Where is the Separation of Church and State in Global Warming?
by Gary Isbell
While NASA and the University of East Anglia struggle to produce credible data confirming the theory of global warming, 60 percent of Americans have not bought into the hype.
It seems now that only faith alone will save the global warming agenda. Faith, religious faith that is. It appears that Church officials have warmed up to the idea of global warming. In an interview about the upcoming papal encyclical dealing with climate change with the National Catholic Reporter, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said, “the faith community's voice is going to be very important here because EPA can talk about the science and reach only so far.”
It seems the next phase in climate alarmism is to put the credibility of the clergy behind the failed global warming project.
Arguing over whether the aggregate global temperature has risen a fraction of a degree, or if NASA had a 65 percent or 38 percent degree of accuracy in its calculations is irrelevant. For that matter, meteorologists cannot even predict weather patterns with consistent accuracy using computer models, how can we rely on the same models to inform us of global warming?
The fact that global warming is promoted by emotional sensation is because it cannot be demonstrated with credible data, let alone that it is man-made. This is but one facet of the larger picture.
What is most disturbing are the proposed solutions to the unproven theory: the redistribution of wealth and the destruction of industrialized civilization.
Such a redistributist agenda has a long history.
In an interview with an official from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) Ottmar Edenhofer states without any proof that, “developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
Summit organizer Maurice Strong offered opening remarks at the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, reveal the alarmists real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
A former U.S. Senator representing the Clinton administration as Undersecretary of State for global issues, Timothy Wirth D-CO, declared at the same summit “we have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
If all of these remarks are not shocking enough, Mikhail Gorbachev shows that he understands the game at a higher level. He emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives in 1996: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Communist countries care little for the environment and are unwilling to participate in the proposed solutions of Climate Summits; Gorbachev is referring specifically to global communism.
It would be one thing for delusional socialists to champion the end of Western industrialized civilization under the guise of global warming, but it is altogether different for our clergy to give support to a flawed cause and its apocalyptic remedy.
Liberals have no problem with the clergy lending credibility to their claim of global warming. It appears that the end justifies the means, because in this matter, there is no crying foul demanding the separation of church and state.