Paul Gosar embarrasses Arizona (again) with an insult to the Pope

The Washington Post recently asked, Can Congress behave itself when the pope visits?

I was with a group of friends the other day and we were speculating about which congressman would win the Joe Wilson “You lie!” Award for shouting at Pope Francis during his address to a joint session of Congress next week.

It turns out that Arizona’s “mad dentist” just couldn’t wait to insult the Pope. Congressman Paul Gosar wanted to make all of the late night comedy shows and keep Arizona’s poor reputation intact, despite the Governor’s silly #Rebrand Arizona campaign. Catholic Congressman Will Skip Papal Address To Congress, Cites Climate Change:

PaulGosarWhen Pope Francis addresses Congress in Washington, D.C. next week, at least one Republican representative won’t be in the audience.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) wrote a letter in Town Hall this week outlining why he’s skipping out on the pope’s visit to Congress. The main reason? Climate change.

“Media reports indicate His Holiness instead intends to focus the brunt of his speech on climate change — a climate that has been changing since first created in Genesis,” Gosar writes. “More troubling is the fact that this climate change talk has adopted all of the socialist talking points, wrapped false science and ideology into “climate justice” and is being presented to guilt people into leftist policies.”

Gosar, who states in the letter that he’s “a proud Catholic,” goes on to say that he’d gladly attend the pope’s speech if he had chosen instead to focus on issues like religious liberty and the need to combat ISIS.

So as a “proud Catholic,” Gosar does not believe in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, but rather that the Pope should consult him on the teachings of the Church, such as Pope Francis’ Climate Encyclical, Laudato si’ (24 May 2015). I’m pretty sure that’s not how this works.

Crusades“If the Pope stuck to standard Christian theology, I would be the first in line. If the Pope spoke out with moral authority against violent Islam, I would be there cheering him on. If the Pope urged the Western nations to rescue persecuted Christians in the Middle East, I would back him wholeheartedly,” he writes. “But when the Pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician, then he can expect to be treated like one.”

Gosar is alluding to Pope Urban II, who authorized the Crusades in 1095. This nut job wants to return the Crusades of the Middle Ages? How whack is that? There has been a lot of water under the bridge in the history of the Church since the Crusades. No Catholic would refer to this today as”standard Christian Catholic theology.” And by the way, Jesus was a radical “lefty” in his day.

It’s true that Pope Francis is expected to address climate change during his visit to Washington, D.C. and New York City. The pope has made climate change and environmental issues a central part of his papacy — in his environmental encyclical, released in June, Pope Francis laid out the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change and spoke of the necessity to develop meaningful environmental policy.

But Gosar’s stance on climate change is out of line with the pope’s. In 2012 Gosar said climate change “is likely not in our control in any event. Historical records clearly demonstrate vast temperature swings long before Man arrived, from temperate zones in Alaska to ice ages in New York.” In his letter this week, Gosar expounded reiterated his views on climate change.

“The earth’s climate has been changing since God created it, with or without man. On that, we should all agree,” he writes. “If the Pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change then he can do so in his personal time. But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous.”

popeBut the pope’s calls for action on climate change are more in line with Catholicism than Gosar thinks. Pope Francis isn’t the first head of the Catholic church to connect environmentalism with theology: Pope Paul VI wrote in 1972 that “man and his environment are more inseparable than ever,” and Pope John Paul II, in his 1990 World Day of Peace statement, warned that the planet is threatened by “a lack of due respect for nature, by the plundering of natural resources and by a progressive decline in the quality of life.”

I guess this “proud Catholic,” who is old enough to have been around when these sermons were taught in Church, must have somehow missed mass on those Sundays.  Odd that. Most Catholics are well versed on Church teachings about being good stewards of God’s creation.

Though it’s not yet known what exactly Pope Francis will say during his trip to Washington and New York, he’s expected to discuss climate change and immigration issues.

It’s not clear yet whether other lawmakers who don’t agree with the pope’s stance on climate change will also skip out on his Congressional address. But in contrast to Gosar’s decision to boycott, some Republican lawmakers have actually used the pope’s visit to call attention to climate change. Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) sponsored a resolution, released Thursday, that called for action on climate change.

“If left unaddressed, the consequences of a changing climate have the potential to adversely impact all Americans, hitting vulnerable populations hardest, harming productivity in key economic sectors such as construction, agriculture, and tourism, saddling future generations with costly economic and environmental burdens, and imposing additional costs on State and Federal budgets that will further add to the long-term fiscal challenges that we face as a nation,” the resolution, which was co-signed by 10 other Republicans, states.

You see, not all Republicans are an ignorant climate science denying arrogant asshole like Paul Gosar.

29 responses to “Paul Gosar embarrasses Arizona (again) with an insult to the Pope

  1. North Of The River

    Hamburger Patty Meat: 99 cents vs $3.99/4.99

    Up until 2 summers ago,you could get Hamburger Patty Meat for 99 cent a pound,but now $3.99/4.99. You know why ? Because big Mid-West Dought caused no grain,so no cows could eat,so shortness of cows causing higher prices.

    So Gosar should buy us meat to eat for awhile!

  2. France's Perkins

    I’m not a scientist, says every Republican politician on climate change, but on reproduction science (actually the control of women) they are all geniuses–and dead wrong of course.

  3. John Huppenthal

    1. We have hundreds of million years of records for carbon and atmospheric temperature with no correlation at all. If a is not correlated with b, a does not cause b.
    2. We can very accurately measure the reflected radiation of sunlight off the earth unto the moon. It does not show the increased capture indicated by the 100 plus climate models.
    3. We have over 100 million data points of measuring the antarctic ice volume which contains over 90% of the worlds ice. These measurements show the volume increased over the last 40 years, not decreased.
    4. Increased carbon in the atmosphere is very positive for mankind, hugely increasing the rate of growth of crops with reduced water and fertilizer requirements.
    5. Increasing the ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen in the atmosphere will increase human life expectancybecause we were designed for peak performance in order to survive physical combat with other humans. Oxygen burns us up. We need less of it, not more.

    I met the author of the IPCC report, a Nobel prize winner, at a university graduation ceremony. I took the opportunity and gave him a pop quiz. What is the total volume of the ice on the earth? He did not have a clue. This is a hugely important number because his fundamental hypothesis is that it has changed in a statistically significant amount. It has not, not even close.

    • So “Thucky,” who told the media he would never troll blogs again after Blog for Arizona ended his career, just couldn’t help himself with his climate science denialism. Have at him folks.

    • France's Perkins

      With this logic you should work for Diane Douglas. Please breath only carbon dioxide if it’s so good for you and see how that turns out.

  4. Stupid, stupid man. Who’s worse…Gosar or Franks? Honestly, we are just chock full of stupid, aren’t we?

  5. Frances Perkins

    Gosar is such a shill for ALEC and the Koch Brothers hydrocarbon interests he resorts to this level of stupidity. I never thought a so called “congressman” could be more ignorant or obsessed than Trent Franks but Gosar is topping him too. He really doesn’t have to rise to this level of pandering as his district is just as massively ignorant as it was under the lipless Franks.

  6. Stupid is as stupid does.

    • movingazforward

      No kidding, Frances. Republicans playing the God card for their gullible voters is expected, but they lose their religion with record speed when Koch/fossil fuel $$ are on the line.

  7. Paul Stapleton-Smith

    Dear Steve: in the interest of pursuing the salient message of the editorial, do you find Gosar’s name-calling of the Pope and his vehement insistence that the Pope’s climate change declarations are scientifically illegitimate, blatant pandering to the GOP base? Indeed, do you perceive that Gosar is pandering to the GOP business donors that have a vested interest in climate change denial? Pointedly, what are we to make of Gosar’s words? Is he sincere? Is he disingenuous? Intellectually dishonest and manipulative? What is your take here?

    • I have no idea what is in Gosar’s mind when he does what he does. I am quite willing to accept him at his word when he states he disagrees with the Pope and plans on boycotting the Pope’s visit. I have seen nothing that indicates he isn’t sincere or that he is trying to manipulate anyone.

      What I do find interesting is that any time the subject of climate change comes up and someone states that they disagree with the “universal consensus” that it is man caused, the posters on this blog go crazy. If the consensus is truly that universal, then (1) there shouldn’t be so many people who speak out against it, and (2) people should not get so hysterical in refuting the naysayers because (at least as far as they are concerned) the subject is beyond the discussion. With such confidence in their position, a more appropriate response would be to ignore the naysayers as inconsequential. Instead, they keep arguing that their position is beyond argument…there is a bit of irony there.

      • Well, perhaps Steve, it is because the media gives the 3% who disclaim climate change, far larger media coverage than their credibility warrants. Those particular scientists seem to always have strong connections to the energy and fossil fuel industries. There really should be no lay disagreement at all. We have computer models, data, and anecdotal evidence that coincides with the onset of the industrial revolution. The reason people go nuts on this blog is we hope for a better world for our kids, and the Rs are making it very hard to mitigate the probable consequences we are already experiencing.
        Can you believe NASA, or is it a government plot?
        http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

        Gosar is an embarrassment. In a state with better educated people, he would never be a congressman.

        • I am in that odd category that believes that some sort of climate change IS happening, but I don’t think man is the cause of it. I think it is arrogant to believe we have that much power over nature. I also believe that climate change is a convenient excuse used by several different extremist groups to push their extremist agendas which would otherwise – wisely – be ignored.

          That is why I think believers in climate change as a result of man’s actions are so sensitive on the subject, and why they react so strongly if anyone questions it. The conclusions on the subject as they see it HAVE to be accepted without question because (1) So many of the supporters make their living pushing it, and (2) It is necessary in order to further their agendas. In this day and age, there isn’t much that isn’t tainted by politics.

          • Climate scientists do not agree with you. I’ll trust the science over some pol with an agenda anyday.

            https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

          • One insidious aspect of huge government is its ability to so overwhelmingly fund a cause that it perverts it.

          • That is so true!

          • movingazforward

            Steve,

            Kindly cite information and sources that will tell us more about the “extremist groups” making a living pushing an “extremist agenda.”

            I’m guessing the living they are making doesn’t get them into the $37 billion/year ballpark.

            http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

            Thanks.

          • I have argued this many times in the past and it was pointless. I see no reason to continue arguing it anymore. No one will be converted to my point of view and I won’t be converted to theirs, so why bother?

            As far as people making their living off of the subject, no one is going to get rich at it, but they can make a comfortable living off of government grants, etc. However, don’t forget that “climate scientists” have been discredited numerous times in the past. Just because we have better scientific tools to measure things doesn’t necessarily mean they are correct this time around.

      • movingazforward

        Manipulation: ” The skillful handling, controlling or using of something or someone.”

        The top fossil fuel dollar recipients among all 2016 presidential candidates are also the most vocal climate change deniers.

        http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/12/republican-candidates-fossil-fuels-donors-super-pacs

        • Why is it that only conservatives sources of information are considered biased while liberal sources are always considered unbiased and believable?If the Sierra Club or the World Wildlife Fund produces a “study” it is cited as evidence, but if the National Rifle Association produces one it is called propaganda?

          • I think we call them facts

          • Oh, Cheri! I am so sorry that it was you that responded. (sigh) Do you honestly believe that the left publishes only facts and the right only publishes propaganda?

          • movingazforward

            Because in most cases, climate change for example, liberal sources require scientific consensus and empirical evidence (facts). The same cannot be said for conservative sources on this and many issues.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            I don’t think climate change denying Republicans (most elected Republicans and those running for President belong to this group) really believe what they say about climate change. They are however making the moral choice of money and re-election over people and planet.

          • I understand it your opinion that “…liberal sources require scientific consensus and empirical evidence…”, but I have a strong hunch that you have read very little opposing points of view and given them even less consideration because of your bias. I don’t hold that against you, it is a normal human thing to do. But it is hubris to think that because you have made up your mind on something the issue is settled.

            Personally, I am convinced that climate change is occurring, but I question if man is the primary cause. To accept that as fact, you have to ignore climate change over tens of thousands of years when man had NO impact on anything. It is too convenient an answer for so many agenda driven groups who have long sought to curtail industry and progress of mankind.

  8. movingazforward

    Gosar is an embarrassment to the practices of Dentistry and Medicine. How pathetic that he has to go to such lengths to pander for votes in today’s Republican Party. Most of the world agrees with the Pope, Gosar, and thinks you and your Congressional cohorts are a bunch of a nutcases.

  9. “You see, not all Republicans are an ignorant climate science denying arrogant asshole like Paul Gosar.”

    One of your great flaws is your inability to disagree with someone without resorting to name calling and profanity. I suspect it demonstrates the point at which you lose your ability to communicate, but I could be wrong. Perhaps name calling and profanity are just fun for you.

    • I would argue that this is child’s play as opposed to the Republicans that shut down the govt. anytime they don’t get their way. Name calling and profanity doesn’t seem to make them take notice or debate with truths. Which one is more detrimental? The fact that they disavow the truth of climate change, and scientific facts in general, is cause for alarm. They deserve to be cursed at.