Sunday, June 21, 2015

Fox News Hypocrisy on Pope Francis Displayed

When the Vatican released Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change it was headline news on nearly every single news outlet in the world.

Except Fox News.

Fox News buried the news in the very back of its online news website. You had to make a concerted effort to find any mention of it. But, not today. Today, it's their leading headline. In fact, they are they only ones I can find that are putting it on their front page this evening. Why is that? Because of a statement by one of the Cardinals.

“I would hope that no politician gets policy from his faith committee, his faith community,” Wuerl continued. “The pope is talking about what we should be doing, not ‘Here is a political agenda that you must accept.’  … “This is one of the great blessings of America. We are all allowed to speak our minds.”
To summarize this, when the pope has something to say about climate change, Republicans (and Fox News) line up to say he should butt out. But, when a cardinal says 'We are all allowed to speak our minds,' they think this is great.

So, please explain to me, Fox News. Why is it wrong for Pope Francis to speak about climate change, but it's okay for the Republicans to talk about it?

I'm just a little confused, that's all.


  1. Right and if it wasn't for the 'greedy' oil and coal companies squashing alternative energy technology we wouldn't be in this mess and we would be energy independent right? I guess that's why communist China builds a new coal plant every week.
    I'd be angry at your accusations too but self righteous indignation isn't my thing. But seriously I did find a really good book that has helped me understand climate very well sir and I recommend it to all your advocates and naysayers alike.

  2. The bit about the 70s ice age prediction has been debunked so completely I am surprised anyone ever pulls it out. That is clue number one you are clueless.

    As for China - let's see, you want to use a communist country as a role model? Let's be clear - this is the same communist country that enacted history's greatest genocide on its own people and slaughtered hundreds of millions of female babies. And, you wonder why this country would inflict coal-burning produced smog on its own people that is so thick they have to close the airports?

    You're delusional philosophies have become a cancer in your brain.

  3. I watched PBS till I was blue in the face and heard the drum beat over and over (which I believed when I was a a young boy) I don't need you to confirm or deny what I read and saw with my own eyes on a daily basis.
    As for China this is a little awkward considering your unquestionably superior mental capacities but let me dumb it down for you "professor" the theory goes that unbridled capitalism has squelched the "clean energy movement" that you are so fond of. The "greedy" business men can't be stopped because our system of government currently isn't effective enough to deal with the problem. China who you clearly abhor as much as I do doesn't have a problem telling business what they can and can not do right? So if Communist China could (as you say) get rid of fossil fuels to increase the efficiency of power generation for their own Country which is clearly in their best self interest (I don't want to lose you professor I'm still talking about the government not the people) then why wouldn't they?

  4. "Dumbing down" is the correct phrase. You dumbed it all the way into stupidity.

    Take a look at the environmental problem in China and that will answer any question anyone might have on that issue. Simply put, they don't care about the health effects and the lower standard of living caused by incredibly rampant pollution. The environmental damage in China is incredible. When you don't have to worry about cleaning up after yourself, things get a whole lot cheaper.

    Still, China is very rapidly changing from a coal-burning system to clean energy. In fact, their coal consumption has actually dropped in recent years despite the economy still growing. Why would they do that? The investment in renewables is sky rocketing.

    By the way, did you see that it is expected investments in renewable energy is expected to be in excess of $8 trillion by 2040? Yes - trillion.

    As for the 70s ice age myth, I'll give you some references below. But, first let me ask you some questions. Have you stopped going to the doctor when you get sick because some magazine got a story wrong on medicine 40 years ago? Have you stopped using an adviser or doing your own investment research because some magazine got a story on investing wrong 40 years ago? Have you stopped listening to the news because some magazine got a story on the news service wrong 40 years ago? I could go on, but I think I made my point. The ice age claim is a false one and is used by people like to you in an attempt to justify your rejection of science for religious/political/financial reasons. This is no different than people who thought (and still think) tobacco is harmless.

    Try these articles on the story about the Newsweek article:

  5. The reality is that the Chinese are not suckers like us, they cornered the solar industry and cleaned our administrations clock on the climate treaty. It's quite comical how you parade the renewable numbers around as though it has anything to do with merit. It's like touting the viability of the horse drawn carriage after all motorized vehicles are banned from public and private use, of course investments will sky rocket.

    There are over 100 news paper and magazine articles from 1970-1979 confirming the hysteria of the decade about 50 of them are before your precious Newsweek article and even a whole show devoted to the topic on "In search of" hosted by Leonard Nemoy in 1978 as I'm sure you know it was a national show that was the discovery channel of it's day packed into 1 hr a week. It's pretty clear you are not a serious man but rather a fool and a left wing hack wearing the same blinders you had on in the 80's.

  6. The reality is you reject anything you don't like. Your religious/political/financial reasons are not valid, but they control your mind and reasoning. This little comment of yours demonstrates that fact. Without knowing anything about my political views (and, you were wrong, by the way), you blindly engaged in verbal abuse without ever explaining how my personal views affects climate science. The science is the same with, or without me.

    The second reality is, no scientists were not predicting global cooling. Like I said before, this has been so thoroughly debunked I am surprised anyone still brings it up. Try this one:

    Yet another reality is that what "over 100 newspapers and magazine articles" has to say is irrelevant. That is not science. Neither was Nimoy's show. What is relevant is what the scientists were saying in refereed journals. Hint: They were not predicting global cooling.

    One final reality check for you. Any time I see someone use WUWT as a reference I know they have left reality. The only people that give that guy the time of day are deniers who reject science. It is a absolute indicator that this is someone to be ignored when they start using that dreg as a reference. If you want to be a denier, that's your right and your business. If you want someone to take you seriously, never use Watts as a reference.