John,

I don't think a "serious talk" with Brian would make any difference with this man. He does have a great background on environmental issues, I acknowledge that. But his views on others beliefs and faith are just his own...

I wished that he would have used a little more restraint and posted his reply to Davy Gordon directly, but he didn't, he posted his opinion to the list. This tells me that he feels that his view of others faith are wrong and misguided, and only his opnion matters. This is the kind of thinking that causes tensions and wars among humans. People like Brian haven't yet understood the "live and let live" principle without critisizing one another.

I am not religeous, but I respect what others may believe. If what they believe gets them through the day, then good for them. We need to be more accepting instead of being so judgemental as Brian is being.

Steve Gregory

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Burke" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [EN] The Pope on Climate Alarmism


> pretended virgin birth of Jesus?????
> 
> Not offended - but wish I could have a serious talk with you Brian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Burke
> 
> (408) 515 4992
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:56 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [EN] The Pope on Climate Alarmism
> 
> I'm the first to decry alarmism, but why doesn't the Pope deal with the
> problems within his church, rather than play pseudo-science? I therefore
> suggest the following open letter to him:
> 
> Dear Mr Ratzinger
> 
> The name you have adopted by leading the Roman church means, "say well":
> perhaps you should adopt this as a way of life instead of knocking gays,
> contraception and, now, environmentalists, when you clearly know nothing
> about the subject (at least, I will charitably assume you know nothing
> about condoms or homosexuality, although you must have come across the
> latter in your mission).
> 
> Maybe you should concentrate on bringing your church back to its
> 1st-century ideals in the ways that Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul, proclaimed
> in his letters. For example, the dogma of praising the BVM has no
> foundation in Christianity and crept in, probably 300 years after Jesus
> was executed, as part of the Astarte cult. It should be abolished
> because there is no biblical reference to it. It follows from this that
> the 19th-century dogma of the Immaculate Conception (not to be confused
> with anything to do with the pretended virgin birth of Jesus) cannot
> hold water as being so obviously pagan.
> 
> Far be it from me, an ignorant non-believer, to tell you how to conduct
> your job, as you obviously have more on your plate than you know how to
> deal with, restoring your church to true Christianity instead of the
> idolatrous, money-grabbing business it has become. I'll shut up,
> provided you do the same about atmospheric science. Your intervention is
> reminiscent of the same way as your predecessor, Urban VIII, interfered
> with Copernicus' astronomical science and imprisoned Galileo as a
> scapegoat. It was nearly 200 years later, in 1822, that Pius VII
> admitted that your church had made a mistake and allowed that modern
> astronomy was factual. In the meantime, your church declared astronomy
> as heretical and was a major hindrance to the development of science. If
> I may be allowed to call you Joseph, or Joe for short, may I point out
> you are committing a heresy and reducing the little credibility that
> remains to your church by interfering with what does not concern you?
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Brian Ellis
> 
> I hope that this does not offend anyone here but I class religious
> leaders - of all faiths - in the same light as I do politicians.
> 
> Brian
> 
> Davy, Gordon wrote:
>> I came across a posting with the above title on another email forum. I
> thought Environet readers might enjoy reading it (the following three
> paragraphs). It was posted Dec. 12 by Thomas Sieger Derr at
> <http://www.firstthings.com/blog/> http://www.firstthings.com/blog/. 
>> For some time now many scientists, even and perhaps especially those
> connected to the climate alarmism movement, have worried about the
> exaggerations and downright apocalyptic scenarios which have come out of the
> writings of some of their scientific colleagues like James Hansen or James
> Lovelock, let alone laymen like Al Gore. Deliberate scare-mongering, done to
> get the public's attention and action, can backfire and bring discredit on
> the whole movement.
>> Now comes support for these worries from a surprising source, Pope
> Benedict XVI, in a message prepared for World Peace Day on January 1, but
> released today, warning us against the climate change prophets of doom. He
> does not take sides in the scientific debate: "Humanity today is rightly
> concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow." But he does believe the
> case against global warming is over-hyped, that solutions to global warming
> must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology, and that care
> for the environment must not mean that the welfare of plants and animals
> takes priority over human need.
>> This message will greatly annoy the global warming crowd, who will point
> out that the pope is not a scientist (and neither is Al Gore). But at least
> they won't be able to claim he's in the pay of the oil industry.
>> Derr's posting includes a link to a Daily Mail news report by Simon
> Caldwell of the Pope's message. Here's an excerpt of that report: 
>> Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change
> prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be
> based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. The leader of more than
> a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions
> melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were
> nothing more than scare-mongering. The German-born Pontiff said that while
> some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community
> based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist
> movement... 
>> "It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out
> prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by
> ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim
> of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of
> ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances." 
>> ...He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for
> nations to "choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral
> decisions" in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet... 
>> His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be
> associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the
> case against global warming to be over-hyped. 
>> A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community
> over the evils of climate change. But there is also an intransigent body of
> scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are
> not to blame for the phenomenon. 
>> Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are
> normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other
> critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning
> industry in its own right. 
>> In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was
> welcomed by environmentalists. But senior cardinals close to the Vatican
> have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by
> critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion. 
>> In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney,
> caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had
> risen by 0.5 degrees celsius. "The industrial-military complex up on Mars
> can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists
> who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to
> rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced. 
>>  
>> Gordon Davy
>>