Is Pope Francis’ encyclical really about protecting “the planet and the poor?”

Email reply to a friend after being emailed links to an article by David Suzuki raving about Pope Francis’ encyclical “Laudato Si” and a link to the encyclical itself, which was described as “a rare mix of poetic beauty and the appropriate use of intelligent thought”:

Hi (name withheld),

I would urge you to do more research into what’s going on here. Suzuki has been pushing the AGW meme for quite some time now, in the face of, and without commenting on, peer-reviewed scientific papers that show that the temperature on Earth is driven primarily by the Sun’s magnetic field.

A French scientist, Philippe de Larminat, characterized by the MSM as a “climate doubter” (better than “denier” I guess) was barred from appearing in Rome at the April climate summit sponsored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences in preparation for the recent encyclical. As far as the proponents of AGW theory are concerned, there is no need to even look at evidence that suggests that it might be a major mistake to talk about taking the life-giving power of fuels containing carbon molecules away from people in the developing world, who desperately need them for survival.

I think I previously gave you a DVD with the documentary on the work of Henrik Svensmark, The Cloud Mystery, which covers the difficulties he had back in 2005-2006 publishing his peer-reviewed paper proving the energetic and chemical pathways by which cosmic rays create showers of particles called muons which cause the formation of microscopic nuclei for low-altitude clouds, which have the effect of cooling the Earth. An article I wrote on this back in 2010 can be found at https://berealtruth.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-cloud-mystery/. In that, I lay out the information in the documentary that shows persuasive evidence that the Earth has remained in regular cycles of heating and cooling for hundreds of millions of years, and has been cool within the parameters of these cycles even at times when there was more than 10 times the amount of CO2 presently in our atmosphere. You can read about Svensmark’s work and its implications in more detail in a book he co-authored with the great science author Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars.

Even Al Gore has admitted that the correlations between atmospheric temperatures and CO2 that he stressed in An Inconvenient Truth, show that the rise in CO2 lags behind the rises in temperature by a matter of years. You can also see the current work of retired NASA scientists to present information contesting the AGW theories at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/. Another factor in the current rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is the dramatic uptick in volcanic activity we’re having worldwide, which greatly increases the amount of gasses being emitted.

The papal encyclical largely implies that there is a moral imperative to, in protecting our Earth Mother, do what we can to prevent climate disaster. He says this is particularly necessary to protect the impoverished of the world, without mentioning the potential disaster for them of any kind of “carbon” rationing regime. Also, if there is an imperative to protect the Earth and its people, why is there no mention of the ongoing geoengineering agenda which Dane Wigington has documented is now killing the forests of the world (not to mention poison us all with a cocktail of toxic heavy metals)?

Why has the Pope weighed in on this issue at this time, even going so far as to appear at the U.N. in concert with the upcoming conference on “the Post-2015 Sustainability Agenda” (i.e. an updated iteration of Agenda 21)? Could it be to provide momentum in preparation for the COP21 conference in Paris in Nov. and Dec.? Can it be that the global elite agenda needs to bring in a “carbon” suppression program rapidly now, before it becomes utterly obvious that the Earth, due to the drastic reduction in the solar magnetic field that’s been underway since the mid-1990’s, indicated by the very weak solar maximum last year, is most likely leading to a longer term cooling trend? This has been shown by the infamous “hiatus” that NOAA recently got caught cooking data in an attempt to try to deny is even happening. Even the 2014 IPCC report, which had a powerfully propagandistic “Summary for Decision Makers,” admitted that there has been no warming for 15 years in the scientific part of the report. Given that the IPCC has been pushing for draconian measures against the world population for nearly 2 decades, why would they include that information if it were not true?

I’m suggesting that there are reasons other than “settled science” and a need to protect the population of the world for what’s going on now. It doesn’t make sense to give the Vatican unquestioned moral leeway as somehow representing unimpeachable ethics, in the face of Rome’s history of controlling people over the centuries, including recent decades, and in particular, playing games with scientific knowledge. If the science were “settled,” why would people on the AGW bandwagon be rejoicing that this encyclical is the element that can push their efforts for control of the world population over the top? Shouldn’t the truth do that?

In Lak’ech,
Bruce

Advertisements

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

%d bloggers like this: