If you take God out of the argument, you are left with a baseless proposition.
You have to do better than that. If you look at history, you find that man is his own worst enemy and your non existent God has done nothing to support him.

David

Dear God please save us, the sky is falling.

Chicken Little

oh dear, surely this is a joke?

April 1st was quite some time ago.

Well that guidance to be real and timely, must include both condoms and birth control!

I mean, how much of the planetary degradation/deforestation/threatened/endangered/basically buggered species, is purely down to overpopulation; and indeed, the Catholic church's unquestionable, (nudge nudge wink wink say no more, a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse) role in that!?
Rhrosty.

Must have taken a leaf from Tones...coal is good, no great, for humanity.

How about imploring god (lowercase for non existent entities) to help develop wind, solar and geothermal for poor nations to lead them out of the dark ages.

Dear Pope you will shortly be receiving a letter from a wolf in sheep's clothing, advise check for paw prints before opening.

The first thing to say about this letter is the astonishingly ignorant religious and cultural provincialism that mis-informs it. A provincialism that is essentially rooted in a 19th century Victorian clock-work world-view. A provincialism that fails to take into account the fact that we now live in a Quantum world where everybody and everything is instantaneously inter-connected.
A "religious" provincialism that wrongly pretends that its entirely reductionist Biblical religiosity provides the only means for understanding what we are as human beings, our relationship to everyone and everything that we presume to be "not self", and our relationship to Reality altogether, or the centerless and boundless Beautiful Room of Perfect Space or Conscious Light in which all of this is floating.

That having been said why not google the topic Buddhism and global climate change - one of the first references that comes up is this one: http://www.ecobuddhism.org

Plus a set of essays which challenges (and blows away) the dim-witted now archaic "religious" and cultural provincialism that mis-informs the one-dimensional reductionist world-view promoted by the dreadfully sane folks from the Cornwall outfit:

http://www.wildriverreview.com/user/63

When I see something described as an "open letter" I think 'boring', 'naive', 'ideological'. When it is addressed to the Pope, as a non-religious person, I really clench up, even though I believe the Pope is a decent fellow and a well-meaning human being.

I did, however, read what was said by my esteemed fellow posters, and it appears that I was right to again ignore this weird, group method of 'communication' which the 'recipient' is unlikely to see.

In 1900, global population was about 1.6 billion. There were two major developments in the 20th century that dramatically increased agricultural productivity, the Haber-Bosch process, the ultimate source of nearly half the nitrogen in your body, and the Green Revolution, which doubled and in some cases tripled grain production per hectare. If the population had stayed at 1.6 billion, then every human being on Earth could have had a decent First World standard of living, with plenty of room for the other species to live too and no need for land degradation or destabilising the great natural cycles that support life on Earth.

What happened, of course, is that humans, cheered on by the Roman Catholic Church, blew out the population to more than 7 billion now and 10-11 billion (UN medium projection), and possibly even more, in the future. As Prince Philip once put it, "They decided to feed more hungry people, rather than feeding hungry people more." Many countries have seen the light and reduced their fertility rates, and some have even stabilised their populations. Others have not and are well on the way to becoming failed states. See

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/food-scarcity-fanning-flames-war-terror-2032225303

and look up the fertility rates of the countries discussed if you doubt this.

We live on a finite earth where resources and the capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes are not unlimited. Instead of trying to discredit the scientists, who may not know everything, but surely do know more about the climate than the authors of this letter, perhaps they (and the Pope) should work on persuading the poor not to contribute to their own poverty.

Meanwhile why not google Cornwall Alliance and Right Wing Watch?
The essay on the People For the American Way website titled: slaying the green dragon, how the religious right and the corporate right are joining forces .... provides all the necessary background for understanding the origins and purposes of the Cornwall Alliance.

A delightful letter, requesting that His Holiness advert to the truth about climate change.

The IPCC took some laboratory science about the effect of carbon dioxide and fed it into computer modelling of our climate.

The results of the computer modelling, when compared with observations of actual climate, showed conclusively that the models are a failure.

At a time when the models showed that global warming would increase, because of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere,global warming has stopped.

Human emissions have no measurable effect on climate. It is fraudulently asserted by the IPCC that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming.

There is no basis to assert that it will cause global warming, and there is no rational basis to assert that global warming would be harmful, and not beneficial, as it has been in the past, for example, in the medieval warm period.

Leo Lane, I wonder if you can therefore explain why the oceans are rising as per the latest information from a bunch of well credentialed Tasmanian scientists.
David

Sea levels have been rising for 200 years,VK3AUU, so it is nothing to do with human emissions.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/global-sea-levels-started-rising-before-1800-jevrejeva/
Asking stupid questions is not the way to supply a basis for your support of climate fraud, it simply displays your ignorance..

Unfortunately Leo
This statement is not true:-
"At a time when the models showed that global warming would increase, because of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere,global warming has stopped."

The problem with that statement is we are now 2014 not 2012. It was possible to make a very dubious claim that between 1998 and 2012 there was no significant warming, but after two years of above average temperatures, it is no longer possible to cherry pick a date in the 1990s that does not show a warming trend to the present. It is also very likely that we are about enter an El Nino year which will likely make 2015 warmer than 2014 which is currently the warmest year since records began.

Yes, warmair, since global warming stopped , over 18 years ago, the fraud-backers have desperately attempted to deny it, with assertions such as, “the heat is hiding in the oceans”. The latest is to proclaim each year “the hottest year yet”, and assert an upward trend, which of course, does not exist. Even NOAA gave a false report about global warming, but it has not worked out how to falsify the satellite record, which shows that there is no global warming.
As to the claim that 2014 was the hottest year:
“The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all”
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/gavin-schmidt-now-says-they-are-only-38-sure-2014-was-the-hottest-year/
You have confirmed that your support for the climate fraud is still based on dishonesty.

Leo
It does not mater whether 2014 was the hottest year on record or not it was still warm enough to ensure that you can no longer make ridiculous claims that global has warming stopped.

Did you see the news on TV this evening about the record levels of sea ice in Antarctica creating real problems for shipping supplies to the bases down there? Must be another case of global warming doing the opposite of what the computer models projected.

As for the increasing sea level, its 2.5mm per year, that's 2.5 centimetres (or 1 inch) per decade; 12 - 13 inches in 100 years. 100 years from now the population will be so large, no one will give a damn about the sea level.

Nonsense, warmair, the satellite readings show no current warming.
Roy Spencer, one of the scientists iinvolved in the recording of temperature by satellite, wonders where the global warming comes from, now that it has stopped.
He concludes that it comes from the revision of temperature records. He says, in relation to revision of temperature records:
“ the drift in satellite local observation time associated with orbit decay causes spurious cooling in the 1:30 satellites, but spurious warming in the 7:30 satellites. Again this shows that a variety of errors typically have positive and negative signs.
In contrast, the thermometer data apparently need to be adjusted in such a way that almost always leads to greater and greater warming trends.
How odd.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/even-though-warming-has-stopped-it-keeps-getting-worse/

The warming is human caused, not by emissions, but by adjustment of the temperature record.
The hottest years in the U.S. the 1930s, are now adjusted to being cooler, and the fraud-backers herald each ensuing year as “hottest year yet” in their desperation to show an upward temperature trend. Their assertion about 2014 is blown out of the water, but the climate fraud Hansen has already announced 2015 as “hottest year ever”.
You disappeared for a while , warmair, when you had no science to support your position, and we established that your dishonesty was the only basis for your support of the climate fraud. Now you bob up again, still with no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, and dishonesty your only basis for your assertions.

For your assistance on current lack of any global warming:
"Roy Spencer, John Christy, and William Braswell of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) Earth System Science Center recently released Version 6 (V.6) of their global satellite temperature dataset.
The revision is noteworthy in several respects. First, as the scientists point out, the UAH dataset more closely matches the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) dataset, a separate satellite monitoring program, which shows no net warming since Dec. 1996. In the RSS record, the length of the warming pause is now 18 years five months."
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/05/05/independent-satellite-records-agree-little-to-no-global-warming-over-past-18-years/

We may not hear from warmair for a year or two, but his efforts in supporting the climate fraud have earned him a place in the warmist Hall of Shame.
Recalling Nigel Calder’s words when he first formed the concept of the Hall of Shame:
.” What if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had done a responsible job, acknowledging the role of the Sun and curtailing the prophecies of catastrophic warming?
For a start there would have no surprise about the “travesty” that global warming has stopped since the mid-1990s, with the Sun becoming sulky. Vast sums might have been saved on misdirected research and technology, and on climate change fests and wheezes of every kind. The world’s poor and their fragile living environment could have had far more useful help than precautions against warming.
And there would have been less time for so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

Interesting....

"Rather, we mean that because humanity alone bears the imago Dei, any effort to protect the environment must put at its center human well-being,"

This one comment hits on the fundamental problem that we face. They forget whether or not we are the cause of global warming or not is a matter of indifference to nature. If we ignore the science we may well find that within a matter of a generation the world is uninhabitable not only for us but for mist other species. It will not matter a great deal - in an other few million years no doubt this rather insignificant planet will have given rise to new flora and fauna and apart from some creatures like the cockroaches none of us will survive; in fact there will be no evidence that we ever existed.
Of course the downside is that one will not be able to say toanyone "i told you so."

Baygon, please inform us of the science that is being ignored. There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
Your post is probably the most pointless and baseless on this thread.
Considering the posts against which you are being measured, that really says something about your education, or lack thereof.

Baygon is another climate fraud supporter, who responds to a request to justify his baseless assertions by disappearing from the thread.

If Baygon is not his correct name, I trust that he has complied with his obligation to obtain permission for its use from S.C Johnson & Son Inc. USA, who own the intellectual property rights to the name