real commitment to mitigating climate change.** In a lengthy speech, he told ambassadors that have diplomatic relations with the Vatican, including U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Miguel Diaz, that he shared the growing concern caused by economic and political resistance to combating the degradation of the environment.** He said the problem was evident during the U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009. The U.N. Copenhagen conference ended with an agreement on some objectives but failed to reach a comprehensive, binding accord on reducing global emissions.** The pope said he hoped that follow-up conferences in 2010 would lead to effective international policies for protecting the environment because the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states."* Read full article here.

THIS IS NOT AN TRUE ACCOUNTING OF THE 10VATICAN!3 CABLE.

 

[kimmielittle]

wikileaks.ch.nyud.net/cable/2010/01/10VATICAN13.html

Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin 10VATICAN13 2010-01-21 15:03 2010-12-10 21:09 CONFIDENTIAL Embassy Vatican VZCZCXRO4214
PP RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHNP RUEHSL RUEHSR
DE RUEHROV #0013 0211558
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 211558Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY VATICAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1242
INFO RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN PRIORITY 0005
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0129
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA PRIORITY 0047
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS PRIORITY 0035
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHROV/AMEMBASSY VATICAN 1281 Thursday, 21 January 2010, 15:58
C O N F I D E N T I A L VATICAN 000013
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR OES DREW NELSON, RACHEL KASTENBERG, KATE LARSEN
EO 12958 DECL: 1/20/2035
TAGS KGHG, PGOV, PREL, CU, VE, VT
SUBJECT: “GREEN” POPE SUPPORTS US PATH FORWARD FROM COPENHAGEN
REF: A. A. STATE 3080 B. B. 09 VATICAN 132
CLASSIFIED BY: Julieta Valls Noyes, DCM. REASON: 1.4 (b), (d) 1. (C) Summary: The Holy See supports USG efforts to have countries associate themselves with the Copenhagen Accord by the January 31 deadline (ref. A), and will encourage them to do so. The Pope’s recent environmental messages offer Vatican officials a strong platform to leverage the moral authority of the Church to combat climate change. While the Vatican supports the inclusion of all countries in international environmental discussions and decision-making, it is not naove about the political motives behind Cuba’s and Venezuela’s criticism of Copenhagen. End summary.
¶2. (C) On January 20, P/EOff met with Dr. Paolo Conversi, the Vatican’s point person on climate change at the Secretariat of State, to deliver ref. A demarche. Conversi immediately expressed the Holy See’s genuine desire to see the Copenhagen process move forward. He was aware of the January 31 deadline but did not know which countries had agreed formally to join the process. Conversi agreed to encourage other countries discreetly to associate themselves with the Accord, as opportunities arise. (Note: For practical reasons, the Holy See will not formally associate itself with the Copenhagen Accord: Vatican City State’s carbon footprint negligible. The Vatican decision is consistent with its practice of not becoming a formal party to agreements if they require substantial technical expertise and reporting commitments).
¶3. (C) Conversi was pleased overall with the process leading to Copenhagen and with the Conference itself. He said expectations were too high before the event. Regarding the group of dissenting countries, including Venezuela and Cuba, Conversi said the Vatican was sympathetic to their complaints about inclusion in decision-making but believed their criticism was largely politically motivated. Noting that Pope Benedict had firmly established his “green” reputation using his New Years’ Day Peace message to highlight environmental protection (ref. B), Conversi said he looked forward to further collaboration with the U.S. prior to Bonn and Mexico City.
¶4. (U) In a separate meeting, Monsignior James Reinert, the environmental analyst at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (a Vatican think tank), confirmed to P/EOff that the profile of environmental issues in the Vatican is at an all-time high. Secretariat of State officers represented the Holy See at environmental meetings now, where in the past his own office would have had the lead. (Note: Justice and Peace will continue to produce analytical documents on environmental issues for bishops around the world, while the Secretariat will have the lead on policy, particularly in multilateral fora.)
¶5. (C) Comment: Conversi’s offer to support the U.S., even if discreetly, is significant because the Vatican is often reluctant to appear to compromise its independence and moral authority by associating itself with particular lobbying efforts. Even more important than the Vatican’s lobbying assistance, however, is the influence the Pope’s guidance can have on public opinion in countries with large Catholic majorities and beyond. End Comment.
DIAZ

I find no mention of low islands for one thing

 

[kimmielittle]

(fromCatholic Coalition on Climate Change)

FROM POPE BENEDICT XVI

The Church May Be Only Hope to Reverse Climate Change

In the recently published book Light of the World: The Pope, The Church, and the Signs of the Times, author Peter Seewald asks the Holy Father that in the absence of a comprehensive international agreement from last year’s climate change summit in Copenhagen, “Doesn’t this outcome necessarily confirm that mankind is altogether incapable of ever resolving a threat such as climate change in a collective effort?”*

The Holy Father responds:
That is in fact a big problem… Meanwhile, in view of the threatening catastrophe, there is the recognition everywhere that we must make moral decisions.* There is also a more or less a pronounced awareness of a global responsibility for it; that ethics must no longer refer merely to one’s own group or one’s own nation, but rather must keep the earth and all people in view…The question is therefore: How can the great moral will, which everybody affirms and everyone invokes, become a personal decision?* For unless that happens, politics remains impotent.* Who, therefore can ensure that this general awareness also penetrates the personal sphere?* This can be done only by an authority that touches the conscience, that is close to the individual and does not merely call for eye-catching events.
In that respect this is a challenge for the Church.* She not only has a major responsibility; she is, I would say, often the only hope.* For she is so close to people’s consciences that she can move them to particular acts of self-denial and can inculcate basic attitudes in souls.

Hmmmm…without a link…it’s hear-say. AND as the other post, seems to be cherry-picking as indicated by *'s

 

[kimmielittle]

Good work, Elise, on both your finds.

Sort of shows that Wikileaks will only find goodness, if it searches out our Church.

Read all about it…top leak…Pope good!

As an “educator” , doesn’t it shame you that kids resource their sources better than you?

 

[kimmielittle]

I seriously doubt that The Holy Father even saw this cable. 10VATICAN13 ]

It was not addressed to Him. AND I see no quotes, within this cable, of The Holy Father’s - Direct or otherwise.

How CNS came up with such as “The pope said he hoped that follow-up conferences in 2010 would lead to effective international policies for protecting the environment because the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states.” - Within this cable, I do not know. It is false or pure spin.