Cardinal Baffles Fox Host with Calm Defense of Pope

June 21, 2015

Cardinal Donald Wuerl came on Fox News Sunday show, yesterday, and showed how its done.

At 4:10, deftly and with a kindly clerical smile, he bodyslams Rush Limbaugh.
During the rest of the interview he handles Chris Wallace’s predictable talking points as smoothly as a ninja sushi chef.

More Please.

UPDATE:

NYTimes:

On the first Sunday after Pope Francis issued a landmark document on the environment, Roman Catholics attending Mass in Kenya, France, Mexico, Peru and the United States said they were thankful that he was using his pulpit to address climate change, pollution and global inequality.

But few priests or bishops — other than in parts of Latin America — used their own pulpits on Sunday to pass on the pope’s message, according to parish visits, interviews with Catholic leaders and reports from Catholics after Mass. Despite the urgent call to action in Francis’ document and the international attention it received, it will take some time to know whether Catholic clergy are familiar or comfortable enough with its themes to preach them to the faithful.

It traditionally takes months for papal teaching documents, known as encyclicals, to be read, understood and disseminated. And this one, “Laudato Si’,” or “Praise Be to You: On Care for Our Common Home,” is long, nearly 200 pages, and intricately weaves spiritual and moral teachings with economic, scientific and political analysis. It includes a forceful denunciation of a global economic system that the pope says plunders the resources of the poor for the benefit of the rich, leaving the poor to disproportionately suffer the consequences, including the effects of climate change.

Advertisement

32 Responses to “Cardinal Baffles Fox Host with Calm Defense of Pope”

  1. deanfromohio Says:

    So the author here will gladly follow all other instructions from the Cardinal, including the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, the evil of abortion, the sinfulness of sex outside marriage, the evil of drunkenness, the sin of pornography, salvation from sin only through faith in the death and resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ?!

    Wow, the Cardinal was more effective than I thought at establishing his moral authority and his view on the nature of truth. Congrats at your embrace of the truth!

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Dean oh-so-casually reads what he wants to read into this post. “…the author here will gladly follow ALL other instructions from the Cardinal, including….”, and snarks with “Congrats at your embrace of the truth!”.

      I’ll rely on the Pope’s and the Cardinal’s (and the “author’s”) “moral authority” and “views on nature” for some direction. You on the other hand, have nothing to contribute here—-why don’t you go comment instead on some right wing nut anti-Catholicism site where you’ll be appreciated?


  2. Fallacy of composition and a poor jump to conclusions there, Dean. I applaud what the pope has to say and I’m glad he’s bringing his viewpoint as well as making this an ethical, and moral issue. Anthropogenic global warming is the largest existential crisis aside from nuclear weapons proliferation that we’ve ever faced as living beings on this planet. Some intelligent people are beginning to recognize this, including this pope.

  3. Dudley Jones Says:

    The pope has dissappointed in that he has not sought out the facts but accepts instead ‘the science’.

    Here was a golden opportunity to save the billions from the conspiracy of ‘climate change’.

    There is no excuse, one only has to look at the performance of climate models that are all just plain wrong.

    The real diaapointment is that the reality is out there. We know, from Christiana Figures and others that ‘climate change’ is nothing to do with so-called global warming but everything to do with overturning capitalism and putting in its place a neo marxist tyranny.

    If the UN succeeds then billions will die, deliberately or simply because rule of the whole world by top down believers is bound to fail.

    The Club of Rome and the Sierra club and others make it clear that the future lies with a small elite whose agenda is to to control world population.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      please document “wrong” climate models.

      • Neil Mahony Says:

        All you have to do is compare the IPCC models to the real temperatures as recorded by NOAA from balloon sets and satellite readings over the last 100 years. They aren’t EVEN close to the “computer” models. They are straightlining at about .1-.2C above 0C for the last 20 years while IPCC has them at about+2C The ifo is out there, just look.
        Anziani

        • greenman3610 Says:

          when I ask for documentation, I generally mean something more than just repeating and expanding your own unsupported assertion.
          We’ve discussed this issue before.
          https://climatecrocks.com/2014/09/08/study-climate-models-replicate-temperature-pause/
          More research is showing that the “pause” is either much smaller than previously supposed, or entirely
          an illusion
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/06/04/noaa-says-theres-no-such-thing-as-the-global-warming-pause-now-what/
          In any case, suggest you monitor satellite sea levels here
          http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
          As you can see, they have been steadily rising for the 23 years of the sat record, and accelerating over the last 150 years

          Sea level rises, like the fluid in a thermometer, in response to thermal expansion – with the added influence of melting ice.

          There is no imaginable process in physics that gives you this response in the absence of a warming planet.
          If you can show why sea level would be rising, and accelerating in that rise, without warming, you will receive a Nobel, and the world will beat a path to your door.
          Good luck.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Neal has succeeded in getting you to waste some time responding to his troll attack.

            Are Dumley and Edward Hastings his buddies? You can find idiotic comments from all three of them on various right wing-nut and denier sites—-Goddard’s and CFACT, among them.

            Neal seems to be fond of signing off his comments with “Anziani”, which is a reference to being one of the “immortal clan elders” in a vampire fantasy game. I would deduce from that that Neal, is another one of the “kids” that invade us periodically (often in groups) and waste our time.

          • 1happywoman Says:

            DOG,

            I disagree that Peter’s response was a waste of time. I’m rehearsing it for my own future use in response to “the climate models are wrong” canard.

            Heretofore, my response has been, “You’re right; the situation is much more dire than the models have predicted.” And then I talk about the Antarctic ice melt.

            Now I can layer on the fact and physics of sea level rise.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I will agree that feeding the trolls DOES give Peter an opportunity to put some good info out there for those like you who may need it. That’s a plus, but their comments are so inane and ridiculous that it galls me to even read them and see Peter responding.

            If you really want to “get educated” about AGW and climate change, you need to be visiting more sites than just Crock. Follow Peter’s links in his posts and also visit these sites that I check daily—-climate progress, desmogblog, real climate. todays climate, carbon brief daily. Look at skeptical science.

            A good list is found at “101 Top Web Resources”. Nearly all are good ones, only a few are garbage sites from deniers—-like the CO2 site run by Heartland’s Idso and the one from Steve McIntyre.

            http://www.environmentalsciencedegree.com/climate-change/

          • greenman3610 Says:

            I’ve started carrying a thermometer with me to presentations, makes a good visual that “heat makes things expand”,
            then point out the ocean is also “a vessel of a known capacity, filled with a fluid of a known volume”. what will
            happen if we add heat?
            and, point people to the colorado satellite graph, and ask for an alternative explanation of why the ocean is rising…?

          • 1happywoman Says:

            DOG,

            I do almost always click the links in Peter’s posts to read more deeply. And in some ideal universe, I’d also be reading all the sites that you do.

            I read only Crock regularly, though, because in the universe where I actually live, my weekday discretionary time amounts to only half-an-hour in the morning, drinking a smoothie in front of my computer before leaving for work, and a couple of hours in the evening after “life maintenance activities.”

            I have to prioritize how I use that time, and for me, Peter’s blog has the most bang for the buck. Not to mention how he’s expanded my cultural universe with his music breaks and movie clips. 🙂


        • I would love to see that 100-year satellite dataset. Or a global average temperature from radiosondes (balloons) for the last 100 years. Do show us your non-existing evidence.

          Neil Mahony, when you do not have a clue what you are talking about, why don’t you read a book or ask civil questions? Why do you, of all people, think you know everything better than the experts?

          • 1happywoman Says:

            Peter,

            I’ve bookmarked the link you supplied to the Colorado graph of sea level rise. If a picture’s worth a thousand words, that graph’s worth ten thousand.

            And I think using a thermometer as a visual aid in your presentations is brilliant!


        • “…satellite readings over the last 100 years”.

          You owe me a fresh cup of coffee and a new keyboard.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Dumley isn’t capable of “documenting wrongness” of any kind.

        Anyone who puts quotation marks around “the science” and “climate change” and maunders on about how AGW is all about “overturning capitalism and putting in its place a neo marxist tyranny” is someone who needs to adjust his meds, and saying that that the Sierra Club (I’m a member) is leading the efforts to “control world population” is one of the crazier things posted on Crock in a while. LOL

        (And who are those ominous “others” of which he speaks? I hope they’re more effective than The Club of Rome, whose efforts to establish a new world order were supposed to bear fruit by the year 2000—-15 years ago?)

    • Darryl Myers Says:

      You know scientific research on global climate change is based on way more than a few computer models, right?


    • “…the conspiracy of climate change.” LOL…..that’s a good one. Yep….thousands of climate scientists who are all keeping a secret about all the “tricks” they use.

      All the thermometers we have tampered with….all the ice sheets that we have photoshopped……..all the glaciers that we have photoshopped……all the oceans we have magically raised…..all the ocean water we have magically warmed.

      Drats….I KNEW you would catch us some day. Well done sir….:)


    • When he was younger, Pope Francis worked as a nightclub bouncer. So he spent plenty of time listening to folks like you.

      Pope Francis now answers to a higher calling, and and answering that higher calling means listening to real scientists, not ignorant loudmouths.

      The pope has sought out the facts from the best and brightest: i.e. scientists from renowned research institutions like the Scripps Institution of Oceanography: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/photo-week-scripps-contingent-meets-pope-francis

      May I suggest that you try to follow the pope’s example?


    • I’m going to guess from your comment that you consider yourself religious. It’s interesting, then, that instead of looking INWARD regarding his message, you’re flinging OUTWARD. Think about that, Dudley Jones.

    • judimalus Says:

      It seems to be lost on some people that climate models are not weather models. Weather models aim to predict daily temperature, wind, precipitation accurately on a short time scale, one day to a week. Climate models on the other hand aim to predict global monthly to annual averages of those statistics over long time scales, typically years. For instance if you look to changes in the North East some places experience fewer very hot summer days but the overall average temperatures are raising none-the-less.

      Basically you get the same difference of perspective with seat belts regulations: do you omit to buckle a seat belt that may cause you more injury say if some defective air bag explodes in your face or do you buckle your seat belt because on average more lives are saved that way?

      Dudley Jones you will convey your message more effectively if you take the trouble to spell out your thoughts, as in :

      “The pope has dissappointed in that …”
      Disappointed who? You? Surely not me?

      “he has not sought out the facts but accepts instead ‘the science’.”
      Science is all about ascertaining facts if you don’t do your research and don’t know what science is then your whole argument falls apart.

      “Here was a golden opportunity to save the billions …”

      Billions of what? Investment money, people or something else?

      “There is no excuse, one only has to look at the performance of climate models that are all just plain wrong.”

      The scientific method has been designed over hundred of years specifically to account for contrarian opinions. If you have actual data that does contradict existing climate models scientists at NOAA will want to see it.

      “…‘climate change’ is nothing to do with so-called global warming but everything to do with overturning capitalism and putting in its place a neo marxist tyranny.”

      Tyranny lurks in every political alley whether Marxist, Fascist or Capitalist and it springs forth as soon as politics turn into religion.

      • judimalus Says:

        The last two paragraphs in my reply were copied from Dudley’s comment, that they remained in my post is my mistake, they should be within quotes at least and deleted at best.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      LexLib? Rush is crybaby (when he’s not being a bombastic bullying bigmouth). It’s a sad commentary on your site that you can’t feature more credible commentary.

  4. jpcowdrey Says:

    Thank you, Dudley. You’re so cute when you get all up in your conspiratorial splendor.


  5. […] Cardeal Donald Wuerl defende a encíclica papal na Fox News Os EUA são uma sociedade mais polarizada a cada dia que passa. Climate Crooks. […]


  6. Doesn’t sound like the Fox host was baffled. Sounds like he was giving the Cardinal a chance to speak his views. Typical agenda driven headline.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: