Holy Hypocrisy And Hot Air

Unlike Pope Francis, I believe that air-conditioning and the capitalists responsible for the technology are blessings to the world.

Perhaps the head of the Catholic Church, who condemned “the increasing use and power of air-conditioning” last week in a market-bashing encyclical, is unaware of the pioneering private company that has donated its time, energy, and innovative heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equipment to the Vatican’s most famous edifice for more than a decade.

That’s right. While the pontiff sanctimoniously attacks “those who are obsessed with maximizing profits,” Carrier Corporation — a $13 billion for-profit company with 43,000 employees worldwide (now a unit of U.S.-based United Technologies Corp.) — ensures that the air in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel stays clean and cool.

Last fall, Carrier unveiled a groundbreaking HVAC system for the Vatican to help preserve Michelangelo’s masterpieces against pollution caused by the estimated six million visitors who descend on the Sistine Chapel every year to see its famous frescoes.

As the company described it, their new solution “uses two Carrier AquaForce(r) 30XWV water-cooled chillers with Greenspeed(r) intelligence, each with 580 kilowatts of capacity. It leverages specially designed software and components, as well as patented, energy-saving technologies to maintain optimal climate conditions for the protection of the paintings within the chapel.” State-of-the-art intelligent controls “anticipate visitor levels and adjust its performance intuitively.” It also “delivers twice the efficiency and three times the capacity of the former system, which was built and installed by Carrier in the early 1990s.”

Here’s the lesson about air-conditioning capitalists that Pope Francis fails to appreciate: Carrier’s technological know-how and breakthroughs didn’t just descend from the clouds. As I recount in my latest book, “Who Built That,” every perfectly chilled home, office, movie theater, mall, factory, hospital, lab, and museum owes its existence to the profit-seeking pioneers of manufactured weather: Willis Carrier and Irvine Lyle.

These early 20th-century inventive giants brought air-conditioning to the market and to the masses. Willis Carrier was the scientist-tinkerpreneur whose prolific stream of experiments and epiphanies, beginning in 1902, fueled historic technological advances in heating, refrigeration, and air-conditioning. Irvine Lyle was the mechanical engineer-turned-salesman who imagined countless new commercial applications for Carrier’s work — and successfully turned those ideas into a multibillion-dollar business through relentless promotion, pitches, networking, advertising, and outreach.

The scientists and their core team begged, borrowed, and made stock sales to friends and neighbors. Carrier even enlisted his dentist for cash to get Carrier Engineering Corporation up and running in 1915. Carrier, Lyle, and five founding engineers together pitched in $32,600 in start-up funds.

The Carrier capitalists risked it all in defiance of an economic depression and amid the tumult of world war. They couldn’t afford their own factory and scrounged for made-to-order parts wherever they could find them. They dug into their own pockets to cover salary shortfalls. The wealth wasn’t handed to them. Carrier and Lyle, farm boys who both graduated from Cornell, drove their men hard and themselves harder.

The Carrier team sold its products to businesses, large and small, that spanned the spectrum of human needs and wants. The pope should know that in addition to sparing countless lives from death by heat wave, Carrier designed a special system for Jonas Salk that helped maintain constant temperatures in the vats where Salk’s poliovirus strains grew. The Salk vaccine saved thousands of lives and spearheaded the vaccine revolution.

From Hollywood to the pharmaceutical industry to textiles to the retail industry to the military to homeowners, there isn’t a sector of the American economy that Carrier and Lyle didn’t help transform. Their zealous focus on helping businesses provide better products at cheaper costs resulted in the invaluable byproducts of increased health, comfort, and happiness.

While the pope blames commercial enterprises and the “global market economy” for causing “environmental degradation,” it is a worldwide commercial enterprise made in America that solved the human-caused degradation of, and environmental damage to, the Vatican’s most prized art and assets.

If the pontiff truly believes “excessive consumption” of modern conveniences is causing evil “climate change,” will he be shutting down and returning the multimillion-dollar system Carrier generously gifted to the Vatican Museums?

If not, I suggest, with all due respect, that Pope Francis do humanity a favor and refrain from blowing any more hot air unless he’s willing to stew in his own.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Catholic Priest Just Dropped This Major Truth Bomb On The Pope’s Global Warming Advocacy

One of the Roman Catholic Church’s most brilliant minds refuted many of the arguments presented in Pope Francis’ latest Encyclical, Laudato Si (Praise Be To You), contending “the purpose of the earth is not the keeping of the species going on and on down the ages.”

Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., a retired professor of political philosophy who wrote in October that “the purpose of Islam, with the often violent means it can and does use to accomplish it, is to extend its rule, in the name of Allah, to all the world,” now critiques the Holy Father’s letter on the environment.

Writing in the Catholic World Report Monday, Schall acknowledges Francis writes some “very lovely passages on the beauty of the planet,” but takes issue with the pope’s listing of things that are being polluted and dying in the world today.

These range from the oceans, to the rivers, to the land, to the forests, to the insect and animal species. Even though many species of plants, insects, birds, and animals disappeared before man was on the planet, all present species seem to have a “right” to exist and continue in their current form. How this right relates to human purpose is the point of controversy.

Schall also questions why John Schellnhuber, a climate scientist who advocates reducing the world’s population to less than one billion, would be invited to present opinions at the Vatican.

“The question is: What does Pope Francis make of this spirit that pushes these ecological and political movements that seek to control the world?” writes Schall. “Such anti-Christian forces work to establish a world-state in complete control of nature, population, and economy. The Pope clearly is opposed to abortion, single-sex marriage, and such deviations. But many who seem closest to him certainly advocate these Lord of the World concepts. However we evaluate it, it seems worrisome.”

The 87-year-old priest also challenges Francis’ argument of sustainability. “Briefly, the goal of ecological vision is posed in terms of creating a world that takes into consideration future generations,” he writes. “The consumption of goods must include future usage.”

We might note that no generation previous to ours ever seemed to worry about this issue. Usually, population control theses are posed in the light of estimates about available resources in relation to projected population sizes. What seems to happen is that when previous future generations come about, they will figured [sic] out some way to survive and even prosper. That is, human intelligence and skill are active elements in nature.

The question here is how do we know how many ages are left for us to plan for? And is there not reason to believe that a larger, rather than smaller, population will be the incentive to learn how to deal with human needs? We simply do not know how many generations there will be, what technology will be available to them, or even whether there will be a future generation. We know not the day or the hour. What we do know is that the earth, plus human intelligence on it, is adequate to provide for the human race as it is.

Finally, Schall asserts “the final end of man is transcendent. The purpose of the earth is not the keeping of the species going on and on down the ages. Each person of the species exists for a transcendent purpose.”

The moment of the completion of God’s purpose is not revealed, but it is definitely settled that it will happen. This awareness is really what Lord of the World is about. Heaven and earth will pass away. Concern for the natural environment of man is not wrong unless it is seen as a substitute for the transcendent purpose of man, the way many ecological theories do see it. At the end of time, one suspect, the planet will have plenty of resources left.

h/t: National Review

What do you think of Father Schall’s comments? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

French Government Just Issued A Dire Warning: Eating THIS Causes Global Warming (Really)

The French environment minister called on the public to stop eating Nutella, a famous chocolate hazelnut spread, because it leads to global warming and does harm to the environment.

Segolene Royal, who is France’s minister of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, and was formerly involved in a romantic relationship with Socialist President Francois Hollande for over two decades, told a French television outlet that “We have to replant a lot of trees because there is massive deforestation that also leads to global warming. We should stop eating Nutella, for example, because it’s made with palm oil.”

“Oil palms have replaced trees, and therefore caused considerable damage to the environment,” Royal asserted. But Ferrero, the Italian manufacturer of Nutella, shot back at Roya in a statement, albeit indirectly, insisting their product is anything but environmentally harmful:

Ferrero sources approximately 170,000 metric tons of palm oil, out of a worldwide production of 60 million metric tons, meaning that Ferrero’s impact on the palm oil supply chain represents less than 0.3 percent.

All Ferrero products sold everywhere in the world, are produced with palm fruit oil that is 100 percent certified as sustainable according to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

Royal conceded the point to the company and apologized on Twitter:

As Agence France Presse (AFP) pointed out, Ferrero gets almost 80 percent of its palm oil from Malaysia, with the rest coming from Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and Brazil.

Are politicians worldwide really paranoid about global warming? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Global Warming: Not About The ‘E’ Word (Environment)

Listen to propaganda from the EPA and MDE, and you would think “Climate Change” programs are about saving the environment–but you would be wrong.

I’ll start by defining a term I created: “climateer”–someone with a vested interest in believing in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Two especially interesting attributes of climateers are the facts that (a) they have no conclusive facts, but rely on anecdotal assertions like ”97% of scientists believe in climate change”; and (b) climateers are genuinely disappointed when evidence indicates their fears are exaggerated.

The fact is, exaggerated Climate Change has little to do with the E-word, i.e. the Environment…but has everything to do with the C-words: Communism vs. free-market Capitalism.

Perhaps you’re thinking… “sounds a little over the top, commissioner…”

Consider this.

The question of whether or not there is climate change is not the question. Climate has been changing since the beginning of time. The more relevant questions are these: Is change exceeding regular cyclical norms? And to what extent is it anthropogenic, i.e. man-made?

Let’s return to the question of whether climate change doctrine is motivated by the E-word or the C-word.  Nothing I say will convince climateers they’ve been duped, so I’ll let the leftist “experts” tell us in their own words.

Fasten your seatbelts.

Ottmar Edenhofer, Vice-chair of the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, says: “One must say clearly that we… redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Hmmm.

Harvey Ruvin, former Vice-chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives, said: “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.” Interesting vernacular.

Naomi Klein of The Nation magazine says: “So when [Commissioner Rothschild] reacts to… climate change as if capitalism itself were coming under threat, it’s not because [he’s] paranoid… It’s because [he’s] paying attention. … most leftists have yet to realize that climate science has handed them the most powerful argument against capitalism.”

Third Annual Conference of the World Association for Political Economy in Lang Fang, China, May 2008:  “…global ecological sustainability will be possible only with fundamental social transformations and a new global economic system organised on the principles of social ownership of land and other major means of production … only socialism and the global solidarity of all working peoples can free both humanity and the earth from the fatal threat of global capitalism.”

Are you catching these not-so-subtle undercurrents of Marxism?

A top-10 favorite comes from David Foreman, founder of Earth First and director of the Sierra Club: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects … We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Truth is stranger than fiction.

In the book “Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis by Environmentalist Chris Williams,” Williams says: “It is utterly impossible for Capitalism to view the world as a single interlocking system. “ He asserts the only political system that can holistically address the challenges of the 21st century is “Marxism.”

The frontal attack on free-market capitalism is self-evident.

They regularly change phraseology, so rebutting them is like playing a game of whack-a-mole at the Ocean City Boardwalk–as soon as you knock down one of their hysterical arguments, an increasingly ambiguous replacement argument pops-up.  Pow!

A lack of conclusive evidence forced climateers to change their vernacular four times in three decades. First, it was “Global Cooling.” Then, “Global Warming.” Next, “Climate Change.” And now, drum roll please, they have adopted their most ambiguous term. They call it “Climate Disruption.”

Cute… and sufficiently ambiguous to allow every self-appointed pantheistic climateer to wave his/her hands hysterically and yell “climate disruption.”  Every time there is a storm, hurricane, tornado, typhoon… you name it…  hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, more snow, less snow… see, it’s exactly what we warned would happen. Their diagnosis is always the same, and it reminds me of the snake-oil salesmen of the 1850’s who went from town to town selling the same “ointment” for anything and everything that ails you.

Climateers also shifted vernacular related to “Sea Level Rise.” In an effort to band-aid unsustainable hysteria, it’s now called “Storm Surge.” Convenient.

There you have it. Hilarious, pathetic, and a threat to America and individual liberty.

Climate Change is all about attempts to put a stake through the heart of America’s free-market economy, and replace it with a government-controlled Marxist economy… all in the name of social justice… to save the world from the threat of free market capitalism.

Remember, this was in their own words, not mine.

It’s time to stop scaring our children and refocus them on the morality of free markets and individual liberty.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Is Barack Obama Secretly A White Person Like Rachel Dolezal?

Now that we know that race is a state of mind, rather than a genetic inheritance, the question must be asked: is Barack Obama secretly a white man? Perhaps, like Rachel Dolezal, he tells people that he is black when he is actually white.

After all, we know now that being black is an attitude, a state of mind. Sure, it helps if you braid your hair into long ropes and tie it on top of your head like Dolezal did, or have an Afro during your pot- and cocaine-using days like Obama. But what really counts is what is going on inside your mind. And what goes on inside Obama’s mind is… white.

1) Obama cares about illegal aliens. Blacks disapprove of illegal aliens because they take jobs that blacks in fact will do.

  • 48% of African Americans believe they would have more jobs if there were fewer immigrants.
  • 64% believe immigrants outwork blacks at low-wage jobs.

2) Obama cares about homosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage isn’t exactly popular in the black community, to put it mildly.

“Blacks are much more likely to think that homosexuality is morally wrong (64%) than Whites (48%) or Hispanics (43%),” according to a Pew poll last year on civil unions and gay marriage.

3) Another big Obama agenda item is global warming. Do you think that black people are talking about global warming on the street corners of Harlem, or Oakland, or Chicago? Have you seen it on the NAACP agenda lately?

4) Obama doesn’t talk like a stereotypical black person, as racist liberals expect him to:

The authors quote [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid as saying privately that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

5) Obama has done nothing for black people. The special groups he has focused on are illegal aliens–most of them Hispanic–and homosexuals.

To me, I think this clearly shows that Obama is actually a white person, specifically a white liberal person. But Obama should be given a chance to respond. Perhaps Obama will say that he identified with black people growing up in Hawaii. Perhaps he had a lot of close black friends there and identified with the local black culture in Honolulu. Growing up in a one-parent home, perhaps he modeled his behavior after his white mother, who worked hard to teach him how to be black.

What do you think? Do you think it is wrong to out Obama, or should we be content to let him stay in his white closet? If he let his hair grow out, braided it, and coiled it like a rope on top of his head, do you think that would make him more authentic?

This article originally appeared at NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth