I was surprised by Rubí this morning when she told me she wanted to write a post for this blog, an announcement which I was fortunate to capture on camera. The rest of the post is therefore entirely the work of Rubí, who was very keen to write an open letter to Pope Francis.
Tuesday 30th December 2014
Hello, I am Rubí and I have been reliably informed by my keeper that today is Tuesday. Last week while my keeper was away, we had a locum keeper to bring our food, but he forgot to tell me when it was Tuesday and I therefore missed the opportunity to have any important thoughts last week. Consequently I am having twice as many important thoughts on this Tuesday. I need to tell you my important Tuesday thoughts because it is clear you are going to make a very serious mistake. Since you earlier informed the world that you were raised on donkey milk, I am sure you will listen to my words as a donkey mother.
Holy Father, you have announced you intend to join the global warming bandwaggon, and you want to directly influence the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics by making 2015 the year in which the Catholic Church commits itself to the climate change nostrums. You intend to write a papal encyclical on the subject and directly influence the United Nations climate summit in Paris. Before you and Bishop Marcelo Sorondo launch your eco-warrior ships, I suggest you first pay close attention and read the wise words of Cardinal Pell’s address to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2011. In a short but comprehensive condemnation of the way in which the climate science has been manipulated and politically hijacked, Cardinal Pell points out that the ultimate burden of the folly of these extreme left wing and green ideologues will fall upon the poor:
“Sometimes the very learned and clever can be brilliantly foolish, especially when seized by an apparently good cause. My request is for common sense and more, not less; what the medievals, following Aristotle, called prudence, one of the four cardinal virtues: the “recta ratio agibilium” or right reason in doing things. We might call this a cost-benefit analysis, where costs and benefits are defined financially and morally or humanly and their level of probability is carefully estimated. Are there any long term benefits from the schemes to combat global warming, apart from extra tax revenues for governments and income for those devising and implementing the schemes? Will the burdens be shared generally, or fall mainly on the shoulders of the battlers, the poor? Another useful Latin maxim is “in dubio non agitur“: don’t act when in doubt.”
In fact, the real losers will be millions of people in developing countries to whom these “anti-carbon” policies based on false science will be denying the possibility of electricity. They will continue to use fuel wood and their children die from lung diseases; their economies will be prevented from growing; their populations kept in enforced poverty. Is this what you wish for the developing world, Holy Father Francis?
Even if you won’t listen to the wise words of Cardinal Pell, maybe you will bend your ear to the eminent climate scientists who dispute the ideologues of the IPCC. I expect you are familiar with the popular and alarmist Al Gore global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth (the summarised version can be seen here.) But have you ever looked at the counter arguments from a range of scientists in a film called The Great Global Warming Swindle ? This offers a fascinating understanding of how the entire global warming scam began. You need to be aware of the political context in which this false CO2 “science” has been devised, before you tell 1.2 billion Catholics it is their religious duty to support these lies.
Holy Father, I hear you cry, “What about those poor polar bears!”
If I may be forgiven for chastising your slightly nineteenth century version of Franciscan romanticism when it comes to cuddly creatures like bears or donkeys like me, Holy Father, let’s just leave the fluffy animals out of the equation please. Here on the well-known website of the main authority in the field of polar bear science, the global warming alarmism is constantly challenged. The site is run by Dr Susan Crockford, an evolutionary biologist and an expert on polar bear evolution. She has been working for 35 years in archaeozoology, paleozoology and forensic zoology, and she has refuted the warmists use of harrowing polar bear stories. In a document Healthy Polar Bears: Less Than Healthy Science, Dr Crockford gives an insight into the way that, not only climate science, but other scientific fields are becoming corrupted by the distortions of the ideological status quo:
“To say that I am dismayed at the behaviour of polar bear field researchers over the last ten years or so is an understatement. It makes me fearful for the state of science itself. Their conservation bias, which was always present but usually understated, has escalated to a deplorable level. The lack of critical scientific thinking is obvious now in everything polar bear specialists say to the media, in every presentation they make and every scientific paper they publish. Their determination to keep the conservation status of polar bears as ‘threatened with extinction’ worldwide – regardless of the present health of polar bear populations, problems with sea ice projections , and noted issues with their predictive models – reveals that PBSG members and associates are simply agenda-driven collectors of data rather than objective scientists who are a bit too emotionally attached to the animals they study. That is a very unhealthy place for polar bear science to be and it needs to change.”
Many more examples could be given of the way in which this Global Warming ideology is now riding roughshod over all areas of intellectual life. And it is already infecting the next generation. In GCSE and A-level Geography exams for school children, the only correct answers to climate questions are those that fit the new orthodoxy. Millions of children are now being educated in these lies about CO2, and they cannot know the truth or they will not answer the exam question “correctly”.
Your Holiness, as a humble donkey and once-provider of ass’s milk of the kind you yourself were raised on, I hope I have given you some nourishing reasons to look at both sides of this matter, then reconsider your intentions to get involved in the Great Climate Scam. You will be in danger of bringing the Catholic Church into disrepute among all people who can see through this nonsense. And if your judgment is doubted on such a publicly contentious matter where anyone can read the counter arguments against the purveyors of falsehood, how will your judgment be seen on more subtle matters of faith, doctrine and morals that are the true concern of the Catholic Magisterium which is your Petrine responsibility?
Please forgive the directness of a humble donkey, your Holiness, but it is Tuesday and I only have ideas once a week.
Update 19.50, 30th December 2014: Rubí is now asleep in the stable after a very exhausting Tuesday in which she has done more thinking than is usual for a Tuesday and entered into theological climatology. Rubí may do an Open University course on the subject if there is an online programme that just involves Tuesdays. There is more about Rubí here: http://brotherlapin.com/2014/10/25/the-lovely-rubi-donkey-and-is-it-tuesday/
Update 22.00, 30th December 2014:
Thank you to Dan Pangburn for replying to Rubí donkey with the following, from his expert climatologist perspective:
“CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through October, 2014) increased since 2001 by 28.1 ppmv (an amount equal to 31.4% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; October, 2014, 399.23 ppmv) while the average global temperature trend has been flat . This is outside of the ‘limits’ asserted by the ‘Consensus’ of the Climate Science Community.
So how did the Consensus get it so wrong? The scientists in the Consensus apparently don’t understand some of the science very well, stubbornly refuse to acknowledge some science or may not even be aware of some relevant science.”
Final update 01.15, 31 December 2014:
The Marxist-Leninist left long ago became the greens. They use phrases like “a society self-conscious of its embeddedness in the biosphere.”