 |
| Why are you doing this? |
Global warming is a pagan lie.
We're calling it "global warming" and not "climate change" because that's what it was originally called before they changed the name to make it less of a blatant contradiction to the facts.
Global warming is false, of course. There wasn't much evidence for it to begin with and there is even less now. Indeed, there is currently much evidence against it.
I'm calling it a lie because much of the "evidence" for it has been fabricated or doctored in an intentional and deliberate mockery of the scientific method that would have made the creator of Piltdown man proud.
But why do I call it a pagan lie?
Well, to begin with, some of the assumptions underlying the overall ideology of global warming amount to earth worship. That's not precisely how it has been explicitly framed, of course. It's been framed as an attempt to help people--all the people whose homes will be flooded out, or who will starve to death or be killed by terrorists (it has been claimed that global warming foments terrorism) and so on. Human activity (it is claimed) is causing the earth to warm by a few degrees, which in turn will have these horrific consequences. Therefore we are justified in spending fifty trillion dollars (or whatever it is), or sacrificing fifty trillion dollars of economic activity (which amounts to the same thing) to stop it.
But consider: suppose we established that the earth was naturally getting warmer by a few degrees (as has happened many times in human history and no doubt will happen again). Logically, this would have the same consequences on people as if the earth were getting warmer as a result of human activity. Homes would be flooded out. People would starve, and ISIS would get new recruits, etc. But does anyone believe that if the cause were thought to be some natural fluctuation, that there would be anywhere near such concern about it? Would there be a movement to, say, spend fifty trillion dollars to (if we could) artificially maintain the current temperature? Or, to go back a step, does anyone believe that the predictions of what would happen if the earth naturally grew warmer by a few degrees would be so dire? To ask that question is to answer it.
Rather, the ideology implicitly assumes that what's really wrong is not that the temperature is rising per se, but that the temperature is rising because man is causing it to rise.
The ideology says that man shouldn't cause the temperature to rise. Or cause it to fall. Or cause it to stay the same (when the natural rhythm of nature is making it rise, or fall). Man shouldn't tamper with nature at all, for no other reason than that he shouldn't.
That's earth worship.
God wants us to respect His creation, among other things because His creation is good for us. But He doesn't want us to worship it.
He wants us to worship Him.
So, now we come to the second reason why global warming ideology is pagan. What did God in fact say?
And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it
But global warming ideology tells us not to multiply. Indeed, we've multiplied so much (according to the ideology) that we should start doing some quick long-division, to the point of carrying over billions of people or potential people into non-existence. And (according to the ideology) attempting to subdue the earth is at the root of the problem. We shouldn't even have tried.
Sorry, God. We shouldn't have taken you seriously.
Let's dance around a tree to preserve the equilibrium.
Finally, global warming is pagan because of all that goes with it. It's no coincidence that its biggest boosters are pro-contraception, pro-abortion, and anti-population. Jeffery Sachs, the upcoming Encyclical's most important advisor, has fast become a kind of "great white savior" quack, parachuting into African villages telling the natives how studies have determined that their lives will be transformed if they would only purchase a new Western gizmo and install it in their community center. He has argued for certain economic and cultural initiatives, involving abortion among other things, that will result (thank the goddess) in cutting population growth back by half a child per family. The third "presenter" of the upcoming Encyclical, an atheist--nominated by the Pope to be a presenter because he is an atheist--has claimed that the optimum carrying capacity of the earth is only one-seventh of what it is now.
Sorry, six billion humans.
The Catholic Church has always claimed that life has value. Life in and of itself has value. Not the mere existence of some life. Not only enough life to preserve the "equilibrium". But life itself.
That will appear to officially change on Tuesday.
Hands off the earth, life.
Saint Francis would have been horrified.
This whole thing is evil. It drips it. It's not a silly encyclical, ghostwritten by a deranged loudmouthed archbishop who wrote a kissing manual. Nor is it a meaningless toss-off, directed by a former Archbishop, narcissistically addicted to secular praise.
It will be an evil document.
And no we won't be able to say, this time, that it's a translation problem.
Global warming is a pagan lie, so why is the Vicar of Christ shoving it down our throats?
I don't know the answer. I don't want to know the answer.
But more and more of us will soon be asking the question.
