Hope that Pope can cope with climate dope

Monckton and Heartland in Rome with message of hope for Pope Francis:

There is no crisis!

pope francis

The popular, avuncular Pope Francis. Realistic climate information is almost guaranteed to challenge his open-mindedness. Let us pray he mans up to meet it. Click to enlarge.

The usual dope on climate change is soaked in exaggeration, obfuscation, scare-mongering, twisted statistics and fact-free insinuation, rather than frank, open-hearted science. To counteract this, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Roman Catholic Church is holding a global warming workshop at the Vatican on Tuesday.

In some quarters there is little optimism that the workshop will see through the widespread deceptions in modern climate science, so the Heartland Institute has gone along to assist. It has articles and links on global warming and the workshop so you, too, can tell Pope Francis: Global warming is not a crisis!

Christopher Monckton is reported in the NCR giving His Holiness blunt advice:

“You demean the office that you hold and you demean the church whom it is your sworn duty to protect and defend and advance.”

“You will be kicking the poor in the teeth. Stand back and listen to both sides. And do not take sides in politics.”

The Cornwall Alliance has published an open letter to Pope Francis urging him to “carefully consider the scientific evidence regarding the real, not merely the theoretical, effects of human action on global climate.” As we know, the only indication of dangerous warming arises from untested theories that feedbacks will increase global warming but no such observations have yet been made. The Alliance is measured in its advice to His Holiness, but there’s no mistaking its meaning:

As world leaders contemplate a climate agreement, many look to you for guidance.

There has been a growing divergence between real-world temperature observations and model simulations. On average, models simulate more than twice the observed warming.

For now, wind and solar energy cannot effectively replace fossil fuel and nuclear energy.

Views: 349

23 Thoughts on “Hope that Pope can cope with climate dope

  1. Richard C (NZ) on 28/04/2015 at 8:06 pm said:

    It will be interesting whether the Pope takes any of this on board, or as Dellingpole puts it:

    ‘Urgent Mission to Save The Pope From Clutches of ManBearPig’

    Written by James Delingpole, Breitbart London on 27 April 2015.

    “Should the Pope stick to God or is it about time he embraced the fashionable cause of Gaia-worship?”


    Other articles at Climate Change Dispatch:

    ‘Francis Is Out of His Element’

    Written by H. Sterling Burnett, American Spectator on 27 April 2015.


    ‘A Message For Pope Francis’ [includes link to Cornwall Alliance letter]

    Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on 27 April 2015.


    ‘Global Warming? The Pope is Wrong’

    Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs on 27 April 2015.

    Marc Morano of the think tank, CFACT. Says Morano, ‘Instead of entering into an invalid marriage with climate fear promoters—a marriage that is destined for an annulment—Pope Francis should administer last rites to the promotion of man-made climate fears and their so-called solutions. This unholy alliance must be prevented.”


    # # #

    Let’s not forget who it was that got in this Pope’s ear first:

    Pope Embraces False Prophets Of Doom – Why I’m Disassociating Myself From The Vatican And Church

    By P Gosselin on 4. January 2015


    Vatican aligning with population control ideology

    Even more disturbing is that the Vatican has opted to align itself with those who possess ideologies that are openly hostile to and spiteful of humanity. In May 2014 the Vatican held a workshop where the invited delegates included Naomi Oreskes, Arctic sea-ice crackpot Peter Wadhams, and Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber of the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Pesearch. Strangely it doesn’t seem to bother the Vatican that Professor Schellnhuber once openly stated that the ideal human population for the planet was less than 1 billion people, implying an excess of more than 6 billion inhabitants. He also once said that the planet would “explode” if the population reached 9 billion.

    This kind of environmental stewardship is one that advocates the pre-emptive abortion of future generations – a denial of life for future generations – i.e population control. This is hostile to the human race and it is appalling to any practicing Catholic. Either Pope Francis is stunningly naïve, or just diabolically evil.

    – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/04/pope-embraces-false-prophets-of-doom-why-im-disassociating-myself-from-the-vatican-and-church/#sthash.tATMSBVU.dpuf

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 28/04/2015 at 8:41 pm said:


    The Universal Common Good: Our Common Home

    While it is anyone’s prudent guess at this point, on the likely umbrella or core messages within the Eco-encyclical expected in June or July 2015; Pope Francis has spoken on various occasions about the need for a radical new financial and economic system to avoid human inequality and ecological devastation. The threats that arise from global inequality and the destruction of the environment are interrelated; and they are the greatest threats we face as a human family today.

    At a Latin American and Asian peasants meeting in October 2014, Pope Francis said: “An economic system centred on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain the frenetic rhythm of consumption that is inherent to it. The monopolising of lands, deforestation, the appropriation of water, inadequate agro-toxics are some of the evils that tear man from the land of his birth.”

    The idea of a new economic order has long been the clarion call of the sustainability movement, but any true system change – means trade-offs and with win-lose outcomes there is no simple reform formula that will work for all countries. Countries will need creative experiments and to “learn by doing” so as to find the right low carbon path. In essence, a multi-pronged approach is needed to get to a new social economic order: market-led responses (technological innovation, price adjustments, etc.), government-led responses (e.g. regulations, carbon-pricing, etc.) and value-based responses (e.g. getting people to rethink their priorities). (Bill Barron, 2009)

    To start with the market response, the British government’s Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change (2006), said that climate change was the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. It’s a market failure because polluters have been allowed to treat the atmosphere as theirs – cause untold damage without footing the bill. This market failure can be corrected by putting a price on carbon: via market-led responses such carbon trading, technological innovation and pricing of ecosystem services.

    Though the carbon market has many inherent structural flaws, it is useful to remember that markets are not only favoured for their economic efficiency, but also because they are an effective means of mobilising large numbers of people towards common societal goals (Hirschman 1977/1997). An interesting example of ‘learning by doing’ is how China is developing a carbon trading market via seven pilot emissions trading systems (ETS), which are serving as testing ground for a national ETS to be implemented after 2016. If those trading schemes were to be linked, China could become the second largest cap-and-trade programme, aside from the European Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

    Another vital approach is that our governments respond with appropriate regulatory frameworks, both international and national, so as to stimulate innovation and change. Public investment is needed on a huge scale, in fuel efficiency, building efficiency, infrastructure, transportation and renewable energy. To do this, governments must engage more directly with the private sector on investments and carbon markets and climate funds should work in conjunction with one another. (see World Bank 2010).

    The real test will be how regulations will be enforced, which ultimately will mean significant government intervention and central planning. An idea that reeks of socialism to Neoliberals and climate deniers. But the reality of climate change is that central planning and collective action will be needed, on an unprecedented global scale.

    Alongside responses by government and business; tantamount to galvanizing action is the ‘value led approach’ that shapes a community’s conscience and action. What Pope Francis’s encyclical will add then, according to Cardinal Turkson when he spoke recently at the Trócaire 2015 Lenten Lecture: “At the heart of this integral ecology is the call to dialogue and a new solidarity, a changing of human hearts in which the good of the human person, and not the pursuit of profit, is the key value that directs our search for the global, the universal common good.”

    Turkson’s thoughts on integral ecology echo what Oxfam said in 2012: “Any vision of sustainable development fit for the 21st century must recognise that eradicating poverty and achieving social justice is inextricably linked to ensuring ecological stability and renewal” – A Safe and Just Space for Humanity.

    But ultimately, what Pope Francis’ encyclical will do is link Roman Catholic teachings to protecting life with preserving the environment and his support for climate action will be a much needed catalyser. After all, who else but religious leaders can talk about our moral duty, about the need for a change of human heart – for mercy and compassion to act on climate change? I hope that the encyclical will serve as a sturdy roof for our common home, and will as Turkson said can “help to orient and integrate us as humans within the wider universe, to identify what is most important to us, what we revere, sustain and protect as sacred.”

    – See more at: http://catholicclimatemovement.global/the-universal-common-good-our-common-home/#sthash.mReYq8bZ.dpuf

    # # #

    Carnal commonism seems to me. Not so much about eternal spiritual life and the salvation of human souls anymore. And not so much about radiative heating effect on earthly surface materials either,

    >”the need for a radical new financial and economic system to avoid human inequality and ecological devastation”

    Francis is on-message with the UN’s “Transformational Climate Action”:

    Shining a Light on Transformational Climate Action – UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres

    One of the questions I struggle with on a daily basis as Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC is this: how can we scale up and speed up the transformational change needed to tackle climate change?

    By “we” I mean all of us. And by “transformational” I mean radical. This is not hyperbole. The world’s top scientists tell us that we need to transform the way we use the planet’s natural resources – from forests to soil to oil – to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

    It may sound like a Herculean task but here’s a little-known fact – it’s not. Transformational change is already underway. It may not be happening at the scale or speed we need but it is happening.


    Is it just me or am I reading much the same new-(this)world-order radicalism from both the Catholic Climate faction as I’m reading from the UN Climate faction?

    Neither of which is based on sound thermodynamics.

  3. Mike Jowsey on 28/04/2015 at 9:50 pm said:

    “carefully consider the scientific evidence regarding the real, not merely the theoretical, effects of human action on global climate.” A wonderful injunction.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 28/04/2015 at 10:03 pm said:

    [Global Catholic Climate Movement] – “The real test will be how regulations will be enforced, which ultimately will mean significant government intervention and central planning. An idea that reeks of socialism to Neoliberals and climate deniers”

    Well yes. But this is not the language of Christians. It is the language of hate and enforced Soviet-style socialism. They are not Christians in any biblical sense, they are Marxist imposters.

  5. Richard Treadgold on 28/04/2015 at 10:35 pm said:


    They are not Christians in any biblical sense, they are Marxist imposters.

    Well expressed; I fully agree. “significant government intervention and central planning” Huh? Twerps.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 28/04/2015 at 10:36 pm said:

    [Global Catholic Climate Movement] – “governments must engage more directly with the private sector on investments and carbon markets and climate funds should work in conjunction with one another. (see World Bank 2010).”

    World Bank? You’ve GOT to be kidding!

    ‘World Bank Schemes Displace Millions of Victims’

    Written by Alex Newman

    World Bank projects dealing with everything from “carbon credits” and “development policies” to crony capitalist “business” deals have forcibly evicted and ruined the livelihoods of millions of people around the world, according to an investigation into the globalist organization’s own documents. A comprehensive review of World Bank records by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and various media outlets revealed that close to 3.5 million of the planet’s poorest people, many of them already struggling just to survive, have been forced off their land and relocated as a direct consequence of policies and projects pursued by the government-backed global lender over the last 10 years. The real figures are probably even higher.


    The World Bank disgusts me. For a (supposedly) Christian group to invoke their authority is the antithesis of “love thy neighbour as thyself” teaching in Leviticus 19 and Mark 12, which is the second commandment:

    Mark 12
    28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

    29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, [……….]

    31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

    The World Bank seems to target its poorest neighbours for the unkindest treatment of anyone, totally contrary to biblical commandment. And again, the antithesis of 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 – “love is kind”.

    That the Global Catholic Climate Movement even associates with the World Bank is abhorrent, let alone invokes their authority.

  7. Simon on 29/04/2015 at 9:51 am said:

    You are aware that Pope Francis has a master’s degree in chemistry? He’s more qualified to talk about atmospheric science than Monckton is. The last time Monckton spoke on the radio in NZ, he confused the chemical properties of CO2 with CH4.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 10:09 am said:

    ‘Vatican presses politicians on climate change’

    By Roger Harrabin BBC environment analyst 8 hours ago

    The Vatican Science Academy has challenged politicians to end their “infatuation” with a form of economic growth that is ruining the Earth.

    The academy said that nations were measuring their wealth by GDP (Gross Domestic Product), taking no account of the harm caused by business practises.

    It urged countries to act as stewards of God’s creation.

    The statements are likely to influence the Pope’s coming Encyclical on climate change.

    An Cambridge Economics professor, Partha Dasgupta, told the academy’s climate conference in St Peter’s Basilica: “GDP is a disgraceful index because it does not count depreciation of our assets – including damage to Mother Nature, the most fundamental asset we have.”

    Cardinal Peter Turkson, who helped write the coming Encyclical – an official statement – said: “For humans to degrade the integrity of the Earth by constant changes in its climate; by stripping its natural forests; to contaminate Earth’s water, land and air with poisonous substances – all of these are sins.

    “There is an all-embracing imperative to protect our garden, our hope. We must move away from our unthinking infatuation with GDP.”


    The academy heard speech after speech urging the moral case for protecting the climate for future generations.

    Meanwhile, a small group funded by a US climate contrarian body in Chicago has been in Rome rallying against the Vatican’s climate drive. One of the participants, Christopher Monckton, said the Pope “should listen to both sides of the scientific argument… not only people of one, narrow, poisonous political and scientific viewpoint”.

    Inside the conference itself, the astronomer Lord Rees, former President of the UK’s Royal Society, was putting just such a balanced view.

    He acknowledged uncertainties over climate science, especially over how water vapour and clouds would react to warming.

    He said some people were willing to bet on a low level of warming, mitigated later in the century by new technologies more affordable in a richer economy. But, he said, the risks of triggering an irreversible catastrophe lasting thousands of years was too great.

    “It would be shameful if our inheritance was a depleted and hazardous world,” he said.

    The Church is hoping to make an impact in a year of key UN meetings on Sustainable Development Goals, development finance and climate.

    The Encyclical is expected to describe action to cut emissions as “a moral and religious imperative, highlighting the intrinsic connection between respect for the environment and respect for people – especially the poor, children, and future generations”.

    The Pope is hoping to build agreement among all religions on the moral obligation to protect the environment.

    Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, who heads the Academy, said the Encyclical would not be the highest level of proclamation from the Pope, which is reserved for issues of Faith.

    But he said it was important for all the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics to take it seriously. If any Catholic wanted to ignore it they would need “very good reasons – based not on personal or political opinion, but on science”.

    For some Catholics, this may prove an unwelcome Papal intervention into a highly politicised subject.

    But the aid agency Cafod said its poll with YouGov showed the vast majority (70%) of Catholics say their community will heed the message of the Pope on climate change.

    Whether it will prove persuasive for American Republican lawmakers – around a third of whom are Catholic – is yet to be seen.


    # # #

    >”If any Catholic wanted to ignore it they would need “very good reasons – based not on personal or political opinion, but on science”

    Well yes. Except contra scientific arguments to AGW are ignored, silenced, shut down, censored, they do not want to hear them, let alone engage in reasoned discussion with recourse to the fundamental physics and thermodynamic principles and laws supporting the contra argument. And when they do hear about uncertainty as above the implications are relegated in favour of an outlandish (or is that brainless?) precautionary principle as above.

    >”The Church is hoping to make an impact in a year of key UN meetings on Sustainable Development Goals, development finance and climate.”

    The Church (Catholic) have usurped their god-given mandate to become One World Government, New World Order, Marxist schills for the UN.

    What is the Church’s mandate?

    Mark 16
    15 And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
    16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    That’s it. Nothing about “Sustainable Development Goals, development finance and climate”.

    The Catholic Church has morphed into, simply, a Left wing political organization. The Pope washing feet is just showtime. They are no longer pursuing their God given mandate as above which should be their primary, singular, focus – not ultra Left wing politics.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 10:24 am said:

    >”Pope Francis has a master’s degree in chemistry”


    Can he (i.e. is it a transferable skill if his chemistry covered thermodynamics as usual), and has he, applied that chemistry knowledge to the thermodynamic processes of the sun => ocean(+land) => atmosphere(+space) system Simon?

    If so, how do you know?

    After all anthropogenic global warming is about heat transfer. Period.

    The IPCC climate scientists are clueless about planetary thermal lag and radiative heating effects on surface materials. Do you think the Pope can help them out on the strength of his master’s degree in chemistry Simon?

    BTW, Lysenko was a biologist and agronomist eventually becoming director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR’s Academy of Sciences:


    How did that turn out?

    My point being that just having a specific qualification does not necessarily lead to the betterment of mankind just because the holder in in a position of power.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 10:51 am said:

    The idiocy just keeps on coming. Two more examples:

    ‘More Fatal Earthquakes to Come, Warn Climate Change Scientists’

    By Alex Renton

    The untold – and terrifying – story behind the earthquake that devastated Nepal last Saturday morning begins with something that sounds quite benign. It’s the ebb and flow of rainwater in the great river deltas of India and Bangladesh, and the pressure that puts on the grinding plates that make up the surface of the planet.

    Recently discovered, that causal factor is seen by a growing body of scientists as further proof that climate change can affect the underlying structure of the Earth.

    Because of this understanding, a series of life-threatening “extreme geological events” – earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis – is predicted by a group of eminent geologists and geophysicists including University College London’s Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards.



    ‘Zimmerman rejects briefing by climate scientist’

    by Jo Clifton

    Zimmerman (Austin, District 6 Council Member) said the sun is the greatest source of heat and that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. “You don’t have to be as smart as a fifth-grader to know that the sun causes climate change — the sun,” he said. “People tell me carbon dioxide warms the earth. No, it doesn’t. The sun warms the earth.”

    Hayhoe referred him to a website called skepticalscience.com, saying that it has answered every major question about climate science.

    – See more at: http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2015/04/zimmerman-rejects-briefing-climate-scientist/#sthash.nOpal8Qx.dpuf

    Apparently, the likes of McGuire and Cook are intellectual giants, we should hang on their every word.

    Given the SkS contra-solar case and McGuire’s upsidedown world, I don’t think so.

  11. Richard Treadgold on 29/04/2015 at 10:52 am said:


    The last time Monckton spoke on the radio in NZ, he confused the chemical properties of CO2 with CH4.

    In “climate science” the radiative effects of our emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O and the rest are measured by their equivalence to CO2 and their atmospheric abundance expressed in grams of CO2 or even C. There’s plenty of room there for a slip of the tongue, I would say. He demonstrates frequently that he is very well informed and free of confusion.

    A final point, as you know from your own example, there is no doubt that, whatever your field in the beginning, an inquiring mind, reading and diligent study allow you entry to further fields later.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 11:12 am said:

    >”If any Catholic wanted to ignore it they would need “very good reasons – based not on personal or political opinion, but on science” Well yes. Except contra scientific arguments to AGW are ignored, silenced, shut down, censored, they do not want to hear them, let alone engage in reasoned discussion with recourse to the fundamental physics and thermodynamic principles and laws supporting the contra argument

    Case in point:

    ‘Vatican Heavies Silence Climate Heretics at UN Papal Summit’

    by James Delingpole

    VATICAN CITY – Papal heavies shut down an awkward question at a Vatican press conference today when a journalist asked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon his views on climate sceptics.

    Marc Morano, covering the Vatican climate conference for Climate Depot, asked Ban Ki-Moon whether he had a message for the Heartland Institute delegation of scientists who have flown to Rome to urge the Pope to reconsider his ill-advised position climate change.

    But before he could finish the conference hosts interrupted to ask which organisation he worked for, then directed the microphone to a more tame questioner, while a security guard came over to mutter in Morano’s ear “You have to control yourself or you will be escorted out of here.”

    Morano, together with Christopher Monckton (one of the Heartland delegation) and your correspondent, only narrowly made it into the carefully stage-managed conference where – as known climate sceptics – they were apparently not welcome.

    “Ah. So you made it in here?” said a somewhat surprised looking member of the Vatican press team to Morano, when he realised that he had bypassed the Vatican’s security and infiltrated the press pack who had come to cover the conference.

    As luck would have it, a heaven-sent shower of torrential rain had created such chaos that security wasn’t as tight as it might have been.

    However, the three sceptics (Morano, Monckton, Delingpole) were watched very carefully throughout the proceedings lest they attempt to ruffle the feathers of key speakers Ban Ki-Moon, left-wing economist Jeffrey Sachs and Cardinal Turkson, the Ghanaian priest who has been co-ordinating the Vatican’s position on “climate change.”

    In the end, Secretary-General Ban did answer a similar question, albeit one expressed more delicately by a journalist from the Catholic media, when he was asked what his views were on those members of the Catholic community who had reservations about the Pope’s position on climate change.

    Perhaps this was a response to Ban’s rather bold and very moot declaration that “Religion and science are united on the need for action on climate.”

    “I don’t think faith leaders should be scientists,” said Ban, in reply to the question. “I’m not a scientist. What I want is their moral authority. Business leaders and all civil society is on board [with the mission to combat climate change]. Now we want faith leaders. Then we can make it happen.”

    Secretary-General Ban clearly didn’t need the help from the papal security. As he smoothly demonstrated – as later when he deftly swerved a question about “overpopulation” and whether his previously expressed views that Africa should keep its population down clashed with the Catholic doctrine on contraception – he’s more than capable of squishing inconvenient truths himself.


    Obviously, given the rapid shutdown above, fundamental physics and thermodynamic principles and laws are well out-of-scope at the Vatican.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 11:27 am said:

    Simon, how do you reconcile your statement:

    “Pope Francis has a master’s degree in chemistry? He’s more qualified to talk about atmospheric science than Monckton is”

    With Ban Ki-moon’s,

    “I don’t think faith leaders should be scientists”

    You and Ban Ki-moon are at odds, which warmy opinion should we sceptics adopt?

    Or are you both just blowing hot air?

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 11:45 am said:

    ‘Draft of commie pope’s encyclical coming your way–wanna get sick?’

    Posted on April 28, 2015 by john1282

    I wonder if he will speak ex cathedra and claim infallibility on the issues of population, sustainability and economic inequality.

    Maybe this is the first encyclical ghost written by a commie? Or maybe the Pope is a commie.

    Oh, pardon me–he is a concerned progressive.

    Here, thanks to Joe Bast, is a sneak peak at the draft for the encyclical–note lots of contributors.

    Climate Change and The Common Good

    A Statement Of The Problem And The Demand For Transformative Solutions
    April 2015

    The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences
    Prepared By
    P. Dasgupta, V. Ramanathan, P. Raven, Mgr M. Sorondo, M. Archer, P. J. Crutzen, P. Lena, Y.T. Lee, M. J. Molina, M. Rees, J. Sachs, J. Schellnhuber, Mgr M. Sorondo*
    * Corresponding Authors. partha.dasgupta@econ.cam.ac.uk; vramanathan@ucsd.edu;
    Peter.Raven@mobot.org; marcelosanchez@acdscience.va

    Unsustainable consumption coupled with a record human population and the uses of
    inappropriate technologies are causally linked with the destruction of the world’s sustainability and
    resilience. Widening inequalities of wealth and income, the world-wide disruption of the physical
    climate system and the loss of millions of species that sustain life are the grossest manifestations of
    unsustainability. The continued extraction of coal, oil and gas following the “business-as-usual
    mode” will soon create grave existential risks for the poorest three billion, and for generations yet
    unborn. Climate change resulting largely from unsustainable consumption by about 15% of the
    world’s population has become a dominant moral and ethical issue for society. There is still time
    to mitigate unmanageable climate changes and repair ecosystem damages, provided we reorient
    our attitude toward nature and, thereby, toward ourselves. Climate change is a global problem
    whose solution will depend on our stepping beyond national affiliations and coming together for
    the common good. Such transformational changes in attitudes would help foster the necessary
    institutional reforms and technological innovations for providing the energy sources that have
    negligible effect on global climate, atmospheric pollution and eco-systems, thus protecting
    generations yet to be born. Religious institutions can and should take the lead in bringing about
    that change in attitude towards Creation.

    The Catholic Church, working with the leadership of other religions, can now take a decisive role by mobilizing public opinion and public funds to meet the energy needs of the poorest 3 billion people, thus allowing them to prepare for the challenges of unavoidable climate and eco-system changes. Such a bold and humanitarian action by the world’s religions acting in unison is certain to catalyze a public debate over how we can integrate societal choices, as prioritized under UN’s sustainable development goals, into sustainable economic development pathways for the 21st century, with projected population of 10 billion or more.

    This century is on course to witness unprecedented environmental changes. In particular, the
    projected climate changes or, more appropriately, climate disruptions, when coupled with ongoing
    massive species extinctions and the destruction of ecosystems, will doubtless leave their
    indelible marks on both humanity and nature. As early as 2100, there will be a non-negligible
    probability of irreversible and catastrophic climate impacts that may last over thousands of years,
    raising the existential question of whether civilization as we know it can be extended beyond this
    century. Only a radical change in our attitude towards Creation and towards our fellow humans,
    complemented by transformative technological innovations, could reverse the dangerous trends
    that have already been set into motion inadvertently. A sustainable future based on the continued
    extraction of coal, oil and gas and their use in the “business-as-usual mode” will not be possible,
    because it raises the specter of a world that could be significantly warmer than 2°C by the end of
    this century. Such a temperature rise, occurring in a warm inter-glacial epoch that we call the
    Holocene, has not been seen in tens of millions of years. This creates a serious risk that Earth will
    cross critical thresholds and tipping points, pushing whole environmental systems, such as rain
    forests, continental ice sheets, coastal wetlands, monsoon patterns and marine food webs into
    different states or even annihilation. To quote the most recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change) Synthesis Report released in 2014: We risk “increasing the likelihood of severe,
    pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”

    The climate system is highly complex and it could respond in surprising ways that have not yet
    been anticipated by models that project the future climate. But the uncertainty can go both ways.
    For example, the actual warming of the planet to continued build up of the greenhouse gases, can
    be a factor of 2 smaller or larger than the projected values. Climate change that is a factor of two
    larger than the predicted changes poses unacceptable risks to society, ecosystem and the
    economy, particularly since the life time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a century or
    longer and the life time of the heat added to the deeper layers of the oceans can exceed several

    There is still time, however, to mitigate unmanageable climate changes and thus to protect
    humanity and nature. Adequate technological solutions and policy options have been clearly
    prescribed in numerous reports and need no extended repetition here. Suffice it to note that the
    most important steps involve the shift from fossil fuels to zero-carbon and low carbon sources
    and technologies, coupled with a reversal of deforestation, land degradation, and air pollution. In
    contemplating these needed “deep de-carbonization” transformations, however, we must not
    ignore the underlying socio-economic factors that are responsible for our current predicament.
    Our problems have been exacerbated by the current economic obsession that measures human
    progress solely in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth, a practice that could be
    justified only if natural capital were of infinite size. Present economic systems have also fostered
    the development of unacceptable gaps between the rich and the poor. The latter still have no
    access to most of the scientific and technical benefits of the modern age. During the 20th Century
    by far the greatest emitters of carbon were the world’s rich nations. In the 21st century world it is,
    again, the rich who are doing most of the greenhouse polluting, but the rich now are no longer
    confined to the rich world. The three billion poorest people continue to have only a minimal role
    in the global warming pollution, yet are certain to suffer the worst consequences of unabated
    climate change.

    The Catholic Church, working with the leadership of other religions, could take a decisive role in
    helping to solve this problem. The Church could accomplish this by mobilizing public opinion
    and public funds to meet the energy needs of the poorest 3 billion in a way that does not
    contribute to global warming but would allow them to prepare better for the challenges of
    unavoidable climate change. The case for prioritizing climate-change mitigation depends crucially
    on accepting the fact that we have a responsibility not only towards those who are living in
    poverty today, but also to generations yet unborn. We have to reduce the potentially catastrophic
    threat that hangs over so many people.

    Though it is late in the day, the world’s governments are recognizing the challenges that we face
    on a global level. The UN Member States have announced their determination to place Sustainable
    Development at the center of global cooperation, building a holistic cooperative strategy on the
    pillars of economic progress, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. This would involve
    the adoption of new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to help guide global cooperation
    during the course of future generations. All people of good will should encourage their
    governments to undertake these commitments to action. We should also advance our intellectual
    capacities as well as scientific knowledge, both of the natural and the social sciences, which can be
    expected to insure the well being of many future generations in a relatively stable environment
    Over and above institutional reforms, policy changes and technological innovations for affordable
    access to zero-carbon energy sources, there is a fundamental need to reorient our attitude toward
    nature and, thereby, toward ourselves. Finding ways to develop a sustainable relationship with our
    planet requires not only the engagement of scientists, political leaders and civil societies, but
    ultimately also a moral revolution. Religious institutions can and should take the lead on bringing
    about such a new attitude towards Creation.

    More>>>>> (if you can stand it)

    # # #

    I think I’m detecting more than a little mission creep here.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 1:12 pm said:

    >”More>>>>> (if you can stand it)”

    Just read:


    A litany of fallacy, supposition, miss-attribution, false alarm, and thinly veiled Marxist ideology.

    For example, from THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

    “Incoming solar energy also varies on the decadal to century time scales. However, direct measurements of solar irradiance from satellites and surface stations, reveal that variations in solar energy on decadal to century time scales are about 0.3Wm-2 (Watts per square meter of earth’s surface area) which is about 10% of the 3 Wm-2 increase in infrared energy trapped by manmade greenhouse gases.”

    So much wrong with this it’s hard to know where to begin. But starting from the last element is as good as any.

    1) IR absorbing and emitting gasses (“greenhouse” gasses) don’t “trap” energy. By that definition (absorbing and emitting), they absorb, thermalize, re-emit (and collide) i.e. the gasses are an energy transfer medium (CO2 is a coolant, refrigerant code R744). Water vapour, at about 95%, is by far the major “greenhouse” gas. “Manmade greenhouse gasses” are a minor component of the atmosphere in terms of “greenhouse gasses”..

    2) Downwelling longwave infrared (DLR), of which the CO2 component is only about 6 – 7 W.m-2 in a standard atmosphere (total average just less than 200 W.m-2, max over 400), is in the IR-C range of the EM spectrum. IR-C has about 3 orders of magnitude less energy per photon than IR-A and B in the solar range of the EM spectrum.

    3) Due to 1) and 2), “manmade greenhouse gases” have a miniscule and completely negligible effect on surface materials, and because the equivalent power, DLR to solar, does NOT do equivalent work at the surface. Solar IR-A/B heats water down to around 19m in ideal conditions and most effective at about 1m. DLR only penetrates the surface about 100 microns and is most effective at about 10 microns. Except the DLR effect can only be cooling by evaporation.

    4) The 3 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing” (completely ineffective as in 1, 2, and 3) is from 1750. The IPCC’s anthro attribution period is from 1951.

    5) The statements “variations in solar energy on decadal to century time scales are about 0.3Wm-2” and “from satellites and surface stations” is absolute baloney. Shapiro et al (2011) estimate by proxies solar change, LIA to CWP, of about 6 W.m-2. The IPCC discards this in favour of least-case scenarios (Mike Lockwood, IPCC, “doesn’t understand” Shapiro’s methodology – personal communication). And where were the satellites in the LIA?

    6) Yes “solar energy also varies on the decadal ……. time scales”, this roughly equates to the 11-yr solar cycle. But the bicentennial component of solar irradiance, which is a line tracing the MINIMA of the 11-yr cycles, neglects this variation even over a decade i.e. it is of no significance. The significant solar change that has just occurred from 2005 onwards is that the MINIMA and MAXIMA have dropped below previous minima and maxima levels of the solar cycles prior by about 0.4 W.m-2. this is about equally opposite to the CO2 forcing over the same period except DSR does heating work at the surface, DLR does minimal cooling work (see 3 above). And the effect of the current solar recession will not be experienced until the 2020s at least due to thermal lag in the planetary sun => ocean => atmosphere energy and climate system.

    The authors of the pontifical climate statement, Ramanathan, Raven, Archer, Crutzen, Lena, Lee, Molina, Rees, Sachs, and Schellnhuber, do not know what they are writing about. What they have written is certainly not scientific or historical truth – it’s bent beyond belief.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 2:14 pm said:

    ‘Pope attacked by climate change sceptics’

    Climate change sceptics claim Pope Francis is being fed false information by the UN as he prepares to release an encyclical on the dangers of global warming

    By Nick Squires, Rome. 10:33PM BST 28 Apr 2015

    Climate change sceptics accused Pope Francis of being deeply ill-informed about global warming as the Vatican forged an alliance with the UN to tackle the issue.

    The Pope discussed climate change with Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, who then opened a one-day Vatican conference called “The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development”.

    The conference, hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, brought together around 60 Catholic leaders, economists and scientists.

    In a statement, participants said that “human-induced climate change is a scientific reality, and its decisive control is a moral imperative for all of humanity”.

    But a group of British and American sceptics said the Pope was being fed “mistaken” advice from the UN and that he should stick to speaking out on matters of morality and theology rather than getting involved in the climate change debate.

    That message was labelled as “extraordinarily dangerous” by campaigners on the other side of the debate, who believe there is ample scientific evidence that climate change is happening and that it threatens the planet with rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

    The debate comes just a few weeks before the South American pontiff will release an encyclical – a statement of fundamental principles – on climate change, which he is expected to blame on human activity.

    He is also due to address the UN Special Summit on Sustainable Development in September, ahead of a climate change summit in Paris in December.

    While Pope Francis discussed the challenges of climate change, a few hundred yards away, in a hotel conference room on the broad avenue that leads to St Peter’s Basilica, sceptics accused the UN and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of scare-mongering on the issue.

    “The Pope has great moral authority but he’s not an authority on climate science. He’s a learned man but the IPCC has got it wrong,” Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute, a conservative American pressure group partly funded by billionaire industrialists who question climate change, told The Telegraph.

    “The Pope would make a grave mistake if he put his moral authority behind scientists saying that climate change is a threat to the world. Many scientists have concluded that human activity is a minor player. The Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age.”

    It was the first time the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago and has been described by the New York Times as “the primary American organisation pushing climate change scepticism,” had travelled to Rome to try to influence a pope.

    “I hope our impact on the debate ahead of the Pope’s encyclical will be very significant. There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world and they tend to pay attention to what the Pope says,” said Mr Lakely.

    Christopher Monckton, a British peer, leading climate change sceptic and former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said: “My message to the Pope would be, don’t take sides on the science. Don’t make the same mistake as seven out of 10 judges in the trial of Galileo, when they invited him to retract his views (that the Earth orbits around the Sun rather than the other way around).

    “The Vatican used to be prepared to hear both sides of the debate but now they don’t want to listen to the sceptics,” said Lord Monckton, who was UKIP’s leader in Scotland before being sacked by Nigel Farage in 2013.

    “Benedict XVI took a very cautious line but Pope Francis is not willing to say, ‘don’t bully the sceptics’.”

    He accused the UN of “falsifying” data on climate change and insisted that levels of global warming were “insignificant”.

    But the denial of climate change was attacked by Brendan Montague, the founder of Desmog UK, a campaign group calling for action on the issue.

    “The audacity of these people, coming to Rome to tell the Pope how to conduct his business, is astonishing,” he said.

    He accused the Heartland Institute of engaging in “extremely sophisticated messaging aimed at people who don’t really understand what is very complex science. They are very good at what they do but it is extraordinarily dangerous.”


    # # #

    >“The audacity of these people, coming to Rome to tell the Pope how to conduct his business, is astonishing,”

    Yes, the audacity, my goodness, meddling in the Pope’s business, astonishing.

    Since when was this the Pope’s “business” ?

  17. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 2:37 pm said:

    ‘The UN Parks its Tanks on St Peter’s Square’

    Written by James Delingpole, Breitbart London on 28 April 2015.

    VATICAN CITY: “Religion and science are united on the need for action on climate,” declared UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon at a papal climate summit in the Vatican this morning.

    This statement is at best moot, at worst a risible and cynical inversion of the truth. But it does give us a pretty good idea of where the world’s most powerful bureaucracy stands on what it would like us to believe is the most important issue of the day: climate change is real – and what’s more even God now agrees.

    It’s far from the first time that Catholic church has been persuaded to take a position on what is and isn’t correct science. Generally it didn’t end well. We’re all familiar with the story of Galileo. Here’s a less well known example of a pope speaking out on science, this time Clement VII in the Papal Bull that opens the 1484 Malleus Malleficarum.

    In it, the Pope recognised the very serious threat posed to agriculture by witches:

    “It has indeed lately come to Our ears…many persons of both sexes…have blasted the produce of the earth, the grapes of the vine, the fruits of the trees…vineyards, orchards, meadows, pasture-land, corn, wheat, and all other cereals…”

    Not unlike an early prototype of the IPCC’s Assessment Reports, the Malleus Malleficarum confidently pronounced that mankind was at least in part responsible for the extreme weather events of the day.

    It said of these witches:

    “Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points.”

    Pope Francis didn’t actually speak himself at this morning’s climate summit. Instead, he was represented by Ghana’s Cardinal Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

    Turkson may be an energetic polyglot (he speaks English, Fante, French, Italian, German and Hebrew, with a passing understanding of Latin and Greek) but at no stage in his speech did he attempt seriously to grapple with the complexities of the climate change debate. Instead it was full of fashionable social justice jargon about “sustainability”, man’s obligation to his fellow man, and to the needs of future generations, which is fine as far as it goes but doesn’t actually answer the charge levelled by sceptics that the climate policies being recommended by the green establishment are creating and entrenching poverty in the developing world, not alleviating. The Cardinal, it appeared, had swallowed Ban Ki-Moon’s line that “religion and science are united” and that all that now remains is for “collective action” (as Ban put it in his speech) should be taken.

    The worrying impression given – at least to this observer – is that today it was very much the UN, not the Catholic Church, running the show.

    “We are at a critical tipping point,” said Ban Ki-Moon. “Soon, I hope Pope Francis will add his voice in his Encyclical.”

    He didn’t actually add “All your Vatican are belong to us.” But that, you felt, was the true purpose behind his lightning trip to Rome and his announcement that on September 25, Pope Francis will be addressing a Special Summit Session of the UN General Assembly.

    For the climate alarmist establishment – over which the UN, as creator of the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Meteorological Organisation, and, of course, their bastard offshoot the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – this year is all about positioning, pressure and co-option.

    That’s because at the end of the year in Paris is the next Climate Change Summit and the last thing Big Green wants is a repeat of the Copenhagen debacle. In the run-up to Paris, it needs to get all its ducks in a row.

    The attack is multi-pronged and comprehensive – embracing everything from the Guardian’s new mega-campaign on fossil fuel divestment to the vicious attempts in the left-wing media to discredit sceptical scientists like Willie Soon to the Tom Steyer-funded campaign against any Republican candidates brave enough to express doubt about man-made climate change.

    And now, it seems, Big Green has planted its flag on top of the Vatican. Great news for the fanatics of the global warming religion, perhaps. But not so good for those who believe in the old religion. Or, indeed, in honest science.


  18. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 2:41 pm said:

    ‘Global Warming to replace Gospel at church’

    Written by Judi McLeod, Canada Free Press on 28 April 2015.

    The New Green Religion of Global Warming/Climate Change is coming out of the closet to begin preaching from the pulpit.

    In the lib-left world timing is everything. Now that Christianity is being persecuted worldwide with the many slings and arrows sent its way flashing out in neon, it’s time for ‘sustainability’ to squeeze out Salvation at Sunday church services.

    “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change. (Washington Free Beacon, April 27, 2015)

    “A taxpayer-funded graduate fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is examining 17 faith-based institutions that have implemented “sustainability initiatives” in the hopes of developing workshops to teach pastors and other religious leaders how to change the behaviors of their congregants.

    “Climate change—which affects traditional faith-based efforts to improve human health, mitigate poverty and redress social inequity—is inspiring religious organizations to advocate for clean air and water, restore ecosystems, and conserve resources,” a grant for the project, which began last fall, states. “This project seeks to understand the empirical experiences of faith-based environmental efforts within communities.”

    “Through what motivations and processes do congregation level sustainability initiatives emerge?” the grant asks. “What factors facilitate and/or hinder implementation of these initiatives? What environmental and community outcomes are perceived to have been achieved through these initiatives?”

    “The results will provide insights into the role of religion and faith communities in motivating environmental behavior,” it said.

    “The project, “Sustainability at the Community Level: The Role of Faith-Based Organizations,” is scheduled to last through September 2016.


    # # #

    Presenters of Christian TV programmes commentating on modern day developments in the church, categorize the above and many other secular issues as “distractions”.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 4:39 pm said:

    Here’s the actual statement and “demand”, Climate Change and The Common Good, in appropriate ecclesiastical fonts:



    Demand response – get lost.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 29/04/2015 at 5:26 pm said:

    Tom Nelson ‏@tan123

    After no warming for 18+ years, UN chief claims “Climate change is approaching much faster than one may think” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/world/europe/scientists-and-religious-leaders-discuss-climate-change-at-vatican.html …


  21. Richard C (NZ) on 30/04/2015 at 3:58 pm said:

    >”Hope that Pope can cope with climate dope”

    It’s much more than climate, as in this article:

    ‘Climate Realists Challenge UN at Vatican Global Warming Conference’

    Written by William F. Jasper, Wednesday, 29 April 2015



    Experts speaking at the Heartland conference included:

    • Elisabeth Yore, an international children’s rights attorney and expert witness in human trafficking;

    Attorney Elisabeth Yore, who has been an international children’s rights advocate for 30 years, called the UN-Vatican statement “preposterous” and “deceptive,” noting there’s no connection between climate change and human trafficking.

    “This declaration of an intrinsic connection, a nexus between climate change and human trafficking is on its face, preposterous, deceptive and infinitely damaging to the plight of victims of human trafficking around the world,” Yore said. “This fallacious statement links a real human crisis of modern slavery with a manufactured one of climate change.” Yore argued that trafficking is growing for other reasons, such as war and sex-selective abortions. “Abortion, not climate change, is fueling the industry of human slavery,” she said.

    Yore also blasted Columbia University professor and UN advisor Jeffrey Sachs, who is one of the guiding lights behind the UN-Vatican climate gambit. Sachs and the UN, she said, are opposed to the “precious and profound tenets of the Catholic Church regarding the sacredness of life and human dignity.” Yore, who is a Catholic, said “It is perplexing that abortion and reproductive rights zealots like, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and Jeffrey Sachs, the Director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network are prominently highlighted at this Catholic Conference in anticipation of Pope Francis’ Environmental Encyclical.”

    “As a Catholic,” said Yore, “I am deeply troubled by the recommendations and policies promulgated over the last 20 years by Jeffrey Sachs, in his various roles at the United Nations. As Director of the UN Millennium Development Goals, and now, as director of UN Sustainable Development Solutions, his rabid advocacy of abortion, and reproductive health services are in direct contravention of the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.”

    In his latest book, Sustainable Development, published this year, Dr. Sachs’ states: “The legality of abortion also plays an evident role as well. Different societies have widely divergent views about abortion, but the data suggests that those countries with legalized abortion tend to have lower observed fertility rates than countries where abortion is illegal.”

    “I find it incomprehensible that the Vatican would be misled into thinking that the UN and the Vatican share common solutions,” she said. “The Church welcomes children as a gift from God, when the United Nations and Sachs want to limit the number of children.”

  22. Richard C (NZ) on 30/04/2015 at 5:48 pm said:

    Bishop Hill on the Vatican statement:

    “One hardly knows where to start”


    I know exactly what he means. I started with its contra-solar case upthread because it was just so obviously wrong, even then it was hard to know where to start:

    “So much wrong with this it’s hard to know where to begin”

  23. Richard C (NZ) on 03/05/2015 at 10:13 am said:

    ‘Catholic Church Fooled by UN on Climate Change’

    The upcoming encyclical letter from the Pope supports keeping the Third World in despair.

    by Tom Harris


    The Catholic Church is being grossly misled by the UN on these issues. The statement made by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to delegates on Tuesday, “that the science of climate change is deep, sound and not in doubt,” is utter nonsense. Leading climate experts have repeatedly told Mr. Ban this. For example, widely publicized open letters explaining where the UN is going wrong on the science were delivered directly to his office:

    Click here to see the 2012 letter sent to the secretary-general to coincide with the UN Climate Change Conference in Doha, Qatar.

    Click here to see the 2009 letter sent to coincide with the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

    Click here to see the 2007 letter sent to coincide with the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia.

    The secretary-general did not even acknowledge receipt of the open letters, let alone address any of the scientists’ concerns.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/blog/catholic-church-fooled-by-un-on-climate-change/#ixzz3Z1mJ4ItY

    >”deep, sound and not in doubt”.

    Utter nonsense sums it up well. Ban Ki-moon is an agit-prop spruiker – truth is his casualty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation