Father, I was going to extract some excerpts from this excellent article, but there are too many from which to choose. I recommend a read of the entire article and selecting whatever comments you may want to use. Click on Affirming a Culture of Life Together

This too: click on Slippery Slope

Click on My Posts for Respect Life Month 10-23

I also have a packet of information for you from the Respect Life office. You may find material within that you could use.

What of that massive political movement known as global warming, today's fashionable secular substitute for the Biblical apocalypse? Bored of combating everyday environmental problems such as mercury in seafood and hormones in drinking water, environmentalists invented something much sexier: The imminent destruction of Earth unless you do what we say! Why trudge to local land-use meetings to lobby for preserving open space when you can preach the salvation of the world like an Old Testament prophet? One gains so much more social importance if people think you have the answer to averting Armageddon.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but global warming theology produces the same practical results as the socialism Western leftists have been forced to abandon: An immense increase in the power of the political/regulatory class and an immense reduction in the standard of living of ordinary people. Why have so many scientists jumped on the bandwagon? Contrary to popular myth, scientists are just as venal and fallible as anyone else,and he who pays the piper calls the tune.
As Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer on March 9, 2004, "Politics distorts science, particularly environmental science, because 99.99% of those sciences' financial support comes from the federal government. Scientists distort science because their careers depend on the money they bring to their university or their laboratory. Both the employees of the academy, and the academy itself, must support a political process that results in the exaggeration of threats. In competition for a finite federal outlay, scientists present their particular issues (global warming, cancer, AIDS) in the most urgent light possible, threatening societal ruin if their work isn't funded." And why wouldn't federal bureaucrats want to hear evidence of a massive crisis that massively enhances their own power and budgets?
I've written about global warming hysteria before, so I will restrict myself today to noting the following:
* The Earth's climate is always trending warmer or cooler at any givenmoment. There is no genuine evidence that any current warming trend (if one even exists) falls outside the range of natural climatic variation.* According to global warming hysterics' own studies, there is no correlation between when the bulk of man-made greenhouse gases were put into the atmosphere and warming. In fact, temperatures declined for decades during at least one of the most intense periods of industrialization.* Proponents of the Kyoto protocol, which would decimate the standards of living of the common peoples of America and Western Europe, themselves admit that it would have no significant effect on stopping warming. They want something far more radical and which would have to apply to the whole world to work.* The Western world continues to transfer its industrial capacity to theThird World. China and India, which together have over one-third of the world's people, are rapidly industrializing and aren't going to stay mired in poverty no matter what Western political hacks and their bought-and-paid-for pointy-headed experts say. Reducing the world's overall greenhouse gas emissions is impossible. Instead, it is as certainas such a thing can be that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise for decades to come, even if Al Gore becomes President of the UnitedStates--unless affordable technologies that allow unfettered industrial development but prevent greenhouse gas emissions are invented and then adopted by the Third World.* In the 1970s, it was fashionable to worry about "global cooling, "supposedly caused by man-made pollution in the atmosphere blocking out the sun's energy. Fifteen years later, media-favored experts starting talking about global warming supposedly caused by man-made pollution trapping in the sun's energy.
There is no correlation between population growth or population density and environmental degradation. Instead, wealth correlates to environmental degradation and then improvement. When a country begins to develop, her environment suffers. But when she has reached a certain level, between $3,500 and $15,000 in per capita income, her environment begins to improve as people can afford (and demand) cleaner technologies. And then the wealthier they get, the cleaner their environment becomes. That's why ultra-poor subsistence-level areas, Western Europe, Canada, and the United States all have the cleanest environments. Getting China, India, and other developing countries over the wealth hump is the surest way to improve the world's environment. Preserving America's economic and per capita wealth growth is the best way of continuing to improve ours.
Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at the Population Research Institute


Father, this is a private page. It is not available to anyone else. Please bookmark it. I will use it to provide the information that you requested. Hopefully I will come up with some resources that you will find helpful. I haven't had time to do so as yet.

I hope this page works out for you. It is much easier to provide information in this maner rather than having to print out lots of pages. The information may contain links to webpages, so this method will enable you to just click and go rather than having to type in the URLs. And I can just leave you a telephone message when I have added something to this page.

The double-sided flier that I dropped off for you today is my recommendation for use in our parish. There were many from which to choose. After reviewing all of them, I felt these two pages would be best. If they meet with your approval, I will make enough copies to stuff in our bulletin. I think a good day on which to include them in the bulletin would be Nov 5th, just two days prior to Election Day. That way the info will be fresh on everyone's mind. If that's fine with you, I'll confirm it with Chris. It would be great if I could use the parish copier, but if not, I will make the copies elsewhere.

Thank you Father.


Click Here to Select a Site