Climate change “the Church’s number one pro-life issue?”
by Carder
If there is a certain wisdom in the pro-life assertion that other rights become meaningless if the right to life is not upheld, then it is reasonable to assert that the right to life has little meaning if the earth is destroyed to the point where life becomes unsustainable.
Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodríguez Maradiaga described the problem during a talk opening the Vatican conference. He described nature as neither separate from nor against humanity, but rather existing with humans. “No sin is more heartless than our blindness to the value of all that surrounds us and our persistence in using it at the wrong time and abusing it at all times.”
~ The progressive National Catholic Reporter Editorial Staff, declaring climate change as “the Church’s number one pro-life issue”, May 20
[HT: Fr. Z]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Whether or not you believe in climate change, I hope we can all agree that we ought to leave the planet in good shape for future generations. That IS a moral issue. Cardinal Maradiaga is right.
That said, I don’t like “ranking” good causes. There are far too many good causes in this world for any one person to address. So work on the cause that commands your attention and where you can do the most good. For me, that’s abortion, because it is an urgent, continuing human rights violation killing millions each year. But I don’t begrudge someone who spends their time on environmental issues–so long as they don’t oppose my pro-life efforts in the name of population control.
Climate change the church’s number one pro-life issue? Tearing babies apart ranks second to unsettled science? Just because some government funded researchers say it is settled doesn’t make it so. Some research indicates climate change isn’t destroying the planet but is lengthening growing seasons in China, allowing more of the country to reap two harvests of rice in one year. However, that is not reported in the mainstream media.
National “Catholic” Reporter…pffffft.
Absolutely: Good stewardship of the earth is a moral imperative.
But I don’t understand the failure of people of science and faith to at least try so find God’s providence in phenomenon of climate change.
For example, it seems likely that a global warming trend would move the sweet band of agricultural fertility northward — across the vast expanses of Canada and Russia. If humanity will cooperate, the planet will be able to feed billions more people. So why all the predictions of doom?
We can’t change the weather, but we can adapt to it.
National Catholic Reporter (which is anything but Catholic) is abusing the fear of climate change to advocate for their real agenda — contraception, abortion, eradication of Africans, election of Democrats, etc.
There is a difference between reckless environmental abuse and the utilization of natural resources for the betterment of mankind.
Sort of like…not ever having sex with ones spouse because you don’t want to spoil their virginity.
The Cardinal’s prioritizing of evils (with global warming at the top) only makes sense if the planet and all the people are truly doomed to a fiery death by global warming or whatever. However, the worst case scenario for what is now called “climate change”…is basically an inconvenience for the existing state of affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Whatever happened to trusting the hand of God?
Great points, Del, wish I could like more than once!
“Just because some government funded researchers say it is settled doesn’t make it so” – ‘some’? 97%, with the dissenters being the playthings and mouthpieces of the mega-wealthy.
“But I don’t understand the failure of people of science and faith to at least try so find God’s providence in phenomenon of climate change” – because it’s not there.
“For example, it seems likely that a global warming trend would move the sweet band of agricultural fertility northward — across the vast expanses of Canada and Russia” – and what about the areas it’s moved from? The associated costs of relocating vast infrastructure? The relocation of populations?
A quote – “everything about the ideological resentment of expertise, everything about the insistence that the opinions of those who have made it their life’s work to study a thing be given exactly as much credence as—and no more than—someone whose opinion on the subject may be entirely uninformed but whose illiterate or innumerate or for-hire opinion may be deeply held.”
I’ve never seen a number state 97% of all researchers believe it is “settled” that humans are creating a non-sustainable earth due to climate change. 97% may be the percentage of published authors in government subsidized journals who say they see evidence of anthropomorphic climate change, not necessarily good or bad, which is very different. If you spend any time in atmospheric research areas outside liberal academia, the number of “it’s settled”-sayers is quite low. Not sure what you mean by a “naysayer”, other than someone who isn’t a parrot to squawk for government funding.
— the number 97% comes from Prof Cook of the University of Queensland, but he is not sharing his data to arrive at that number, but the mainstream media picked up on it and has become a mouthpiece and plaything for the mega-liberal.
Good grief, the climate has been changing since the dawn of creation and will continue changing to the end of time. Any notion that mankind influences or controls this force of nature that it doesn’t even understand is absolutely laughable. We aren’t going to influence the climate anymore than we will influence volcanoes, earthquakes, or hurricanes.
BTW, wasn’t it “global warming”? After freezing our tails off we now have to switch it to “climate change”.
We had warming trends and mini ice ages when our ancestors rode mules. Dinosaurs blew methane heavenward and volcanoes have been spewing toxins into the atmosphere non stop. The ocean floors spew oil. Forest fires dump how much CO2 into the environment.
You can’t find a bigger polluter than Mother Nature.
Of course we should be good stewards. But the human race is little more than an annoying knat on the planet’s nose. Long after we are gone Earth will still be here, giving us the finger.
Hi Eric! Always great to see you here! I hope all is well with you and yours.
Hi Mary, good to see you as well. Love what you have to say – so true. All is well with family – church, visiting the cemetery, and baseball game on our Sunday schedule. Hope all is well with you and yours as well; and from one military appreciator to another, may you have a good Memorial Day.
Hi Eric,
Thank you. I hope you have a great Memorial Day as well.
My husband suggested we go to the local zoo, haven’t gone in ages. Sounds like fun.
“If you spend any time in atmospheric research areas outside honest and competent academia, the number of “it’s settled”-sayers is quite low” – there, fixed.
So you haven’t made yourself aware of any of the available knowledge then Mary. You aren’t aware of the climatic shifts? Del has recognised that changes are underway.
Volcanoes and earthquakes are geological events, not climatic events, why would you think otherwise? (perhaps you’ve already answered that question :-) )
But we are affecting hurricanes amongst other climatic events.
Reality,
“Changes” have been underway since I can remember. I recall in the summer of 1969, when weather was persistently overcast, cold, and sunless, people attributing this to our launching rockets into space. We “must” be doing something to the atmosphere.
Thirty years ago we were heading into another Ice Age. Then it was global warming. Now its climate change. I suppose that’s a good catch all, so whether we freeze or cook, the prophets of doom are covered.
I’ve been listening to prophets of doom my entire life. So far I’m still here and kicking, and so is the planet.
I’m well aware those are geological events, where did I say they were climatic? They, like the climate, are forces of nature over which we have no control.
Affecting hurricanes. How? We’ve been having hurricanes since I can remember. Some seasons more, some less. Some very destructive, some not so. So what’s going on now that’s so different?
Of course there have always been changes in climate. What matters is how and why and to what extent – and more particularly, the impact.
So what if they were wrong about rockets. The very same science which dispelled the ‘rocket’ stuff is what tells us of the realities of mans impact on the climate.
They changed the term from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ because the impacts of global warming are varied across different regions. Some areas can and will experience cooling. And of course the usual suspects siezed on this to mislead the broader populace who didn’t inform themselves particularly well.
Amongst the factors affecting climate are some which are impacted, can be altered, by what we do to the atmosphere and how much of various components we pump into it. Speaking of earthquakes and volcanoes is a distraction.
You might want to take a closer look at what is happening with hurricanes, and many other climate events.
“I’ve been listening to prophets of doom my entire life. So far I’m still here and kicking, and so is the planet” – yeah, pity about what your grandkids grandkids will have to deal with though hey.
Reality,
Really, the impact? I understand major climate change is what forced our ancestors out of Africa. Major climate change in the 1200’s, global warming, brought welcome relief to Europeans..until a mini ice age, brought on by a volcanic eruption, froze them out.
Climate has definitely had important impacts. So what’s the big impact now?
LOL, science didn’t dispel anything. That was my relatives and neighbors voicing their concern over the unusual weather pattern. You see, bizarre weather patterns are nothing new and people always speculate. Sounds like they knew as much as the “experts” do.
No Reality, they changed the name to “climate change” to cover their butts. Its hard to convince people of global warming when they’re freezing and shoveling out several feet of snow. Give it to Ma Nature, she’s got one great sense of humor.
We can affect the climate? Horse puckey. It is a force of nature we don’t even comprehend, can’t agree on, and is affected by such factors as the earth’s axis. You know Reality, you make me think of those primitive tribes that threw stones and sticks and screamed at the moon as it covered the sun during an eclipse, which must have been terrifying, and presto(!) the moon moved on! Some things never change.
Hey, you made the case about the hurricanes, so back it up. I already did a little research, we have records going back to around 1852, give or take. I suppose prior to that there were no hurricanes, or more likely we have no clue what the pattern of hurricane behavior was or if what we are seeing now, (what are we seeing now?), is so different.
Well, I’ve lived with the prophets of doom my entire lifetime, and my parents did as well, so I’m not too worried about my grandkids. Prophets of doom are as old as the human race and I’m sure will be here til the end of time. I’ll just advise my grandchildren like I have my children. Ignore them.
So because people fall off cliffs and die we shouldn’t worry about people being killed by guns?
“That was my relatives and neighbors voicing their concern over the unusual weather pattern” – so they still blame the rocket then?
“You see, bizarre weather patterns are nothing new and people always speculate. Sounds like they knew as much as the “experts” do” – seriously? You want to state that? Might as well take my car to a faith healer when it needs work then.
“We can affect the climate? Horse puckey” – wow. Chemicals and other elements pumped into the atmosphere in large quantities would have no effect? How does the atmosphere work now? Are you aware of the global affects caused by such events meteor strikes and the subsequent dust and smoke clouds in the past? I guess you won’t bother trying to apply science in any future discussions then will you. You’ll just be speculating.
“you make me think of those primitive tribes that threw stones and sticks and screamed at the moon” – I’m glad I’ve made you think of those who ignore and/or deny what the relevant scientists tell us and adhere to mumbo-jumbo.
“Well, I’ve lived with the prophets of doom my entire lifetime, and my parents did as well, so I’m not too worried about my grandkids” – yeah, except these aren’t ‘prophets’, ‘soothsayers’ or whatever – they are scientists. Harold Camping they ain’t.
Reality,
Your first point is…what?
No, those relatives and friends are long dead. I must admit they made about as much sense as most of the “experts” do now. By all means Reality, take your car to a faith healer. Whatever.
Well Reality, our ancestors weren’t pumping much of anything into the atmosphere and look what happened. Catastrophic climate change. Also, what about the poisons volcanoes are constantly pumping into the atmosphere and have been since creation? Volcanic eruptions have actually altered weather. Oh yes meteor strikes. Sounds like an act of nature, not man. As I said, no one pollutes and traumatizes this planet like good old Mom Nature. BTW any idea how often the earth has been struck by meteors and asteroids? Just asking. Being the planet is still here and life abounds.
No Reality, you are reminding me that nothing changes. Humans still do ridiculous things, thinking they will control the forces of nature.
Oh yes they are scientists. You mean the same collection who predicted 40 years ago that we were entering another Ice Age?
You are saying that because the climate changes through the natural course of events we shouldn’t be bothered that mankind impacts on it through pollution etc. That’s my point.
So your uninformed, unscientific relatives make as much sense as years of studies by a field of experts in the relevant field. Interesting. I guess you really won’t be proffering any sciencey stuff in support of any claims you may make in the future then. Speculation is adequate hey?
So again, because climate changes have occured naturally we shouldn’t be bothered about the impact we have?? Why bother with pedestrian crossings? People still get run down.
What about a few good nuclear blasts, will that not have any impact on the forces of nature? Let’s do it just for fun eh.
Which ‘collection’? How many? Who did it contain? How did they say it would occur and what would the lead-up events be? To what extent and in what way have they since found things to be different? Or did they, like your relatives, just stick to their guns?
“Volcanic eruptions have actually altered weather. Oh yes meteor strikes. Sounds like an act of nature, not man” – well observed! Why add to it? Not worth the effort to avoid more damage than necessary?
“As I said, no one pollutes and traumatizes this planet like good old Mom Nature” – so now it’s our turn?
“BTW any idea how often the earth has been struck by meteors and asteroids? Just asking” – no, what do you think would be a good number? 5? 50,000? I’d hazard a guess that we might not be quite where we if the number had been somewhat higher than whatever it is. Would you like a couple to hit us tomorrow? Or shall we just wait a few more decades and do the same damage ourselves?
“Being the planet is still here and life abounds” – and such will probably be te case after we have extinguished ourselves. Shall we see how rapidly we can do so?
Reality,
I’m saying mankind doesn’t hold a candle to Mother Nature when it comes to the pollution and destruction of this planet.
What the heck, were my relatives any more wrong than those geniuses who told us we’d be buried under ice by now?
What impact do we have? Apparently not much since catastrophic climate change has occurred with no help from us.
About the nuclear blasts, ever hear of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Weren’t we setting off bombs in the New Mexico desert and the island of Bikini? Planet is still here.
Reality, scientists were predicting an impending ice age. Hasn’t happened yet. Then it was global warming. Now its climate change. If these are the clowns you put your blind faith in, fine. As far as I’m concerned they make as much sense as my relatives, may they rest in peace.
“I’m saying mankind doesn’t hold a candle to Mother Nature when it comes to the pollution and destruction of this planet” – not yet. I don’t see mother nature destroying the planet either, maybe just our particular life-form, with our help.
“What the heck, were my relatives any more wrong than those geniuses who told us we’d be buried under ice by now?” – yes. You haven’t answered my questions. ‘Ice age’ doesn’t necessarily mean everything is covered in ice.
“What impact do we have? Apparently not much since catastrophic climate change has occurred with no help from us” – so because catastrophic climate events have occured *without* us means we can’t cause or contribute to catastrophic climate events? Wanna explain your thinking there?
“About the nuclear blasts, ever hear of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Weren’t we setting off bombs in the New Mexico desert and the island of Bikini? Planet is still here” – ah well then, let’s do a few thousand more since they’ll never have any negative impact. You up for it? What about a holiday on Bikini, interested?
“Reality, scientists were predicting an impending ice age. Hasn’t happened yet” – are you sure? You might just be speculating. Do you have any idea how it might initially manifest and what the further outcomes may be? I would expect a little more than mere speculation though so I guess you won’t be answering the question.
“Then it was global warming. Now its climate change” – I refer you to my 8:37pm comment.
“If these are the clowns you put your blind faith in, fine” – the ‘usual suspects (who have) siezed on this to mislead the broader populace who didn’t inform themselves particularly well’ are the clowns. Or could that be those who are blind enough to allow themselves to succumb while the usual suspects are the ringmasters.
“As far as I’m concerned they make as much sense as my relatives, may they rest in peace”
– which tells us all we really need to know doesn’t it. Choosing to remain uninformed does not negate the facts.
Reality,
Not yet? The forces of Mother Nature have been at work longer than the human race has existed, are at work now, and will be until the end of time. As I said, we don’t hold a candle to the old girl.
I know Ice Age doesn’t mean everything covered in ice. I was being sarcastic.
I think my rationale is obvious. The climate is a force of nature completely independent of the human race. What we do or don’t do doesn’t mean squat. Our ancestors threw sticks and stones and “modern” humans drive lawnmowers disguised as cars thinking they will influence the forces of nature. Some things never change.
Reality, I’m not for dropping nuclear bombs, I was only pointing out something you apparently didn’t know.
Your 8:37PM comment: LOL. Again, no Reality, that’s called covering your butt. It means you’re wrong, you have no clue what’s going on, you can’t accurately predict squat, so you play it safe.
Look at it this way Reality. What is normal for the climate? Our lifetimes, the human race for that matter, represent but a speck of dust in the history of this planet and the climate. Perhaps the climate has been abnormal all along and we just don’t know it. How would we know either way?
These geniuses don’t make accurate predictions because its impossible to do so. Too many variables. The earth axis, ocean currents, the sun. They have no clue. Every natural disaster “proves” they’re right. The climate may well be changing, why not? Not like it hasn’t been since the dawn of creation. But any notion that mankind will influence it one iota is laughable.
“I think my rationale is obvious” – yes it is. You give more credance to what people such as your relatives thought and think than the knowledge of scientists.
“I was pointing out something you apparently didn’t know” – oh yes, what would that be? Just because the planet hasn’t yet been rendered uninhabitable due to the nuclear blasts so far doesn’t mean they are safe. Would you like to wander around in those parts of the New Mexico desert or have a nice holiday on Bikini? You seem to think it would be perfectly safe.
“that’s called covering your butt” – yes, facts are pretty good for doing that.
You still wish to deny that if we pump the atmosphere full of crap it’ll have no effect?
No more citations from scientists from you I guess.
Reality,
For heaven’s sake I didn’t give credence to what they said. I thought it was funny. It showed how people have always speculated on odd weather. Nothing much has changed.
About the nuclear bombs. You mentioned nuclear bombs, I pointed out they have already been dropped, more than once.
“that’s called covering your butt” -what “facts” do you refer to?
You stated that the planet is still here despite the firing of nuclear blasts – are you saying your message wasn’t that we can’t have much of an impact on the planet? – hence my asking if you would like to spend some time in those contaminated areas or if we should let off a few thousand more if it would have no impact. Do you still hold the view that we could go ‘bang bang’ with multiple nuclear blast all over te place and still have no impact? Heard of Chernobyl? No impact?
The ‘facts’ as to why the term was changed.
Reality,
You brought up the nuclear weapons, I told you they have already been dropped. Asteroids and meteors crashing into the planet were as destructive as any nuclear bomb, sometimes more so.
The planet is very resilient. It has survived, and continues to survive, far worse than humans and their SUVs and methane spewing cows.
Well, what are those “facts”?
You said that they had been dropped and the planet is still here. Well that’s great, but what about us? How many can be dropped before we can no longer live on the planet? It demonstrates that we can have an impact on the planet. Do you think that they are harmless? That we could detonate a multitude of them with no deleterious effect?
Do you still maintain that we can pump any amount of whatever we want into the atmosphere and it’ll have no impact? Be clear.
Asteroids and meteors don’t have the radioactive impact of nuclear weapons. You know, the stuff that makes places uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years.
Yes, the planet is resilient. It probably will survive. What about us? What about the food and water supplies we rely on?
If you don’t know what facts I was referring to then why did you say “that’s called covering your butt”?
Reality,
You brought up the bombs. I informed you they had already been dropped. I hardly think they are harmless, don’t be absurd. Hopefully no more will be dropped.
Let’s hope we don’t get a major hit from an asteroid or meteor.
I maintain that we don’t hold a candle to Mother Nature when it comes to pumping pollution. Should we make every effort to be good stewards? Absolutely.
According to some documentaries I have seen, asteroids were far more destructive than any bombs we ever dropped. The stuff that makes the place uninhabitable for years? You mean like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both of which are in better shape than some of our cities?
I’ve already told you what covering your butt means.
Please Reality, tell me what “facts” you were referring to.
“I hardly think they are harmless, don’t be absurd. Hopefully no more will be dropped” – then why did you dismiss them as a threat because ‘the planet is still here’?
“Let’s hope we don’t get a major hit from an asteroid or meteor” – not any significant ones anyway.
“I maintain that we don’t hold a candle to Mother Nature when it comes to pumping pollution. Should we make every effort to be good stewards? Absolutely” – why? If we can’t have any impact why bother? What’s the point?
Have you lost track of your own narrative?
“According to some documentaries I have seen, asteroids were far more destructive than any bombs we ever dropped” – ‘destructive’ can be rebuilt or worked around, radioactivity not so much. The area where an asteroid hits doesn’t become a no-go zone for tens of thousands of years.
“The stuff that makes the place uninhabitable for years? You mean like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both of which are in better shape than some of our cities?” – weekend in Chernobyl? A nice seaside holiday on Bikini? A spot of fishing at Fukushima? No? Why not?
“I’ve already told you what covering your butt means” – well, you didn’t actually but I already knew.
“Please Reality, tell me what “facts” you were referring to” – please Mary, tell me what ‘butt-covering’ you were referring to. Hint, there is a link.
Reality,
I didn’t dismiss them as a threat. I said the planet is very resilient.
Well, we can do our part. Mother Nature will continue to do as she will.
Again, do you mean like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Well, sorry if I didn’t make the explanation of “cover your butt” simple enough for you to understand.
Still waiting for the “facts” Reality. You’re the one who mentioned them in your 6:26PM post.
The planet may very well be resilient. Us, not quite to the same extent. The planet will still function when it is absolutely unliveable for humans. That would be because it functions for itself rather than for us by the way.
“Well we can do our part” – why? You said we don’t and can’t have any impact. What would be the point? We may as well tip whatever we want into the rivers and seas and send whatever we want into the atmosphere.
Again, do you mean like Chernobyl, Bikini and Fukushima? You are aware of the vastly different size of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts and more recent devices don’t you? Ah, that’s right, you’ll listen to what your relatives say rather than scientists. I guess they are all still pip-squeak nuclear devices then eh.
I am perfectly aware of the meaning of ‘cover your butt’, it’s just that you claimed to have explained what it means when you had done no such thing.
“Still waiting for the “facts” Reality. You’re the one who mentioned them in your 6:26PM post” – yes, when I had already referred you to my 8:37pm comment.
My, you are a bit of a practitioner of selective denial aren’t you!
You had asked why the term changed from ‘global warming’ to climate change’.
My 8:37pm comment explained why this occured. I provided the facts.
At 9:01pm you claimed that it was to ‘cover their butts’. You failed to provide any facts as to why although, ironically, what you said did partially support what I had explained. This is because you stated “Its hard to convince people of global warming when they’re freezing and shoveling out several feet of snow.”, which in part supports my statement of “the impacts of global warming are varied across different regions. Some areas can and will experience cooling. And of course the usual suspects siezed on this to mislead the broader populace who didn’t inform themselves particularly well”
Reality,
Oh those “facts”. Sounds more like the excuse the “experts” give to cover their butts. LOL, but hey give them credit, even when we freeze they can “explain” how this is really global warming. I bet they could kick themselves for not sticking with global cooling and an impending Ice Age. People might actually believe them.
Well what can you expect from people who can’t even give an accurate weather report?
Well by not being good stewards we make life unpleasant for ourselves. The planet will survive just fine.
‘global cooling’ would be purloined and misrepresented by the usual suspects just as the term ‘global warming’ was.
Anthropogenic climate change is the full and accurate term.
“People might actually believe them” – if people made an effort to check for themselves they would believe it rather than find it easy and convenient to accept what the deniers and their backers claim.
“Well what can you expect from people who can’t even give an accurate weather report?” – it doesn’t snow and fall below freezing when they predict a warm, dry, sunny day.
“Well by not being good stewards we make life unpleasant for ourselves” – and how could we possibly do that, according to what you have been saying?
“The planet will survive just fine” – indeed it will. I just think it might be nice if our descendants did too.
Reality,
LOLLL!! Anthropogenic climate change is the catchall cover your butt term for when you’ve been proven wrong time and again for the past 40 some years. Put simply, you have no clue what is going on with the climate, nor can you accurately predict much of anything. Mother Nature has given you the finger one too many times.
A tornado, a hurricane or two, a heat wave, a cold snap. Hey we’re covered. Anthropogenic climate change!
Since cow methane, expelled from both ends, is now the latest threat to our survival, perhaps you would like to invest in Bean-o stock.
Reduce, reuse, recycle. Nothing wrong with being good stewards of the planet and its resources. Certainly most American families with their 1.1 kid and 3.2 pets can afford to downsize their homes, their cars, their boats, etc. Most of the rest of the world is concerned about getting enough clean water. Let me know when Al Gore moves into his 90 sq. foot house.
I certainly don’t believe this Cardinal viewed concerns about the environment as justification for abortion. Shame on National Catholic Reporter if they do.
There is no butt requiring covering Mary, that’s the point.
Anthropogenic climate change means exactly what it says – the climate is being altered due to man. Then the details are provided which tell us what is and will happen where. But if you are one of those who listens to your relatives rather than the relevant experts, you wouldn’t know this.
I guess you’ve gone back to your ‘we can pump and dump any amount of anything anywhere and it won’t matter a jot’ position huh?
Reality,
Oh yes there is a lot of butt covering required. Mother Nature isn’t cooperating, so a catch all term is needed.
“Details” have been provided for over the past 40 years. First we were entering another ice age, then we were going to cook. Better play it safe with a catch all term so that no matter what happens, we’re right.
How many times do I have to tell you I thought what my relatives said was funny and I did not take it seriously? No wonder you have a hard time understanding how these global warming, or is it ice age, alarmists are playing people for idiots.
I think we can affect our environment. By polluting air and water and destroying wildlife and resources, we can make life difficult and unsustainable. But control the forces of nature? No.
“How many times do I have to tell you I thought what my relatives said was funny and I did not take it seriously? No wonder you have a hard time understanding how these global warming, or is it ice age, alarmists are playing people for idiots” – except that the people advising us on climate change are scientists, not your uneducated relatives.