Careful readers of this blog will recall that I had a little fun at the Vatican’s expense some time ago on the issue of global warming. In the article I linked to at that time, it mentioned that the pope was going to use his speech at the UN (just now past) to press for action on climate change, etc. There was some discussion following that post, with some there concerned that I had wronged the pope by believing what I had read about him in the newspaper. But it now appears that the paper represented him well.
The article had said:
“The New York speech is likely to contain an appeal for sustainable development, and it will follow an unprecedented Encyclical (a message to the wider church) on the subject, senior diplomatic sources have told The Independent.”
My understanding is that publication of this Encyclical (“Love in Truth”) has been delayed, which is not what the paper anticipated, which means that the New York speech has (so far) been a stand-alone affair. And it
would be wrong to say that the UN speech was a stem-winder about global warming because it was mostly wooly-mooly about human rights. But the pope did show his hand in two places, in a way fully consistent with what the article had said.
“Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet.”
And . . .
“Likewise, international action to preserve the environment and to protect various forms of life on earth must not only guarantee a rational use of technology and science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of creation.”
Note that Pope Benedict said here that the “protection . . . of the climate”
required “all international leaders to act jointly.” And he also said that “international action to preserve the environment” was necessary to guarantee certain results. Couple this with the information we have about the upcoming encyclical, and I don’t see a misrepresentation of the pope in the article.
And, I am telling you, people, the sooner we get off this global warming thing, the less embarrassment there will be for everybody later on. Of course, I am assuming in this that false predictions by progressives somehow embarrass them, which, come to think of it, is not true at all. I mean, look at Paul Ehrlich. That means that I should be embarrassed for even thinking that evidence could ever be allowed to count against the vision. And I am, suitably abashed.
