Vatican Burns with Global Warming Enthusiasm

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences had its one-day global warming conference yesterday. Not unlike a certain synod, it ended with the issuing of an anticlimactic pre-prepared climatic document “Climate Change and The Common Good: A Statement Of The Problem And The Demand For Transformative Solutions.”

Gist: we are soon doomed unless we “do something.”

More on that in a moment. First, the Big Question. Why? Why is the Catholic Church entering into the fray of doubtful global warming science? Why now and why with such shrill apocalyptic exaggerated rhetoric?  Why strident calls for supranational government control at the same time the actual evidence for doom grows weaker and weaker?

Consider this. Used to be in the West when the Catholic Church spoke, people listened. Reporters and politicians would come calling before writing articles or making decisions and ask, “What say you, Mr. Bishop?”  And the people, when they heard what the Church had to say, listened. They considered. Sure, they sometimes rejected, perhaps even more often than they heeded. But the Church was an influence. And it liked being one.

Not so now. The West has these past fifty or so years assumed an adversarial stance towards our ancient and venerable institution. The press, politicians, and people no longer care what the clergy has to say on designer babies (i.e. eugenics), abortion, homosexual acts, same-sex “marriage”, you name it. Not when a recalcitrant Church disallows female priests, divorce, and every other thing the secular salivate over.

This volte-face must sting, particularly for the old timers who lived during the Good Old Days of deference. The longing they feel probably accounts for why certain of our more mature clergy (and their recruits) work vigorously to steer the Church towards political shoals and away from deep spiritual water (who doesn’t love nautical metaphors?).

Now to the global warming conference. The reader should understand Yours Truly is a certified expert in these areas, a genuine climate scientist, with a specialty in the goodness and usefulness of models, the very kinds of models which predict our doom.

The models are wrong. And have been for decades.

How do I know this? Here’s a sentence from an open letter skeptics presented to the PAS (to hand to Pope Francis) at its conference (I am a signer of this letter):

[T]here has been a growing divergence between real-world temperature observations and model simulations. On average, models simulate more than twice the observed warming over the relevant period. Over 95% of the models simulate greater warming than has been observed, and only a tiny percentage come tolerably close.

It is a logical truth, and a fact once known to all scientists, that models which make consistently lousy predictions imply the theories underlying them are false. Since the models make lousy forecasts, we know the theories upon which the models are based are wrong. And since these theories are wrong, they should not be believed. And since they should not be believed, we should not base decisions on them.

Now you’d think these happy deductions would be welcome news to our political and spiritual betters. But they aren’t, because why? Because if there is no problem, there is no problem to solve. And if there is no problem to solve, there is no need to seek political power to solve the nonexistent problem.

But some in the Church and most politicians want something to solve. We’re reached the point where politics dictate science. This explains why Senator Barbara Boxer recently attacked scientists like Yours Truly for (her words) disseminating research designed to “confuse the public.”

Finally to the PAS document itself. There is scarcely anything in it that is scientifically accurate. Everywhere, it assumes what it seeks to prove, and uses model-based predictions of doom as proof the models are correct. The document is a dismal exercise in special pleading and is painful to read. It would take a small book to detail every mistake, so we’ll have to stick to the most curious.

The opening sentences of its “Declaration”:

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.

Causally linked are powerful words in science. It means we know why things happen. But we do not. If we did, our models would make good predictions. Wealth and income are growing more inequitable, but is that caused by blundering governments or a “world-wide disruption of the physical climate system”?  Answer: there is no disruption. The claim that millions of species will turn in their dinner pails doesn’t even border on scientific malfeasance. It crosses over and enters into the sorrowful land of Deliberate Exaggeration.

It is a well trodden realm. PAS says “Global warming is already having major impacts on extreme weather and climate events.” This is false. Unless by “impact” they mean the observed diminution of extreme events? “Collectively, this warming and the extreme events it has brought in its wake, such as heat waves, intense storms, and forest fires….” Ah. They do not. What else can I tell you except that this statement is demonstrably false? The document contains many of its brothers.

Twenty years ago we were told there was still time, but only just. Action had to happen now, else the tipping point would be breached. We survived. But the PAS again says there is still time. If we act now. The call for action is proof of the theory bruited above: “The Catholic church, working with the leadership of other religions, can take a decisive role by mobilizing public opinion and public funds….”

How? By “reorient[ing] our attitude toward nature and, thereby, toward ourselves” and by recognizing “religious institutions are in a special position to promote” sustainability. As I wrote elsewhere, if you think global warming’s bad, wait till you meet sustainability. Sustainability is the fundamentalism that will replace all other environmental causes.  Global warming made itself vulnerable by exposing itself to verification. Sustainability is immune to testing. It is taken on faith.

As I wrote, “True Sustainability is a goal ever disappearing into the distance, one which can never be reached, but which must be pursued with ever increasing vigor.” The PAS document is suffused with sustainability; the word or its variants appears dozens of times. They say we are engaged in “unsustainable consumption,” that climate change will “seriously threaten global sustainability,” that we must “save as much of the sustainable fabric of the world as possible,” that we must celebrate “living together in comfort and sustainably,” that we must “develop a sustainable relationship with our planet.”

And what is the Pontifical Academy’s definition of sustainable?  You guessed it. They never give one.

Editor’s note: In the image above, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon meets Pope Francis to deliver the keynote address at a climate change summit at the Vatican sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and other groups. (Photo credit: Osservatore Romano / Reuters)

William M. Briggs

By

William M. Briggs is a consultant and adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell University, with specialties in medicine and the philosophy of science. He blogs at wmbriggs.com.

  • St JD George

    Gives a new perspective on being of this world and not just in it. Also on fallibility in populism over reason. I can only imagine an increase in the shrill pitch of those who would cry out to tar and feather dissenters claiming now God is with them, Gaia worship at its pagan best.

    • CB

      “Is the need not breed like rabbits an inkling of what to expect?”

      lol! That’s a fascinating question. The “rhythm method” doesn’t really seem to be stabilising populations where the pope’s army is in control, with each new god warrior adding more and more carbon to the atmosphere.

      That said, I think the pope should be applauded when he does something right, and stating that we have set dangerous changes in motion because of our greenhouse gas emissions is simply the fact of the world we inhabit:

      “both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.”

      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

      • St JD George

        CB, my wife’s initials. There could be more needed in your diet than the standard agenda.

        Might want to invest in winter coats.

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/03/global-warming-low-sun-spot-cycle-could-mean-little-ice-age/

        New theories to explain why the ice is actually growing in contradiction to model predictions and “the narrative”.

        http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode

        Data be damned, we have an agenda by God.

        http://green-agenda.com/

        • CB

          “Might want to invest in winter coats.”

          Why?

          “The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists.”

          http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

          You have linked to dishonest Climate Denier propaganda outlets that are paid by fossil fuel interests to lie about the dangers of their product.

          Why are you trusting sources you know are lying to you about threats to your well-being?

          Are you suicidal?

          • St JD George

            Actually, among the coldest in actual readings. It only became warmer after they fiddled with the data to make the “needed adjustment”. Hardly, I love life and I don’t trust in men with hidden agendas. I guess you didn’t bother to read the other site did you before commenting.

            • CB

              “Actually, among the coldest in actual readings.”

              Uh huh, but as I just showed you, NASA says you’re wrong.

              …so where are you getting your information?

              If you know your sources of information are misleading you about threats to your well-being, why would you continue to rely on them?

              Are you suicidal?

              “The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880.”

              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13

      • St JD George

        Be not afraid CB, it is God’s will that will be done, not man’s.

        • CB

          “it is God’s will that will be done, not man’s.”

          Your impossible imaginary friend isn’t the one burning fossil fuels.

          We are:

          “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” “

          climate.nasa.gov/causes

          • St JD George

            Why don’t you join the growing trend of folks who are starting to realize they’ve been lied to and are finding their voices of discontent. You know liars always get caught in the trap of their own lies don’t you? Did you bother to read the green-agenda, or are you already terminal? You know facts are darn unpleasant things to people who seek truth, but don’t get in the way of those who are agenda driven and will do anything to advance their cause – because the means always justify the ends, and people can be sacrificed on their alter.

            http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/global-warming-skepticism-on-the-rise-in-europe/

            • CB

              “Why don’t you join the growing trend of folks who are starting to realize they’ve been lied to”

              You have been lied to!

              The Daily Caller is well-known as a propaganda site which is paid by fossil fuel interests to lie about the dangers of their product.

              How could you possibly be unaware of this by now?

              The fact that CO₂ warms planets has been the undefeated scientific understanding for over 100 years:

              “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

              climate.nasa.gov/evidence

              …so why is the Daily Caller talking about the opinion of a Norwegian politican on the matter? How, precisely, might that overthrow over a century of research?

              • St JD George

                Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

                These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

                David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]

                Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]

                Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]

                Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]

                Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]

                Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]

                Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]

                Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]

                Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]

                Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]

                Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]

                Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]

                Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]

                Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

                Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

                Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, andvolcanic emissions.[54]

                These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

                Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[55][56]

                Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[57][58][59]

                Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[60][61]

                Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[62][63]

                Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[64][65]

                Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[66][67]

                David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[68][69]

                Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[70][71]

                William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science,Colorado State University[72][73]

                William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[74][75]

                Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[76][77]

                Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[78][79]

                William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[80][81]

                David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[82][83]

                Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[84][85]

                Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[86][87]

                Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[88][89][90]

                Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[91][92]

                Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[93][94]

                Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University[95][96]

                Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[97][98][99]

                Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[100][101]

                Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[102][103]

                Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[104][105][106][107]

                Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[108][109]

                Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[110][111]

                Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[112][113]

                George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[114][115]

                Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[116][117]
                Why don’t you ask these esteemed professionals below. A few are even Nobel Prize winners. Any time somebody talks to you in a mocking manner the hair on the back of your head should stand up. straight. It is a very unbecoming quality in a scientist and goes against everything the scientific method represents. Honest scientists welcome criticism in defense of their theories because if it can survive then it makes the theory more resolved. The junk science behind climate change is all politically driven, and only people with agendas to hide talk like that to one another. Very unprofessional and distasteful.

                Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

                These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

                Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[118][119]

                Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[120][121]

                Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[122][123]

                John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to severalIPCC reports.[124][125][126]

                Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[127][128]

                David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[129][130]

                Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.[131][132]

                Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[133][134]

                Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[135][136]

                Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[137][138]

                Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

                These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

                Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[139][140]

                Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[141][142]

                Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[143][144]

                • CB

                  Impressive piles of screen diarrhea!

                  If a single one of those people proved CO₂ does not warm planets, where is their Nobel prize?

                  We can actually see CO₂ warming the planet from space:

                  http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05

                  How do the people you cited explain that?

                  …if, in fact, you aren’t just lying about their position on the greenhouse effect…

                  • St JD George

                    The point is, they have had their rabies shots and so aren’t foaming at the mouth in hysteria able to look at the data objectively, question inconsistencies, and point out that when the prediction models are horribly flawed they must dig deeper and acknowledge that there is still a lot not known about the earth’s carbon sequestration cycle. In other words, they are real scientists who can look at facts objectively, not fake ones who can be bought and paid for. However, I see you are infected with the disease too so I wish you well in getting cured.

                    You didn’t answer my question though, about how the crowd you idolize that wishes you were never born … because they view YOU as the problem, YOU emitter and consumer YOU.

                    Can you name me one scientist you admire that mocks and ridicules you for raising serious questions about their theory? You know, the stuff of peer review. If you can name one, I will report them to the professional standards committee for rebuke.

                  • St JD George

                    RICHARD S. LINDZEN March 4, 2015 6:50 p.m. ET

                    Research in recent years has encouraged those of us who question the popular alarm over allegedly man-made global warming. Actually, the move from “global warming” to “climate change” indicated the silliness of this issue. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom.

                    Individuals and organizations highly vested in disaster scenarios have relentlessly attacked scientists and others who do not share their beliefs. The attacks have taken a threatening turn.

                    As to the science itself, it’s worth noting that all predictions of warming since the onset of the last warming episode of 1978-98—which is the only period that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attempts to attribute to carbon-dioxide emissions—have greatly exceeded what has been observed. These observations support a much reduced and essentially harmless climate response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

                    In addition, there is experimental support for the increased importance of variations in solar radiation on climate and a renewed awareness of the importance of natural unforced climate variability that is largely absent in current climate models. There also is observational evidence from several independent studies that the so-called “water vapor feedback,” essential to amplifying the relatively weak impact of carbon dioxide alone on Earth temperatures, is canceled by cloud processes.

                    There are also claims that extreme weather—hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, you name it—may be due to global warming. The data show no increase in the number or intensity of such events. The IPCC itself acknowledges the lack of any evident relation between extreme weather and climate, though allowing that with sufficient effort some relation might be uncovered.

                    World leaders proclaim that climate change is our greatest problem, demonizing carbon dioxide. Yet atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history. Climates both warmer and colder than the present have coexisted with these higher levels.

                    Currently elevated levels of carbon dioxide have contributed to increases in agricultural productivity. Indeed, climatologists before the recent global warming hysteria referred to warm periods as “climate optima.” Yet world leaders are embarking on costly policies that have no capacity to replace fossil fuels but enrich crony capitalists at public expense, increasing costs for all, and restricting access to energy to the world’s poorest populations that still lack access to electricity’s immense benefits.

                    Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy. So it is unsurprising that great efforts have been made to ramp up hysteria, even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating.

                    The latest example began with an article published in the New York Times on Feb. 22 about Willie Soon, a scientist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Mr. Soon has, for over 25 years, argued for a primary role of solar variability on climate. But as Greenpeacenoted in 2011, Mr. Soon was, in small measure, supported by fossil-fuel companies over a period of 10 years.

                    The Times reintroduced this old material as news, arguing that Mr. Soon had failed to list this support in a recent paper in Science Bulletin of which he was one of four authors. Two days later Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, used the Times article as the basis for a hunting expedition into anything said, written and communicated by seven individuals—David Legates,John Christy,Judith Curry, Robert Balling, Roger Pielke Jr., Steven Hayward and me—about testimony we gave to Congress or other governmental bodies. We were selected solely on the basis of our objections to alarmist claims about the climate.

                    In letters he sent to the presidents of the universities employing us (although I have been retired from MIT since 2013), Mr. Grijalva wanted all details of all of our outside funding, and communications about this funding, including “consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and any other monies.” Mr. Grijalva acknowledged the absence of any evidence but purportedly wanted to know if accusations made against Mr. Soon about alleged conflicts of interest or failure to disclose his funding sources in science journals might not also apply to us.

                    Perhaps the most bizarre letter concerned the University of Colorado’s Mr. Pielke. His specialty is science policy, not science per se, and he supports reductions in carbon emissions but finds no basis for associating extreme weather with climate. Mr. Grijalva’s complaint is that Mr. Pielke, in agreeing with the IPCC on extreme weather and climate, contradicts the assertions of John Holdren,President Obama’s science czar.

                    Mr. Grijalva’s letters convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense—and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress. After the Times article, Sens.Edward Markey (D., Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) andBarbara Boxer (D., Calif.) also sent letters to numerous energy companies, industrial organizations and, strangely, many right-of-center think tanks (including the Cato Institute, with which I have an association) to unearth their alleged influence peddling.

                    The American Meteorological Society responded with appropriate indignation at the singling out of scientists for their scientific positions, as did many individual scientists. On Monday, apparently reacting to criticism, Mr. Grijalva conceded to the National Journal that his requests for communications between the seven of us and our outside funders was “overreach.”

                    Where all this will lead is still hard to tell. At least Mr. Grijalva’s letters should help clarify for many the essentially political nature of the alarms over the climate, and the damage it is doing to science, the environment and the well-being of the world’s poorest.

                    Mr. Lindzen is professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at MIT and a distinguished senior fellow of the Cato Institute

                    http://www.wsj.com/articles/richard-s-lindzen-the-political-assault-on-climate-skeptics-1425513033

                  • St JD George

                    Don’t bother replying, I’ve already read the criticism of his views by the climate change zombies.
                    After you ponder and respond to your role in crises, answer me this … do you think POTUS and celebrities are hypocrites for flying all around the world to give alarmist speeches and attending self congratulatory conferences spewing out hundreds of tons of carbon while denying you the right and ridiculing you?

              • St JD George

                Might want to check in with the sun and see what it’s up too since it has the largest effect on our climate on the blue marble. Seems to be taking a nap of late, and not at all bothered by carbon. Or maybe it’s God’s loving hand putting up with us. You know the green agenda (reminds me of the old movie Soylent Green) hates humans don’t you, and would be happy if you were never born because you do is produce CO2 and are a consumer of resources. Do you feel that way about yourself too? I hope not, I don’t, because God has great hopes and plans for you.

                http://vencoreweather.com/2015/04/30/845-am-the-sun-is-now-virtually-blank-during-the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century/

                • CB

                  “Might want to check in with the sun and see what it’s up too since it has the largest effect on our climate on the blue marble.”

                  If you think solar output is a stronger driver of planetary temperature than CO₂, point to a single moment in Earth’s history when solar output dropped low enough for polar ice caps to form with CO₂ as high as we have today.

                  If such a moment existed, why hasn’t a single person been able to identify it?

                  “the ice caps are melting at their base, caused by warming oceans.”

                  http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Ice_sheets

  • Mongo

    Things are getting pretty crazy what with this, the Pope with his anti fracking T shirt etc., his entertaining of pro abortion leaders Ban Ki Moon and Prof. Jeffrey Sachs etc. and not a public word to either of them re abortion nor, likely, to Obama either in the Pope’s upcoming meeting with him. Things are getting pretty bad.

    • Defensor Vitae

      Well said, and my thoughts exactly!

    • ArthurMcGowan

      I’ve noticed that when an execution is in prospect, the local bishop NEVER FAILS to object to the execution, or to call for the jury to reject the death penalty. But there are few bishops who are not perfectly content to be photographed with pro-abortion politicians, preside at or attend their wakes and funerals, share the stage with them at colleges and other venues, etc. An internet search will call up a plethora of pictures of Cardinals and Archbishops shaking hands with practically any pro-abortion Catholic you can name.

    • Jdonnell

      That’s right, nobody in the Church ever mentions abortion. Get real.

  • Zephaniah

    Climate Fraud is just another thing the Church should stay out of… another is Economics and Finance… totally incompetent to voice opinions on these two things (and perhaps a few others).

  • Keith Cameron

    By even paying lip service to these Secular wackos the church is getting into bed with the Devil. Stick to the ‘Word’.

  • BM

    The Church is careening towards Galileo Affair 2.0.

    • Ben S D

      I think you have the wrong side there, bud.

  • Margaret in MI

    Critically important true science article, although very disconcerting to read. What is happening to our Catholic Church ? Is it as described the renewing of Church relevance so we ‘need a problem to solve’? or is it the darkness of ‘political correctness’? How about the recent article in National Catholic Register regarding a Monsignor Swetland agreeing with President and Secretary Kerry’s nuclear negotiations with the world’s largest promoter of terror; Iran ?

    I try to listen to Al Kresta’s podcast on Ave Maria Radio, to help get through these times….. but this week was disconcerted on a commentary there also ! (a caller from a neighboring state bought up long standing observation that parish priests and bishops avoid ministering on any of the great sins of the modern, ‘politically correct culture’

    • ForChristAlone

      If Msgr Swetland is ever going to be “Bishop” Swetland, he will need to please the Wuerl, Dolan and O’Malley Axis of bishop-makers. It’s all politics.

  • Margaret in MI

    My understanding of the AveMaria Radio Commentary: if parish priest, etc. is not responsive, save yourself some angst by ‘shaking the dust from your sandals’ and moving on.

  • FrankW

    Thanks for this article – it adds much needed common sense to a debate that seems almost completely devoid of it.

    Let’s hope the Vatican can follow suit, and not allow it’s response to be used (and likely misinterpreted) by the political powers-that-be to advance their agenda. I hope the Church’s leaders take care not to fall into the role of “useful idiot” for those advancing this fraud.

  • J.T. L.

    The world is literally falling apart at the seams and we Catholics are on the verge of another lecture on “climate change”, “global warming” and “sustainability”? I swear, if one of our parish priests delivers a homily about this I will walk out. I’m sick of hearing “political” homilies based upon newspaper articles.

    • Paddy

      The clergy seem to be suffering from brain farts. While Briggs makes good points, let’s wait until we see what Francis has written. He may suggest cleaner water, or less fishing to allow the seas to revive. Are nuclear plants as safe as they can be? What if he asked that they be checked? What id he says the communist Chinese must treat their people better? Is this bad? We’ll know his position in June. So, keep your powder dry. If he comes out a semi-Marxist, there’ll be schism.

      • ForChristAlone

        Maybe, just maybe, he should stick to the area of faith and morals. Unless he’s auditioning to be the next Secretary General of the UN. Won’t that be a hoot?

        • Just so you know what your dealing with, here’s the homepage of JDONNELL.

          Yes, it does look like a senior citizen on myspace.

          http://mysite.du.edu/~jdonnell/

          Note the lack of any scientific/quanmtitative/objective credentials.

          • Jdonnell

            That’s not my site. I have never heard of it.

        • Ben S D

          In addressing climate change, he IS sticking to the area of faith and morals. This is a moral crisis and people of goodwill need to act.

      • Jdonnell

        And, what if you woke up?

    • Jdonnell

      The “newspaper articles” reflect the what scientists are finding. The scientific consensus is quite clear that global warming is going on and is contributed to by various forms of pollution. As Christians–and Catholics–we should be taking our responsibility as “stewards of the earth” seriously. Peace.

      • Gail Finke

        The author is a climate scientist. Are you?

        • Jdonnell

          The author is not–get it?–not a climate scientist–or any scientist. He is a statistician, which is something completely different.
          Your comment implies that you respect what climate scientists say about GW. If so, you ought to accept what the overwhelming majority of real scientists say about GW–that it is happening and that human actions are contributing to it.

          • zlop

            “GW–that it is happening and that human actions are contributing to it.”?
            IPCC science is upside down. Greenhouse gases Cool, a little.
            Solar activity is declining. Oceans are starting to lose heat.

            • Jdonnell

              See the above comment, which applies to you too.

              • zlop

                “See the above comment, which applies to you too.”

                There are lots of comments. Are you trying to economize blog bandwidth to reduce Global Something?

          • GG

            Oh, the ones who said the earth was cooling and now it is warming. Those “experts”? The ones with the flawed data. Uh huh.

            • Jdonnell

              I repeat for the slow-witted, the overwhelming scientific consensus says that GW is happening and that human pollution is contributing to it. I am not posing as an expert but noting what the scientific experts have found. Crisis kids pretend to know better and to follow some non-scientist, like the author of this article.

              • GG

                No one supports pollution. Those that care about the earth are interested in truth not propaganda.

                I repeat for the credulous and coprophagic propaganda is not science.

                Now back to your chronic mental masturbation.

                • Jdonnell

                  If you are opposed to pollution and its effects, you should be supporting efforts to support the very anti-pollution measures that scientists say are contributing GW, whether or not you agree with their cause and effect findings.

                  • GG

                    I support sane anti pollution measures. All sane people do. What I do not support is a herd mentality based in politics.

                    • Jdonnell

                      Good, then you must oppose fracking.

                    • GG

                      I do oppose it.

              • hombre111

                Jd, I admire your pluck. If you are going to comment on a Crisis thread, you just stick to your guns. Don’t imagine you are going to change very many minds. This is their world, strange as it sometimes is, and it offers a bit of comfort.

                • Jdonnell

                  Thanks. When I began reading some of the articles in Crisis, I had no idea what it actually was. I had expected to find an intelligent Catholic site, but instead I was dismayed to find all manner of nonsense, mixed in with a few good pieces. Fortunately, Crisis seems to have a relatively small readership; it is a scandal as far as Catholicism is concerned, when it comes to some of the comments made by dolts who like to use Latin usernames and cultic icons.

                  • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                    I’m sorry about the way you are treated here, especially the nasty and pointless insults that you have to endure. Not everyone here represents true Catholicism.

                    • Jdonnell

                      Thanks. Many of the comments are completely at odds Catholic Christianity, as well as being steeped in hatred and venom.

                    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                      Yes, some of them are a bit of an embarrassment, to be honest.

                    • GG

                      Like you.

                    • GG

                      Look in the mirror.

                    • Jdonnell

                      My, aren’t you becoming clever, though just as empty of substance as usual.

                    • GG

                      Out on a day pass today?

                    • Jdonnell

                      I repeat my preceding comment, which is once again applicable to your empty responses which only exhibit your lack of information, playpen humor, and general intellectual ineptness. I won’t bother to repeat what should be abundantly clear to anyone reading this stream.

                • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                  The cardinals were very smart to elect a guy like Pope Francis. He is able to frame the role of Catholicism within the context of the modern world.

                  • hombre111

                    Amen.

            • Mollie Norris

              The problem is that the data has been changed to support the political agenda. Table showing alterations in NCDC temperature readings to create the illusion of warming. It’s easy to find information on the changes in temperature measurements; global warming is a political tool that leaves the earth’s climate out of the loop.

              http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20Jan1915%20and%20Jan2000.gif

              http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20Jan1915%20and%20Jan2000.gif

              • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                Mollie, please explain how this graph indicates that temperature readings are being “altered.” Note that “temperature anomaly” simply refers to the difference between long-term average temperature, which is also called the reference value, and observed temperature. Without some context, it is impossible to conclude that the graph you reference suggests what you claim.

                • Mollie Norris

                  The real giveaway on this graph that temperature readings are being altered is the text at the top of the graph that says
                  “NCDC Adjustments from May 2008 to March 2015 of January Temperature 1915 and 2000. All of the anomalies shown are alterations of the original NCDC published data. No additional context is needed to reach the conclusion that the data has been altered; the alterations are graphed.
                  This shows that each successive year the temperature for January 1915 has been lowered and the temperature for January 2000 has been increased.
                  This produces a graph that shows a false indication of warming; older temperatures have altered by the amount indicated by the blue line, Recent temperatures have been elevated by the amount indicated by the red line. The alterations also include the remaining months and years, but this graph shows only January alterations, and only for the specified years. There are several similar graphs showing alterations at the link I posted.

                  • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                    Mollie, you obviously have no idea what temperature adjustment is or why it is used. For your edification, I offer you an article from Judith Curry’s blog, since most deniers accept anything associated with her as gospel truth:

                    “Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years.”

                    http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

          • Mollie Norris

            Briggs has a BS in Meteorology, a PhD in Atmospheric Physics, and a PhD in Mathematical Statistics, and has worked as a meteorologist for the National Weather Service – get it?

            Pope Francis supports a pagan, Luciferian UN; Satan worshippers and travels around the world flashing the sign of Baphomet. The authorities you’re using are lies in the media and the lies of corrupt government, not the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

            Satan is the father of lies;

            “Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?”
            Matthew 16:18

            “No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a LUCIFERIAN Initiation.” (David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations)

            http://green-agenda.com/

            http://wmbriggs.com/public/briggs_cv.pdf

            • hombre111

              Mollie, are you on your meds?

            • Jdonnell

              Your first paragraph is erroneous; Briggs himself lists a PhD in statistics, no doctorate in science. His M.A. is in “weather,” given a glorified title in the lingo. Weather is not the same as climate, except to Rush Limppaugh and his lemming listeners. Even the very site you list for him shows that he has no Ph.D. in science, just stats. You seem unable to read even the sources you provide, which contradict what you say.

              Your second paragraph helps explain why. Your hysterics blind you. The third paragraph could only be found as a credible quotation by a paranoid.

              • Mollie Norris

                No problem – You’ve made a decision to believe lies and ignore the truth; ignore Briggs’ published cv and published quotes and stick with the lies told by the anti-Christian depopulation proponents; few are chosen, and you’ve decided that political correctness beats truth.You have no eyes to see. Definitely ignore any information that you can verify; acknowledging facts requires intellectual honesty.

                • Jdonnell

                  Briggs’s cv lists no Ph.D. in science. Moreover, he holds no tenured or tenure-earning academic position. His “assistant professor” job is no more. That same cv suggests a dilettante. I regret pointing out such features, but the Crisis chorus keeps insisting on prioritizing his views based on his being a “scientist,” while ignoring the findings of real scientists and, as in the above comment, attacking the real scientists as if they are part of a “depopulation” movement. Meanwhile, many in this out-of-tune chorus attack Pope Francis. They think that they are defending Catholicism by being truer to Christianity than others, whereas they are simply repeating the machinations of past and so-called reformationists.

      • Mollie Norris

        The major issue with climate change is political: it’s an excuse for a takeover by an anti-religion pagan totalitarian plutocracy and the murder of 95% of the population to “save the planet”, The scientific consensus is against AGW. The Oregon Petition Project is still the only attempt to ask the opinion of scientists, and there are 31,489 signatures now. Consensus is a political manipulation tool, not.science. The 97% consensus literature surveys are fraudulent propaganda.

    • hombre111

      As a recent article by brain scientists pointed out, your brain will instantly filter out what I am about to say. But here I go, casting pearls. This is not about politics. It is about the life or death of billions. It is one of the great moral issues of our day.

      I was just visiting my relatives in California. My niece is one of those in charge of ground water in her state. California’s snow pack is at 5%. A catastrophe. That sound you hear is pumps sucking the ground water dry. If California faces another year of drought, the politicians have a huge problem on their hands. If California suffers two more years of drought, and this is the beginning of a dry cycle triggered by global warming, the whole U.S. will experience the consequences, because the price of food will go up, up, up. All this is not just a political question, but a huge moral quandary.

      • GG

        What does so called global warming not cause? If it rains it is warming. If it snows it is warming. Too dry? Warming. Too wet? Warming.

        What specific evidence can you give that proves the temp of the earth is the cause of the drought?

        • hombre111

          There is no arguing with a global warming denier. Such a stance means an endless, almost pre-conscious rejection of what the majority of scientists are saying. Have a good day, sir.

          • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

            Agreed. Their opinions are ideological rather than scientific. I have yet to read anything from any of the commenters here that has scientific credibility.

            • GG

              We affirm what is true and reject what is false. You are credulous.

              • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                See, you need to be able to PROVE that what you affirm is true. Thousands of climatologists have studied this for years and come to near unanimous agreement. Enormous effort goes into their research, only the best papers meeting the most rigorous peer review are published, and then they wait for new information to prove them correct or incorrect. You need to understand the scientific process to understand how compelling that is. A knowledge based consensus is based on a consilience of multiple lines of evidence, on social calibration, and on social diversity. To dismiss all that hard work and expertise with one sentence is not only incredibly arrogant but extraordinarily empty. You cannot back up your claim. If you think the consensus is wrong, write a paper and disprove it. Otherwise you are simply being irresponsible and disrespectful to science.

          • GG

            You are a lefty ideologue.

      • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

        Wealthy Californians can adapt to drought. Poor Somalians die in the resulting famine. We’ve all seen the photographs of starving children dying in their mothers’ arms. I don’t know how people of faith can dismiss climate change as an ethical issue. Perhaps the good Lord will accept “invincible ignorance” as an excuse for them, but there’s no reason for ignorance to be invincible with free, high quality climate science courses available at, for example, http://www.amnh.org/learn/climate. Our Mollie’s favorite climate scientist, Dr. Drew Shindell, is one of the instructors. All Catholics of good faith should take the course and do their best to understand the science so that they can make pure decisions.

  • Vinny

    “Wealth and income are growing more inequitable, but is that caused by blundering governments or a “world-wide disruption of the physical climate system”?” How about simple greed? The problem isn’t capitalism either, it’s manipulation due to greed.

  • Vinny

    “Unsustainable?” Guess we need fewer people as we will never be able to adjust, change, invent, etc. to overcome the issues we face. It’s a great thing then that God has given us contraception and abortion. They are a blessing to the human race! Maybe we’ll start to hear that in some homilies. Hey, I just realized, THEN people will start listening to the Church again and we can be PROUD of ourselves as Catholics.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    The New Church communists have just picked up their Social Justice Monte game cardboard box and set it up on a different corner. Same old same old.

  • Mike (Ishouldabeenalawya)Smith

    No to worry. If Church leadership is as successful at promulgating Climate Change as they have been at,say, Humani Vitae, then we can rest assured that in the not to distant future 90 percent of Catholics will no longer buy into FAS’s proven wrong assumptions that man, specifically Capitalism, is the prime mover of climate disruption.

  • Dan

    It is very hard to bear this pontificate. As we speak, marriage and the family — core Church competences — are collapsing in dramatic fashion and is the Pope’s response? It is to say we should not talk about sexual morality but instead should consider allowing communion for the divorced and civilly remarried and focus our attention trendy-lefty causes like global warming. Just yesterday he started in again about the “God of surprises” (without saying what “surprise” he is alluding to) and how the Church needs to lose its “fear” of change. I know I need to have devotion to the pope, whoever he is, but I am sorry, to the extent it is intelligible at all that kind of talk can only be understood as patronizing and disingenuous code for some undisclosed liberal agenda.

    • fredx2

      Actually, his Wednesday audiences have been overwhelmingly about the family, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and about the dire status of the family. The media refuses to report this, because they don’t want you to know the Pope holds these opinions.

      • Aliquantillus

        This Pope tells his customers at home something different than his world-wide media audience. At home and at low media covered events he has days when he wants to please the traditionally faithful, although in a contorted way and almost never without viciously accusing them of hypocrisy and legalism. But when he has the attention of the world his craving for popularity overrides every other concern. That’s why he never clearly and publicly condems the outrageous sins of our time. This man will always walk the line of political correctness and that’s what we also see in this climate humbug.

        • ArthurMcGowan

          His habit of speaking to please his immediate audience goes back many, many years in Buenos Aires. So does his habit of exiling those who disagree with him. He makes a big show of “openness,” and “listening.” But “conservative” priests were exiled to the farthest corners of the Archd. of Buenos Aires.

      • Jacqueleen

        It is thought by many that the Pope wants the changes that are under scrutiny by the Synod and is using Cardinal Kasper as the scapegoat….Then, because the hierarchy make deals with the leaders of nations, I wonder what kind of deal did the Pope make with Obama on global warming? (Forget about climate control nonsense!)

      • ArthurMcGowan

        If the Pope really wanted the world to hear these views, he would not confine them to his Wednesday audiences. Nobody notices what the Pope says at Wednesday audiences. Nobody noticed the Theology of the Body, which was all presented at Wednesday audiences, until it was all published in book form.

    • MHB

      Try reading zenit.org

  • jameshrust

    Pope Francis is making a grievous mistake entering the debate on fossil fuels causing catastrophic global warming due to live-giving combustion gases carbon dioxide. History has not forgotten the Church’s 17th century involvement with science caused the Inquisition in 1633 to force Galileo Galilei to recant the Sun was the center of our universe instead of the Earth. Galileo was held in house arrest until his death in 1642. The
    consequences of the Church’s actions may have set astronomy back a few years;
    but did not lead to calamitous future for the planet. In 1992 the Vatican formally announced its mistake in condemning Galileo.

    April 22 was Earth Day that was hijacked by environmental groups who want to use it to promote their agenda of forcing the abandonment of the earth’s abundant, inexpensive, and geographically distributed fossil fuels of coal, oil, and natural gas. Their reasoning is carbon dioxide from using fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming (climate change). Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Abundant energy is needed for achieving Earth Day’s goal. It takes energy to produce clean water and dispose of sewage. Fossil fuel energy is preferable for transportation than animals used in the past that despoiled roads. Fossil fuel supported energy is far cleaner and healthier for heating and cooking than wood and dung used in the past. Electricity is
    preferable for lighting than whale oil or candles use centuries ago. The list goes on and on.

    Environmental groups, and now Pope Francis, want to replace fossil fuel energy sources with solar, wind, biomass (wood), ethanol from corn, other biofuels, etc. as future energy sources. These energy sources are too expensive for developing nations. In addition,
    these energy sources require vast land areas in order to produce significant amounts
    of energy. This requires destroying millions of square miles of forest land that cleans our air and water, creates oxygen, helps cool the planet, and provides recreation.

    Thus Pope Francis want to turn upside down the original goals of Earth Day and leave the planet poorer, less healthy, drudgery for a lifestyle, and lacking creature comforts. If these goals are achieved, a day will come when the Vatican will renounce Pope Francis’s intervention into the global warming debate as was done on Church’s treatment of Galileo.

    James H. Rust, Professor of nuclear engineering (retired Georgia Institute of Technology)

    • Dick Prudlo

      Saint Robert had it right and Galileo had it wrong. There are theories that the Earth revolves around the sun, nothing more. The Church then believed what the Bible spoke, today it does not.

      The current chamber of horrors (Vatican) houses the largest accumulation of anti-Catholics on the globe, and they will take the house down with this foolishness. Needless to say, they want us to take our eye off the ball on the “family” issues and talk about this crap.

      • Paddy

        A century BEFORE Galileo, the church agreed with Copernicus that the Sun was the center of the solar system. Galilei was just a pain in the neck.

        • Dick Prudlo

          Paddy, please advise where that proclamation is found?

      • Jdonnell

        That’s right! They’re all wrong, but you.

        • Dick Prudlo

          All right, Mr. Donnell provide me with the proof that the earth moves. Then I’ll believe the theories.

          • Jdonnell

            You’ll be happier in your ignorance. Just hope that you will eventually get some movement in your bowels.

            • Kind of obsessed with scatological references, aren’t you?

              • Guest

                Well, his interest makes sense given his defense of all things “gay”.

    • DE-173

      On an somewhat tangential matter, what is your opinion on thorium salt reactors?

      • Dick Prudlo

        I know your being cute, but LFTR”s or DMSR’s are safer nuclear reactors due to their liquid state and cheaper too. The short answer.

        • I’m not being “cute”, but I was hoping for an answer from Professor Rust, since he’s the nuclear engineer, that might be somewhat more insightful than what you wrote-which I already gathered from youtube.

    • FreemenRtrue

      center of our solar system?
      how about the US developing fail safe nuclear modular systems(ala Babcock & Wilcox) for domestic use and for export to third world countries. Let’s make energy, the basis of all material production, the cause celebre in the world instead of titlting with windmills ala PF.

    • Jdonnell

      Your reference to the 17th Century and the Church’s condemnation is apt, but in the way opposite to what you think. If the Church were to take a position denying that science supported the view that climate change were taking place, then the Church would be behaving as it did in Galileo’s time. Were folks like you in the Vatican, this position might become a reality. Fortunately, a more sensible prevails there.

      • Thomas J. Hennigan

        The problem is that global warming is based on bogus science. The best thing to Church should do is to say nothing as this bogus science is eventually going to be discovered.

        • Jdonnell

          The overwhelming consensus among scientists affirms GW. You are saying exactly what the deniers re. smoking and cancer used to say. Or what some in the Vatican said re Galileo. Even if it were the case that GW was not occurring, the easily demonstrable fact that the earth, water, and air are horrendously polluted should necessitate an urgent call for a more active stewardship. One is long overdue.
          Those who think that GW is merely a govt. excuse for more govt. are being paranoid or simply don’t want any interference in corporate business, whatever their pollution and effects.

          • Ben S D

            The deniers are conspiracy theorists. They need to embrace reality.

            • “Deniers” – sure sign of a dronebot.

              • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                Remember that science denial is not the same as skepticism. In fact, it’s the polar opposite. Skepticism is a healthy part of science. It involves looking at the evidence and THEN forming a conclusion. Science denial is the reverse process. It involves forming a conclusion and then dismissing all the evidence.

            • zlop

              Reality is that the Pope is an Evil World Order Operative.

            • santiago

              Yes we are all CT’s, we are close to any sort of rational argument, just because we are crazy. And everyone that critiques Israel is an anti semite jew hater.

          • Vlargoth

            Do you have any competent evidence for this ‘overwhelming’ consensus? Surely you don’t have the activist antics of Schneider, Oreskes, Anderegg, Doran and Cook’s ‘crusher crew’ in mind?

            I must say that it is wonderful that science can be done by consensus now. Just think of all the money that can be saved. Instead of having to build particle accelerators and satellites, accredited experts need only to vote, and many fascinating issues could be settled without any actual investigation.

            • Jdonnell

              The fact that you don’t know if there is a scientific consensus on GW and haven’t bothered to find out says something about your attitude. First you ask if there is a consensus; then, you turn up your nose at the idea of a scientific consensus. Of course, it does matter if there is a scientific consensus; it means that multiple experts have examined the matter and reached similar conclusions. A scientific consensus holds that the Earth is round, despite flat-earth deniers. You put yourself in with them.

              As to a consensus among scientists re GW, see: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

              This article cites 97% of scientists who agree about GW as happening in a dangerous way, and contributed to by human action. As the report on this site says,

              “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.”
              And, the report goes on to list all the various scientific organizations that have issued statements to that effect.
              You dismiss “epistemic authorities,” but science is based on observation and experiment by trained scientific experts. Your head-in-the-sand attitude is neither scientific nor Christian.

              • santiago

                I do not care about consensus, and neither should a scientist, what I do care about is evidence and logic and there is a lot of evidence that the amount of CO2 that the whole of humanity expels or produces, is tiny compared to a single volcanic eruption, or tectonic movement, and most probably not enough to have a significant impact on climate change. GW is still on the might be but not in the it is. There is a lot of disparity in the data and just because many scientists have reached a consensus it does not make it a certainty, there have been many instances in which consensus has been proven to have been due to hysteria or pressure. It used to be a few years ago that if many one criticised Israel, they were immediately labeled anti semites, and that has been changing, and just because you do not agree with something that does not make you a CT’s or much less illogical or ignorant. The same goes for consensus, when it exists it does not necessarily mean that everyone that is inside that consensus they are sheep.

                • Jdonnell

                  It’s true, as you say, that evidence and logic should prevail. The scientists who find GW taking place have both evidence and logic on their side. The consensus is not just a majority; it’s 97% of the experts on the matter. disparity of data is not significant enough to alter the evidence they find. Briggs is not a scientist but on this site has supporters who put ideology ahead of evidence and logic by defending him. Actually, “defending” is a bit morel than they have done. Their comments for the most part expose them as ignorant to the extent that some of them can’t even read what his cv says about his background.

                  • santiago

                    97% of the experts? really so 97% of ALL experts in all the fields of science having to do with the subject have reached the same consensus? Let me laugh a little bit. Exaggerating a point does not make it true. It is impossible to know that. Maybe 97% of the experts of the 100 % of experts that are part of the statistic have reached consensus but far from 97 % of ALL experts in the subject matter.

                    • Jdonnell

                      See my earlier reply to someone’s comment on this thread. The fact that you simply scoff instead of having any information on the matter just shows something about you. For you, ignorance is king.

                  • Mollie Norris

                    “consensus is not just a majority; it’s 97% of the experts on the matter. disparity of data is not significant enough to alter the evidence they find” – You’re doing such a great job of demonstrating that AGW-alarmist trolls have nothing to say other than ad homs and appeals to fraudulent authorities and strawman arguments, I’d like to see your dissembling in a list of the “97% of the experts on the matter:.

                    • Jdonnell

                      Wacko occultist views about the Illuminati, etc. tend to discredit one.
                      You discount the scientists but not Briggs, only, as your comments make clear, you take an ideological POV and accept what supports it, even if it derives from faulty sources (as the case study of Briggs shows) and from a non-scientist rather than droves of real scientists.

                    • Mollie Norris

                      Show me the “droves”.

                • Mollie Norris

                  Consensus is totally inappropriate in a scientific discussion, of course. How about a 100% consensus that water boils at 110 degrees C, for example. Physical laws just don’t care what we think. AGW is a scam created by Club of Rome depopulation supporters and monopoly bankers as a means of achieving a global plutarchy and eliminating almost all of the world’s population. George Hunt’s videos made at the 4th World Wilderness Conference in 1987 include Edmund de Rothschild’s statement that they might even adopt Dr. Irving Mintzner’s CO2 GHG theory. Mintzner is an economist with no background in science who is now a CEO of a green development firm. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but nothing in nature acts independently, and AGW theory was merely a tool to establish a totalitarian fascist global regime – David Rockefeller was one of the founders and mentioned a NWO global government in his autobiography, and set up the Club of Rome to work up the plan, and Maurice Strong is the main player in the scenario, whcibegan in the 70s. Rothschild began funding green projects by selling shares in his private Geneva bank to the bankers and UN diplomats et al following the 4th WW Conference.
                  The “peak oil” scam and AGW are both excuses for depopulation – the meme that the earth can’t sustain the current human population. Club of Rome quote from “The First Global Revolution”; “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

                  The guiding principle is the Illuminati Code (Elders of Zion is a disinformation term);, and Jesuit Aaron Weishaupt was commissioned by Mayer Amschel Rothschild to write it. Yale Skull and Bones is the US Illuminati headquarters
                  http://green-agenda.com/
                  http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_History.htm
                  http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GlobalGovernance.htm
                  http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/UN_AGWscam.htm
                  http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/AGWSocialism.htm

                  • santiago

                    There has been 100% consensus in the past and it has been wrong, until something is proven, and consensus is due to proof I will take in to consideration consensus due to proof and not the other way around.

                    • CB

                      “there is a lot of evidence that the amount of CO2 that the whole of humanity expels or produces, is tiny compared to a single volcanic eruption”

                      If that were true, you should be able to point to that evidence… right?

                      “all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities”

                      volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

                  • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                    “Physical laws just don’t care what we think. ”
                    Well, I’d agree with that. That’s why the scientific consensus bows to the “dictatorship of facts,” while wild opinions on the Internet that Lucifer is behind the “AGW hoax” don’t add up.

              • Mollie Norris

                If you repeat a lie enough times people will believe it.

                But 41/11944,= .3, not 97%, John Cook’s consensus. The fraud in government climate agencies is disgusting.

                • Jdonnell

                  Your replies to other comments show that your paranoid claims (Illuminati behind GW claims, etc.) are really not worth any response. In addition to those nutty claims, you have misrepresented Briggs’s credential by falsely claiming that he had a doctorate in science, which your own listing of his credentials showed was not the case.

                  You claim that the truth about GW is being suppressed, but you cite all the publications by Briggs, which gives the lie to your claim about suppression.

                  You deny the scientific consensus with the goofy, meaningless math in your above comment, despite the NASA citation given in an earlier reply.

                  Briggs, himself, has been shown to be in error in his methodology and claims. See, for example, the careful explanation of Briggs’s basic errors in http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-study-of-the-tactics-of-climate-change-denial-in-which-i-am-the-target/.
                  This article is a “case study” of Briggs’s erroneous methodology and false conclusions based on that methodology. It’s quite clear in its arguments and ought to warn readers away from accepting Briggs as an “expert.”

                  • Mollie Norris

                    I posted a quote from John Christy at UAH stating that the Obama regime is a lot more oppressive than previous administrations. Briggs published most of his work before Obama. Willie Soon and Briggs published their paper showing that IPCC models were using an incorrect algorithm written to dtermine amplification in electronic circuits that overestimated CO2 feedback by a factor of three recently in a Chinese journal because US journals don’t publish research opposing the party line.

                    Phil Plait is an excellent example of the inherent dishonesty of AGW-alarmist; your link is is a great example. Plait states “Those point are in fact measurements, though they are not raw measurements right off the thermometers. They have been processed, averaged, in a scientifically rigorous way to make sure that the statistics derived from them are in fact solid”.

                    A measurement is a value determined by measurement, not a value that’s been “processed and averaged” to produce a predetermined result. You and Phil really have a handle on NWO math, 2+2=5, as well as NWO language; words are defined to support my dissembling.

                    • Jdonnell

                      Your first and last sentences in this latest reply only confirm the screwball perspective you take. I take it that NWO stands for New World Order, another of the paranoid statements like the earlier ones. Briggs, who lists all sort of articles in his cv, will now be able to add this one from Crisis, as if it were some sort of an achievement. Maybe he will be able to take a job at the Weather Channel.
                      He no longer has the assistant professorship at Cornell and is reduced to the status of an adjunct–a position that has no permanence, is not tenure-earning, etc. I suppose this situation is only evidence of more behind-the-scenes work of the Illuminati and the New World Order. I have nothing more to add.

                    • Mollie Norris

                      Really, you’re all out of lies
                      ?”Except for a two-week period each summer at Cornell, I am wholly independent; i.e., I have no position”.
                      http://wmbriggs.com/contact/

                      I’m glad you were able to confirm Briggs’ statement – an honest guy.

                      “He no longer has the assistant professorship at Cornell and is reduced to the status of an adjunct–a position that has no permanence, is not tenure-earning, etc. I suppose this situation is only evidence of more behind-the-scenes work of the Illuminati and the New World Order. I have nothing more to add.”

                      “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations of the world will accept the New World Order.”
                      David Rockefeller, speaker at a UN Business Conference, Sept. 19, 994

                      “The Illuminati seek to establish a New World Order
                      Their objectives are
                      1) Abolition of all ordered world governments
                      2) Abolition of private property
                      3) Abolition of Inheritance
                      4) Abolition of patriotism
                      5) Abolition of the family
                      6) Abolition of religion
                      7) Creation of a world government

                      There have always been occultists who practiced the process of illumination, but the term “Illuminati” was used first in the 15th century by enthusiasts in the occult arts, signifying those who claimed to possess “Light” communicated directly from some higher source through mysticism. We find “Illuminati” in Spain at around the end of the 15th century. The founder of the Jesuit order, Ignatius Loyola, classed himself as a member of the Illuminati. ”
                      Adam Weishaupt

                      NWO quotes
                      https://www.google.com/search?q=nwo+quotes&espv=2&biw=1422&bih=950&tbm=isch&imgil=oPKHzf5eWw-DbM%253A%253Bj3ywZJ1U3Al_RM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fantimatrix.org%25252FConvert%25252FBooks%25252FZioNazi_Quotes%25252FNWO.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=oPKHzf5eWw-DbM%253A%252Cj3ywZJ1U3Al_RM%252C_&usg=__xy2_T_zaa7OsQiI8FyMUMF1V7BA%3D

                    • CB

                      “41/11944,= .3, not 97%, John Cook’s consensus.”

                      The fact that CO₂ warms planets wasn’t proven by John Cook.

                      It was proven by a man named John Tyndall over 100 years ago:

                      “In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases… Tyndall’s experiments… showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation”

                      earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall

                      Is it likely he was starting some conspiracy and no scientist on Earth has noticed in over a century?

                      …or is it more likely you’re mentally ill and attempting to invent a conspiracy where none exists?

                    • Jdonnell

                      How sad that you have obviously wasted so much time chasing fantasy history. I happen to know something about Renaissance occultism and the modern paranoid views that see a grand conspiracy. You would do better to spend your time on the threats and realities that are quite openly going on around you–starting with the fact that the middle class is shrinking as the wealthiest siphon off their wealth. The world becomes more and more polluted, and even today, the paper has news of how lobbyists are trying to keep the FDA from keeping formaldehyde out of clothes, wallpaper, paint, wood floors, etc. These are examples of real problems that we should be dealing with, instead of wasting time in hand-wringing over some world plot, which is only the latest of many variants from over the years. Keeping people occupied with these plots is more likely to be a real plot that the plots themselves.

                • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                  Mollie Norris, don’t you think it’s incredibly unethical to continually slander people the way you do? From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

                  “2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.”

              • F.Chips

                It only takes one scientist to prove a scientific theory false.

                • Jdonnell

                  That wouldn’t include Briggs, then, would it. Remember, he’s not a scientist and neither has he proved or disproved anything
                  No scientist has disproved GW.

            • santiago

              How about observation? There is no denying that pollution is a WW problem. There is also no denying that resources are limited, and until science reaches a point that can reproduce or produce or acquire through space exploration and other means more resources, then population is in fact a problem, it may not be a problem with GW but it is a problem with a lot of other things. And it is not population’s fault but business, e.g. pet, look at the north Pacific gyre and how many tons of pet are floating around thanks to coca cola, when coca cola should be responsible and pay and change it’s practices. After WWII everything became disposable in order to serve corporations greed, and everything became cheapened and not necessarily less expensive. Demand for corporations returns by shareholders has been steadily growing, and inequality as well. This has only served a very few people, that do not want to take responsibility for that.

            • Mollie Norris

              My list of sites discrediting the 97% consensus literature surveys.

              None of them include the fact that around 60 well-known scientists who don’t support AGW-alarmism and have many publications are mysteriously absent in all surveys. The Oregon Petition is still by far the most important and the only attempt to find the opinion of scientists with a BS or higher in the general public.
              http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/la
              http://www.populartechnology.n
              http://www.populartechnology.n
              http://www.populartechnology.n
              http://joannenova.com.au/2013/
              http://hockeyschtick.blogspot….
              http://www.globalwarming.org/2
              http://link.springer.com/artic
              http://sppiblog.org/news/the-9

              • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                Again, the Oregon Petition is a huge joke. Someone signed it on behalf of her dog! The signatures are meaningless. None of your links are credible. They cite false experts and misrepresent information.

                • Mollie Norris

                  Yes, there were some jokers whose signed it and whose names have been removed from the total. If 99% of the signatures weren’t valid, the total, 319, would be greater than the totals of all of the consensus literature surveys combined.
                  The signatures are all posted on the website and can be verified by anyone who prefers facts to ad hominem attacks.

                  • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                    A study of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on AGW published between 1991 and 2011 found over 97% of the papers supported the scientific consensus. Remember that several scientists were probably involved in every paper. For each of those scientists, there are several people who read those articles. Certainly the number of scientists agreeing with the consensus is far greater than 319.

        • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

          Thomas, if you want to hold that position, you need to defend it credibly. The science on AGW has passed the hypothetical phase and is now a well-established theory. Yes, it is possible that all these scientists with PhDs in climate-related fields are wrong, but don’t you think it’s much more likely that they know something you don’t know? There are any laymen who have thought about AGW for 10 minutes and are convinced they’re right and the scientists are wrong. Think about which is the more likely scenario.

          • Mollie Norris

            The null hypothesis; the hypothesis that global warming is due to natural causes, hasn’t been disproven since the first IPCC report in 1990. NASA research has shown that environmental regulations, not CO2, have caused Arctic warming. This is science, not politics, so it was censored by the media. Comments here supporting global warming are consistently narcissistic – ‘I believe this because I choose to, based on authorities that I have no intention of validating as speakers of truth.

            “New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

            Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2.”

            http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/

            • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

              Mollie, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Dr. Drew Shindell is one of the darlings of the pro-IPCC and the Real Climate crowd. In fact, he’s one of those who believe climate sensitivity is on the high end (meaning he thinks the planet will warm faster than most experts are predicting.) For this, he is frequently derided on denier blogs.

              We all know about the effects of aerosol particles, and Dr. Shindell more than any of us. To quote Dr. Shindell directly:
              “I wish we could take some solace from the slowdown in the rate of warming, but all the evidence now agrees that future warming is likely to be towards the high end of our estimates so it’s more clear than ever that we need large, rapid emissions reductions to avoid the worst damages from climate change.”

              And what is “narcissistic” about being humble enough to think that the vast majority of experts know more about this than you do? Narcissism would be assuming you know better than the scientific consensus, but you’re above writing a paper to prove it wrong!

              • Mollie Norris

                Shindell works for NASA and isn’t a credible source on Obama administration policy, and Mann and Schmidt sure aren’t credible. The statement I mentioned referred to aerosols and EPA regs; interagency backstabbing that doesn’t conflict with Obama’s policy. Gavin Schmidt isn’t a scientist; he’s a computer modeler with a PhD in a computer-related field.

                “Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates”

                NASA.

                Continual references to a mythical 97% consensus while ignoring evidence of fraud is narcissistic; a statement that your opinion supersedes fact. It’s also cognitive bias, and at least two of the people who’ve published “97% consensus” papers, psychologist Lewandsky and his current grad student, skepticalscience’s John Cook, are exploiting their research on decision-making and changes in beliefs in the presence of new information in conjunction with their consensus publications. People remember the earliest information, and don’t easily update it in the presence of new facts, so they know 97% will be retained after their surveys are discredited – they’re professional perception engineers, they’re not trying to assess the opinions of scientists, they’re creating headlines.Some references on misrepresentation in consensus surveys.
                http://www.forbes.com/sites/la
                http://www.populartechnology.n
                http://www.populartechnology.n
                http://www.populartechnology.n
                http://joannenova.com.au/2013/
                http://hockeyschtick.blogspot….
                http://www.globalwarming.org/2
                http://link.springer.com/artic
                http://sppiblog.org/news/the-9

                • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                  Actually Drew Shindell is Professor of Climate Sciences at Duke. Gavin Schmidt has a degree in math from Oxford and a PhD in applied math, which has broad applications to many scientiic fields, including physics and climatology. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the top researchers of 2004. I’m not sure how you could conclude that he’s “not a scientist.”

        • Mollie Norris

          Of course it’s based on bogus science – that’s why 31,487 scientists signed the Oregon Petition, the only consensus based on the general population of scientists with a BS or higher degree, and our names are included on the website for verification.
          http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

          “By turning all kinds of environmentalist desiderata—recycling, not trespassing on the wilderness, eating only organic, seasonal, and locally grown foods—into moral imperatives, and then equating those moral imperatives with the gospel, the movement becomes precisely what the Apostle Paul warned about in Colossians 2:20–23:

          If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

          The grave danger to the Church of Jesus Christ is that, even when it stops short of embracing the pantheism and biological egalitarianism of so much of the environmental movement, so-called “Christian environmentalism” can become the new Galatianism—a false gospel of justification by works rather than by faith.”

          http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/
          A coalition of theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, policy experts, and committed laymen, the Cornwall Alliance is an evangelical voice promoting environmental stewardship and economic development built on Biblical principles.

          • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

            Mollie, this petition uses a technique known as “the magnified minority.” Firstly, only an undergraduate degree in science is required to sign the petition. Secondly, over 10 million people earned a science degree between 1971 and 2008, so the 31,487 scientists who supposedly signed this petition represent a very, very small percentage of Americans with science degrees. Thirdly, only 0.1% of signatories are climate scientists. Fourthly, anyone can sign the petition by claiming to have a science degree and can sign it multiple times under different names. References are not rigorously checked. One scientist claimed that she signed it on behalf of her dog:-) Somebody claiming to be one of the Spice Girls (none of whom, as far as I know, has a science degree) signed it. In short, the claim that this petition disproves the scientific consensus is a myth.

            • Mollie Norris

              There are over 9000 PhD signatures opposed to the Kyoto agreement because its damage to the environment, hindrance of science and damage to the health and welfare of mankind.
              http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

              You’d rather go with the 41 scientists that are John Cook’s “97% consensus?

              • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                There are tens of thousands of scientists that support the consensus — not just 41.

                • Mollie Norris

                  Where are the “tens of thousands on scientists who support the consensus” hiding?

                  • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                    They’re not “hiding.” They’re being published in peer-reviewed journals, working for prestigious universities, NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations, and are associated with national science academies (not a single Academy of Science has rejected the consensus, while Academies of Science from 80 countries have endorsed it.) Remember, though, that a consensus is not indicated merely be a show of hands. It is dictated by the available facts. We all understand that the greenhouse effect should show certain patterns. When we test for these patterns, we find unmistakeable human fingerprints — empirically and independent of any models.

        • Mollie Norris

          It has been discovered, but the people who own the media are the ones benefitting from the bogus science..

  • St JD George

    I guess we’ve reached the point where you can no longer discuss facts and opposing views because the table has been set to feast on the totalitarian agenda, and only those well healed enough to not question the authoritarian over lords are welcome to the banquet.

    “You have to control yourself or you will be escorted out of here.”
    How dare you ask a question and challenge the authorities who know better than you.

    “Ah, so you made it in here, ha?”
    How did you slip past our guards who were instructed to keep you from attending.

    by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 2015622

    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.

    • GG

      The Liberals are in charge now. Wait for the usual defenders of confusion to point out that this episode is not at all as it really is.

      • St JD George

        Sometimes I feel like I’m having an out of body experience, sitting in the Coliseum like in ancient Rome, and watching the spectacle of humanity like a circus played out before me. Not one that entertains though, more like a circus of the macabre or bizarre. Maybe it’s a premonition of the return to the spectacles in those first three centuries after Christ’s Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension.

        • I find myself mourning more for the living than the dead.

    • Vinny

      Was a homosexual activist there who said this? “Business leaders and all civil society is on board [with the mission to combat xxxxxxxxxx]. Now we want faith leaders. Then we can make it happen.”

      • St JD George

        It’s enough to make me change my prayers for our fallen leaders and instead pray for his return, ASAP.

  • thebigdog

    For over almost fifty years, the left has been wrong about virtually everything… why should “global warming” be any different? It’s also interesting that they have attempted to reduce conservative concerns regarding the sexual revolution, modern feminism and the homosexual agenda to “the sky is falling, slippery slope, irrational arguments” — when the entire carbon emission hysteria is solely based on slippery slope, man made computer models which conclude that the sky is falling.

  • Bill Russell

    Four hundred years from now, will a Pope be apologizing for the junk science of today’s Vatican? The papal involvement in this is rank clericalism. Meanwhile, Pope Francis may wave his “Anti-Fracking T-Shirt” while Christians are being crucified and beheaded, but soon the laughter will be at him rather than with him. At least the laughter of history. We are in a sorry state indeed. It is lamentable that the Pope may even be willing to reduce the papal dignity by addressing a joint session of Congress – God save us from what he would say. Perhaps by then Washington, like Hell, will have frozen over. – But this is only the downward spiral of prudence which even before this Pope, saw “L’Osservatore Romano” deeply mourn the decadent Michael Jackson, and hail the election of Obama as new hope for the world.

    • NickD

      How does addressing Congress tarnish papal dignity?

      • Bill Russell

        A pope is not just another politico, and not even just another head of state. In the same way, the papal dignity is also demeaned by measuring “poll approval” of a pope’s popularity or lack thereof. Once one responds to such, one is victim of such.

        • NickD

          So he should never visit other countries’ governmental bodies, or address political leaders? He shouldn’t do anything in the temporal realm? Yes, he is head of state, and he’s a particularly powerful head of state because of his combined temporal and spiritual mandates.

  • littleeif

    Thank you for this article. The Lord may be coming to America to be crucified again. Let’s pray on the way he might encounter our Peter and ask him on our behalf, “Quo vadis?” For in our time of need, our Peter is definitely heading out of town.

  • jimbo_jones

    Bravo, sir.

    “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” stem from the old Malthusian and Social Darwinist ideas. “Sustainability” is a re-branded form of old eugenics. There is an implicit assumption that goes together with the notion of AGW – that humans are a cancer of the planet, etc, etc. That there are too many people out there, and so on and so forth.

    Now, given that the Church has heroically resisted the onslaught of the Malthusians and the Eugenicists for a couple of centuries, it should stick to its guns, and greatly beware cutting its own feet from under itself. AGW goes together with abortion and euthanasia. The Church must beware.

  • St JD George

    Here’s where I struggle. I am a conservationist who desires to be a good steward of God’s resources, as I’m sure we all do. What I resent is the unholy alliance with those who worship Gaia over Christ elevating this cause to state religion status, and the totalitarian approach to squashing all dissent. There are so many holes in the science that it’s worthy and necessary to have debate. I can tell you as a scientist that no scientist worth their diploma talks to another and calls them names for pointing out holes in their theories, that is what the peer review process is supposed to be all about. The whole thing smells to high heaven like a pile of manure and is not based on good science, but a political agenda instead. We should always be in the business of investing in alternative energy sources, seeing which ones are viable. Someday fossil fuels will likely be depleted but I laugh because they’ve been saying that their end is near for decades now yet we keep finding more. This from the same crowd who was screaming that a mini ice age is upon us not that long ago. I’m pretty sure that when God has had enough of our foolishness he is capable of releasing one giant solar filament from the fusion reactor above, or nudge the path of planetary scale asteroid elevating it from NEO status to a T- event, reminding us that it his will that will be done, not ours. Thankfully God is not vengeful and appears to have a sense of humor, or at least a lot of patience, but he foretold of his return and the day of judgment. As he tells us, let us not be anxious about it for only he knows.

    • JP

      What I find distressing is that the very correctives to the non-problem, Global Warming, have caused food prices worldwide to soar. The US ethanol mandates consume huge quantities of corn and soybeans. There were food riots in Mexico in 2007 to protest the price of corn meal; and the Arab Spring had its beginning in the Tunisian food riots of 2010-11. Farmers world wide stopped growing local crops to cash in on the gravy train of ethanol.

      • St JD George

        I have corn all around me and an ethanol plant down the street. I agree with you, it was a knee jerk and bad policy. Jay Leno s right to say get this junk out my car.
        You hit the nail on the thumb as I like to say. Government almost always makes things worse and exacerbates the problem. They need to get out of the business of trying to fix things their incompetent at.

    • Mollie Norris

      Exactly! AGW or global warming is the antithesis of conservation and environmentalism. Peak oil, then catastrophic global warming are theories proposed by misanthropic Illuminati (enlightened by Lucifer) as excuses for the extermination of all humans they don’t need, based on the fiction they created that the earth can’t sustain the current population. The Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” says it; “We came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, famine, water shortages, etc, would fit the bill”.

      http://green-agenda.com/

      • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

        Golly, Mollie! You and your conspiracy theories!

  • JP

    At least on this issue the Pope has joined the Moonbats. And he does so at a time when scientists are by and large giving up on the entire Global Warming narrative. I suspect the Holy Father is just convinced that the Bourgeoisie are guilty of something; if not heating up the planet, then we are guilty of “consumerism”, materialism, or something. It was never about Science. That at least should now be obvious.

  • I may be mixing climate and weather, but I am convinced something is happening, not from models, but from direct observation of my local climate.

    I am not convinced that something is evil and needs to be fought. I am not convinced it even can be fought, or is man made. But that it is happening, at least in my little corner of the world, seems undeniable.

    • fredx2

      What is happening is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the North Atlantic Oscillation.

      On basically a 30-40 year cycle, ocean currents in the northern oceans bring periods of warm, then colder weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

      This has been going on for centuries. Old newspaper articles from the 1920’s talk about the seals in New England harbors disappearing, and being found further north, where the waters were colder. In 1880’s, there are articles in the New York Times talking about how the Hudson River does not freeze over any more in the winter, “as it did in Grandpa’s day”

      Naturally occurring cycles. Nothing to worry about. We are now on the down side, and things will now be colder for a while. That being said, we are in a warming period on a longer time scale, and have been since the ice ages.

      • See, that’s the problem- locally to me, in the 1920s, people would take day hikes up Mt. Hood in the Summer because the glaciers would retreat enough. That is *currently* happening again, possibly as expected, except the 40 year cycle seems to have changed to an 90 year cycle (in that I can remember when year-long glacier skiing was available at Timberline Lodge without artificial snow machines, and had been since the 1930s, which is why the CCCs built Timberline Lodge to begin with).

        • Mollie Norris

          Graph of PDO cycle 1900- 2010
          http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

          • That graph shows that the snowpack should be returning – but it is not. Is this cycle broken?

            • Mollie Norris

              PDO is such a long cycle that there’s not very complete climate information for past cycles, but I know atmospheric H2O vapor is low. I’ve read that the particle size of some chemtrail components; nanoparticle aluminum for example, prevents condensation that has enough volume to precipitate – H2O vapor is dispersed as it condenses on small particles, then blows eastward. The allegations I’ve read is that water is being intentionally removed in this way to prevent its attenuation of microwave communication signals. I’m in Santa Barbara, and someone posted a comment that they saw a big school of mackerel yesterday, so if upwelling is starting, hopefully the high pressure ridge is weakening. I can’t think of a reason for the cycle to be affected drastically, but that could be because I don’t know enough.

      • Mollie Norris

        PDO plus El Nino. SST increase met the El Nino (.5 degree increase in SST) criterion in September, but NOAA didn’t call this an El Nino until March; NOAA began using SST outside of the El Nino region as a criterion for the first time, and reported only a “Pacific SST increase”.

  • NickD

    Why, why, why, is the ages-old Church jumping on this latest pseudo-scientific fad and throwing the skullcap in the ring with these globalist, abortion-loving, population control-pushing, money-grubbing, power-hungry control freaks????

  • John Albertson

    In 2007, the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People issued “Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road.” Among other anodyne admonitions, Cardinal Renato Martino wrote: ” The free availability of speed, being able to accelerate at will, setting out to conquer time and space, overtaking, and almost subjugating other drivers
    turn into sources of satisfaction that derive from domination. Cars tend to bring out the primitive side of human beings.”
    If the Holy See opts to reduce two thousand years of salvation history to banality, we can only hope that its animadversions on “climate change” will be filed in the same drawer with its instructions on what Cardinal Martino called “moving from one place to another.”

    • William M. Briggs

      I figured you must have made some mistake, or perhaps you were joking, so I had to look it up.

      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2007_104-suppl/rc_pc_migrants_pom104-suppl_orientamenti-en.html

      My favorite tidbit was “Evangelisation within the context of the road”, which narrowly beat out “Driving means coexisting”.

      Traffic law enthusiasts (surely most of us) will enjoy the “Drivers’ Ten Commandments” with “II. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm” and “V. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin.” So much for using the cigarette lighter.

      • “Driving means coexisting”.
        So that’s what all those “COEXIST” bumper stickers mean.

  • ForChristAlone

    Someone please remind the Holy Father that all environmental issues begin with the basic one – that of a woman’s womb. When the environment for the defenseless preborn is fully safeguarded, he can get back to us and we can then move forward on other environmental issues. I’d suggest that he share this understanding with the Secretary General of the UN.

  • fredx2

    My Goodness. The Vatican is making a fool of itself.

    Poor Pope Francis.

    • GG

      Lemme guess. It is the media’s fault, right?

      • fredx2

        Did I say that?

  • Ruth Rocker

    Great article!! Nice to see someone who knows what they’re talking about doing the talking.

    Of course there is climate change. If there wasn’t the planet would still be in the grips of the first ice age. Good old planet Earth has had many freeze/thaw cycles and will probably have many more. The thought that human beings are capable of destroying the planet by driving a car or using plastic bags is ludicrous. Comedian George Carlin was always a keen observer of human nature. One of his funnier bits about environmentalists can be seen at http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/251836-we-re-so-self-important-everybody-s-going-to-save-something-now-save

    I will warn you, there is some naughty language, but he sums it up pretty well. Environmentalists are a subset of the idiot-in-chief making a speech in Florida about declining resources having flown there in Air Force 1 by himself. The amount of waste involved is staggering and he has the unmitigated gall to stand there and talk about conservation!! I guess he and Al Gore came in on the same boat.

  • Alex

    Excellent article, but painful to read.

  • Defensor Vitae

    Boom! Way to slap down this nonsense, Mr. Briggs. The pope would do well to be wary of the wolves in sheep’s clothing who have made environmentalism a religion. They’d probably blame even the Sodom and Gomorrah treatment for turning their backs on God on climate change.

  • crakpot

    These people are the dove sellers of our day. Want to feel better about yourself? Sacrifice to us, …uh through us, and all your sins of impact on our lands, …uh the environment, will be forgiven.

    The Church should be overturning their tables, not helping set them up.

  • Paul Tran

    Climate Change, Sustainability are nothing more than bywords for some quasi-Marxist ideals. On the one hand it keeps the power-mongers in power and on the other it’s a money spinning exercise for the “fat cats” & pseudo-scientists. The real issue is we (in the west) are in a time which we are morally & ethically bankrupt; financially bankrupt; and intellectually bankrupt, thus those in power wish to divert our attention by trumping up some secular “cause celebre” that will further erode democracy and hand power further over to the oligarchs. Please see the attached article :
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

    • Green is the new red.

      • Paul Tran

        Very good …. never thought of the play on the color theme 🙂

        • Unfortunately, I can’t claim authorship. Forget where I heard it.

    • Vinay Bhat

      The Telegraph is a rag, not a serious scientific journal. I would hardly call the esteemed climatologists on the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, some of whom have won Nobels, “pseudo-scientists.” They are the creme de la creme of the scientific community. What is morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt is to play the ostrich when climate change has such potentially catastrophic effects for all of us, but especially for the “least of these.”

      • Paul Tran

        The Telegraph is the most popular broadsheet paper in the UK regardless of your opinion.

        Obama won the Nobel Prize, so what ? It’s a clique and a case of “you scratch my back & I will scratch yours” !

        The “ostriches” are the ones who tend to forget when the head of the IPCC had to apologize for releasing the wrong data & calculations on rising global temperatures even according to their calculations as unveiled by the University of East Anglia ! Read this article & open your eyes :
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/ipcc-head-admits-17-years-of-no-warming/

        • Vinay Bhat

          Oh, I’m sure it’s popular. Most tabloids are very popular. It is certainly much, much more widely read in the UK than any of the scientific journals, which is most unfortunate given that the scientific journals are far more likely to be accurate and informative. ‘Just don’t expect The Telegraph to be an accurate source of scientific information. It’s a sensationalist tabloid and has no interest in accuracy.

          • Paul Tran

            You obviously didn’t read my respond carefully. The Telegraph is a BROADSHEET not a tabloid !
            Did you even read the other link I attached in my last response ?

      • GG

        Nobel Prize is about politics. You are about 50 years too late.

      • “esteemed” = agree with me.

      • Mollie Norris

        Obviously, any source that disagrees with you is invalid, and anyone you support is the ultimate expert reference, and your non-existent references to climate change prove this.
        You have all the required criteria of a AGW-crisis supporter.

  • eddie too

    where can I find the scientific proof that a warmer earth is a more inhospitable earth for human beings?
    my study of history indicates that human beings thrive best in warmer climates.
    perhaps nature is behind all of this and it is natural that as the human population grows the earth warms so as to be more hospitable for the increased number of human beings?
    my own anecdotal observations are that plant life is thriving in our more CO2 rich atmosphere. crop production is steadily increasing where I live.

    • Jdonnell

      Eddie, thanks for illustrating so well the kind of thinking that typifies the reactionary Crisis chorus. To get on with your “study of history” try reading about what cultures developed in Europe compared with the “warmer climates” around the Equator.

      • Ahh yes, “reactionary”, the grand old damme of hard left insults.

        • GG

          That is the favorite word used by commies.

    • Vinay Bhat

      California today.

    • Mollie Norris

      Right- there’s no way to ignore the beneficial effects of increased temperature on plants and animals during the Medieval Warm Period. This and the subsequent Little Ice Age have been removed by Micheal Mann to create his hockeystick graph. The data was smoothed using a computer algorithm Mann refuses to provide to the public.

  • eddie too

    since creating a static climate is absurd, we must assume that a static climate is not what anyone is proposing. instead, we should assume that the climate alarmists believe human beings can produce the climate they believe is most beneficial to human beings. since, these same people do not understand the workings of the earth’s biosphere well enough to even predict future weather events accurately, I am greatly hesitant to trust their analyses and project them years in to the future.
    pope francis is a great proponent of collegiality and so far he has seemed to be quite trusting in the expertise of others. in the area of climatology, pope francis would be best served by understanding that there are serious and highly educated people who do not buy in to the majority views of climate scientists. he should also be aware that the people who are claiming the science in this area is settled are the same people seeking grants to further study this settled science. that innate contradiction should serve as a red flag for all of on the accuracy and reliability of the settled science predictions.

  • eddie too

    solar activity is far more likely to influence the earth’s climate than the presence of a minute amount of life giving CO2 currently present in the earth’s atmosphere.

  • Let’s assume for a minute that there is global warming. Let’s also assume that it is entirely or mostly anthropogenic. Let’s assume that we know the cause or causes and can measure them.

    Now you have to assume that process is reversible and you can induce “just enough” reversal.

    Now do something about this:

    http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/28890904/usgs-report-says-earthquakes-increasing-because-of-human-activity

  • PhD

    Socialism arose from the mad writings from Comte de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier in the 19th century BEFORE any form of capitalism. Both attempted suicide. Fourier succeeded. After the French Revolution, Saint-Simon was an aristocrat who longed for a return to the prior feudal system of the monarchy and the poor bourgeoisie as the serfs. The fundamental structure of the French feudal society was hierarchical to the extreme….. the Church (and in fact most religions) has a strongly feudal structure. Frances is a socialist who believes in Marxist redistribution and giving power to collectivist governments (e.g. Obama’s). His encyclical on global warming will be very destructive to the authority of the papal office.

  • Robbins Mitchell

    What in pluperfect hell are “inappropriate technologies”?

  • Micha Elyi

    I’ve been unaware that this or any Pope has a special Climate Forecasting charism.

    • Jdonnell

      Francis may not have “Climate Forecasting charism,” but, unlike the Crisis chorus, he can hold a book right-side up.

      • GG

        Shouldn’t you be at a fake marriage rally?

        • Jdonnell

          Shouldn’t you be changing your diaper and taking your meds?

          • GG

            Did you type that from a bathhouse?

            • Jdonnell

              No, it must have been someone else you saw there.

              • GG

                Still have that fecalith in your circle of Willis.

          • Q.) Why are left-wing radicals like diapers?
            A.) Location and contents.

            • GG

              He is a regular at Commonweal.

  • Yankeegator

    What next? Is Pope Francis going to call for an increase in abortions to decrease the surface population?

    This Pope appears to be a a secular, pluralistic, western leader and not a steward of The King’s Realm. He’s more concerned with the temporal than the spiritual. Diabolical disorientation in our time… Is. 5:20

    The world’s Pope indeed… The Freemasonic Horizontal Church of Man…

  • Vinay Bhat

    But think about the dangers that climate change poses to the very poor of this planet. When the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the IPCC, with all their Nobel laureates and top climatologists, are completely united in their view of the dangers, surely the Catholic Church has a moral imperative to act? Pope Francis is showing great courage and foresight here.

    • GG

      How many in those groups support abortion? They must be right. Right?

      • Vinay Bhat

        How do you know what they think about abortion and how do those views reflect on their scientific expertise? Look at what Pope Francis thinks of both abortion and climate change. His views are truly Catholic.

        • GG

          The experts are often heavily influenced by politics and ideology. That so-called experts support some political agenda is not science and is not evidence one should affirm their propaganda.

          The Pope is not a technician. He either accepts or rejects the proposals of the para experts. That does not make it right or true.

          My point is abortion is viewed by the “experts” as scientifically valid and good. The experts are frequently wrong.

          • Vinay Bhat

            Too many experts, too much agreement, too much evidence. The odds are now very, very strongly in favor of the consensus being correct. We can’t play Russian roulette with people’s lives and hope away the coming consequences. Pope Francis may not be a scientist, but he’s smart enough to understand what is happening and to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the scientists.

            • accelerator

              Yes, these points need to be answered. All the scientists in the world can’t be ideologically motivated.

              • GG

                All the scientists in the world do not accept global warming agitprop.

              • Ben S D

                Unfortunately there are a few motivated by Koch money.

                • GG

                  Yea, no money involved in climatology propaganda. Right.

                • More by Steyer and Soros, trollbot.

            • GG

              No, there is not too much evidence at all. We have computer models and propagandists. Too many credulous people today.

              • Ben S D

                We have empirical observations and hard-working Nobel prize winners with integrity and curiosity. Oh, and Pope Francis. And then there’s the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as someone else pointed out.

                • GG

                  You have models and propaganda.

                  • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                    GG, surely you are not denying the empirical evidence? If so, you need to educate yourself. We can dismiss the models (which BTW have accurately predicted an increase in the types of extreme weather events that have manifested for years now,) but not the temperature record or the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere.

                    • Mollie Norris

                      Extreme weather events have decreased; IPCC even admits this.

                • And the appeal to authority fallacy.
                  If you care so much about this, get off the internet.

                  • Ben S D

                    You misunderstand the appeal to authority fallacy. This fallacy should not be used in an attempt to dismiss the claims of experts or scientific consensus. It is unreasonable to disregard the claims of experts unless one has a similar understanding of the subject matter. To cite the IPCC, the PAS, and every leading scientific organization in the entire world as authorities is not a logical fallacy. It is a very compelling argument. Now if you were to say, “I believe the world is flat because my third grade teacher told me so,” you would be committing the appeal to authority fallacy. The difference is that you would be appealing to a false authority in the latter case. Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is a legitimate authority on the facts of the argument.

                    • An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.

                    • Ben S D

                      As you can see from the following site, the fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts or scientific consensus:
                      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

                      Ironically your misunderstanding means that it is you who is committing the appeal to authority fallacy by falsely declaring yourself to be an expert (which is the root of the fallacy.)

                      What you are saying is:

                      “I) I, DE-173, am an authority on climate science.
                      II) I believe that the IPCC, the PAS, all major scientific organizations, and the vast majority of climatologists don’t know what they’re talking about, are full of it, and/or are involved in some giant conspiracy.
                      III) Therefore, they are all wrong and I am right, and no further proof of my position is necessary.”

                      This appears to be the default position of most climate deniers.

                      It is quite different from saying:

                      “I) I, Ben, am not an authority on climate science, but I’ve done my best to assess the credibility and expertise of competing sides.
                      II) The overwhelming majority of experts agree with the conclusions of the IPCC and the PAS. The findings on global warming and resultant climate change are overwhelmingly supported by countless peer-reviewed scientific papers and the empirical evidence, all of which is available to me. The scientific consensus is extremely strong and accepted by every credible scientific organization on the planet.
                      III) Therefore, I think it far more likely than unlikely that the experts are correct.”

                    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                      This is correct. The appeal to authority fallacy rests on appeals to FALSE authority. When someone “dismisses the claims of experts of scientific consensus,” they need more than hubris and the fact that they’ve thought about this for 10 minutes. To have any credibility, they need to refute the scientific consensus in the peer-reviewed literature. Until I see this done, I too prefer to assume the experts and the scientific are almost certainly right.

                    • There’s treatment for hypergraphia.

                    • Mollie Norris

                      IPCC and PAS and AAS and NASA and NOAA scientists and universities, etc, who have government funding are responding to the question “Do you want to keep a job that won’t exist with no climate crisis?”

                    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                      Hmm, time for me to read up on the psychology of conspiracy theorists.

                    • Mollie Norris

                      A quote by Dr. Roy Spencer UAH.

                    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                      Because the fossil-fuel industry is so impoverished relative to institutions that award grands. Oh, and the oil and coal industries have never contributed a cent to the Heartland Institute or Willie Soon.
                      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

                • Mollie Norris

                  Don’t forget the Vatican’s telescope, named Lucifer.

              • Beware of geeks bearing formulas.

            • Who is this “we”?

            • Mollie Norris

              Not for anyone who acknowledges facts. Your statement is based solely on Obama’s McCarthyism and NWO control of the media.

        • GG

          BTW, the UN climate propagandists are heavily pro abortion. Was that mentioned at the meeting?

          • Mollie Norris

            Forced abortions.

            • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

              What nonsense!

    • Alan_McIntire

      FIGHTING climate change poses a much larger danger to the poor than “global warming”.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/business/an-environmentalist-call-to-look-past-sustainable-development.html?_r=0

      “American diplomats are upset that dozens of countries — including Nepal, Cambodia and Bangladesh — have flocked to join China’s new infrastructure investment bank, a potential rival to the World Bank and other financial institutions backed by the United States.”
      I see the poor of the planet are dropping the world bank- which blocks their access to energy, and are looking to China for help in deceloping, becoming non-poor, and producing plenty of CO2 as a side effect.

      • Vinay Bhat

        I think I’ll go with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, and every major scientific institution in the world in predicting the effects of climate change. I’ll take Pope Francis’s view on the ethics of climate change over your own, but thanks for playing.

        • Mollie Norris

          Go for the murder of 95% of the world’s population and Gaia worship with Pope Paul – give it a Baphomet hand sign for good measure like the Pope, too.

      • Mollie Norris

        The UN and World Bank and IMF have loaned money to impoverished developing nations as a means of seizing the natural resources they used as collateral on the loans since the UN was formed by convicted Russian spy Alger Hiss in 1946.

  • NUT BAG

    Considering all the of the questionable antics of the Catholic hierarchy throughout the centuries, does this really come as a surprise? Rome lost the meaning and message of Christ ages ago and traded it for power and control through doctrine that was manipulated, taken out of context or deleted to justify the actions of the church.
    Global warming dogma is really just more of the same with God being supplanted by Gaia.

    • Mollie Norris

      Somehow many people have forgotten the words “My kingdom is not of the world”

  • ranger01

    If this is what PF feels the Vicar of Christ should occupy his time with, then this man truly is in way over his head.

  • athanasius777

    I finally saw the light. I now understand what is going on. Consider the excerpt from the PAS document that Professor Briggs provided:

    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.

    With sufficient meditation on the inexorable logic behind the assertion of causal linkage above, it soon becomes clear that the real cause of climate change is the denial of communion to divorced and remarried Catholics.

  • Carolyn C

    Ezekial 8:16 And he brought me into the inner court of the house of the Lord: and behold at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men having their backs towards the temple of the Lord, and their faces to the east: and they adored towards the rising of the sun. 8;17 And he said to me: Surely thou hast seen, O son of man: is this a light thing to the house of Juda, that they should commit these abominations which they have committed here: because they have filled the land with iniquity, and have turned to provoke me to anger? and behold they put a branch to their nose. God says to Ezekial: these ministers have turned their back to the temple and the tabernacle, they face not God, but the sun(nature). Catholic priests used to face the Tabernacle – now they turn their backs on the Tabernacle. And Our Almighty says: Do they think it is a light thing to commit such abominations? And look they put a branch to their nose. They turn their backs to the Tabernacle and they focus on nature. These ministers in the Old Testament turned their back on God and they focused not on God’s laws, but on His creation.

    • Mollie Norris

      The global warming end-time scenario was written by prophets starting around 3000 years ago – before the drought and famine in Egypt described in Genesis. We know that most people won’t have eyes to see or ears to hear.

  • traditionalguu

    A Church leader who craftly bears false witness to join in a new world rulership, which Rome has always believed it is entitled to
    , cannot be leading by the Spirit of Truth.

    But maybe he can become the UN’s first prophet.

  • Alex Hradek

    The bright side of Pope Francis’ upcoming encyclical – it will be definitive proof that things penned without relation to faith and morals are not only fallible but at times worthy of scrutiny. Perhaps then the Catholics who hate the wealthy and the free market (Chris Ferrara, John Rao, E Michael Jones, etc) will stop treating Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno as if they are infallible gospel. If the Church can error on climate change, she can probably error on economics.

    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

      Likewise if Catholics can disagree with the upcoming encyclical, they can also disagree with Humanae Vitae.

      • GG

        No, it would depend on what is being conveyed.

      • Alex Hradek

        No they can’t. First of all Humanae Vitae spoke specifically on an issue of faith and morals. Secondly, all Humanae Vitae did was reiterate what has been held by Sacred Tradition for 2,000 years. That is why its teaching is infallible, because Sacred Tradition itself is infallible. You can go all the way back to the Didache to find a condemnation of contraception. Prudential temporal matters pertaining to the climate however, are simply prudential and temporal. There will be nothing in this encyclical that was a part of the deposit of faith, and no suggestion by Pope Francis regarding what national and international governments should do about climate change was ever held by the Church Fathers or ever contained within Sacred Tradition. In fact, if it conflicts with Sacred Tradition, Catholics are bound to reject it. Similarly a rejection of the free market is not a part of the deposit of faith, nor is there anything in Tradition to suggest that men must reject the free market in favor of a massive welfare state.

        • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

          How can the protection of life encompassed by addressing climate change NOT be about faith and morals. Climate change is a problem that cries out for an ethical response. We know recent extreme weather events such as the drought in Somalia, are going to increase in frequency. It would be extraordinarily callous not to work toward helping “the least of these.”

  • Craig Roberts

    WOW! Now THAT…is depressing. When the Church (the CHURCH!) decides that it is more important to focus on this world than the next, the end cannot be far.

    • Mal

      The Church is not focussing on the world but the Pope seems to be personally obsessed with it.

      • Craig Roberts

        You’re right. But the Pope reresents the Church. I think Pope Francis is obsessed with popular approval. Global warming is fashionable among the elites. More important topics like, abortion, terrorism, sexual immorality, global persecution…not so much.

  • John Willson

    We’ve been blessed since 1978 with two Popes who never lost focus on what was important and what could be left alone. Papa Francis has been snookered on this one, and it is a dangerous issue on which to be snookered. It will lead to something the Church has always warned against: the almost unlimited growth of the state and the increasing marginalization of not only the Church, but of the family and all the principles of subsidiarity the Church has stood for since the days Our Lord was on the earth.

  • teapartydoc

    I’ve spent many years considering a conversion to the Catholic faith, but a few things kept holding me back: homosexuality in the priesthood, inability to deal with modern forms of heresy within it’s own ranks (how many pro-baby murdering politicians are still recieving communion?), and the age-old bugaboo of protestants like my parents, the suspicion of a tendency toward trans-national totalitarianism stemming from this modern problem of heresy, that of chiliasm.
    I think this does it for me. So long.

    • doc, do you think we’re oblivious to that? We stay in spite of those things. If by “doc” you mean physician, then think of the Church as a hospital. Now get in the boat and grab an oar. The tempest is great, the ship is rickety and the captain needs crew.

  • FreemenRtrue

    I post it too many times but all the people upset with this pope need to read “Jesuits” by Fr. Malachi Martin S.J. to get an understanding of him. He is a typical Modernist Jesuit. He is stained by the Marxism of Liberation Theology. He is a second rate intellect from a third rate provincial country. He has no grasp of the world at large and is very susceptible to the allures of populism. If you read the book, which is a bit of a slog in places, you will gain a whole new perspective of the problems that affect our church. We will have to endure this misfeasance by this pope and hope that the Holy Spirit eventually shows him the light. At least he somehow knows that the Father of Lies is a reality; maybe he can grasp that embracing the unreality of global warming is the Mother of Lies.

    • My great hope used to be that some Pope would finally put a stake through the heart of that order, now I just hope the actuarial tables catch up with them.

      http://goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-many-jesuits-are-there.html

      • FreemenRtrue

        thanks for the link. Maybe when they get small enough, they will return to Ignatian ideals.

      • Ben S D

        How very Christian of you!

        • It is Christian to allow then to live natural lives and die-everybody dies. If an enterprise is misrun, it goes away. The world will be worse for the loss of Radioshack, than the Jesuits.

          It’s your side that hurries and mechanizes the process of death along.

          Of course, “who are you to judge”?

  • Jdonnell

    The glib tone of this article (e.g. species extinction referred to as “turning in their lunch pails”)suits its head-in-the-sand attitude. The writer–not a scientist–ignores the overwhelming view among scientists that global warming is real and a threat to the planet. Those who deny it recall those who likewise denied that smoking caused cancer. He thinks that science is political, but he is the one being political, as when he accuses government of being responsible for creating wealth inequities. As for bishops losing public attention when they speak, there is some reason for that, given the number of idiotic things that some bishops have said, starting with Cardinal Spellman’s proclamations about Vietnam, etc. Others since then have covered up clerical abuses, have been more concerned about sex issues than about the slaughter our tax money supports, etc. When bishops start talking sense, the public becomes interested (if not always supported in our anti-Christian cultural climate), as is evident in all the interest generated by the Bishop of Rome’s forthcoming speech. For Briggs to launch implicitly into criticism of his speech is only an insult by a nobody.

    • William M Briggs

      Actually, Jdonnell, Briggs is a scientist, a fact easily verifiable by surfing over to his website.

      Not only that, he has several articles in the Journal of Climate and other meteorological mags (nearly 70 peer-reviewed papers). He served for several years on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability & Statistics Committee. He was Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. And, just as he claimed, his specialty (a PhD in mathematical statistics and Masters in atmosphere physics, both from Cornell) is in assessing the goodness of climate (and other) models.

      Think of that! A real scientist commenting on a subject in which he is an expert! Does that, do you think, trump a non-scientist, non-expert’s uninformed opinion?

      I’m guessing his took a sardonic tone because he was exasperated that so much rank ignorance passes for “science” these days, and that there seems to be no solution. “And yet another science, so fine and frail, has handed in its dinner pail.” Look it up. Nothing beats Wodehouse.

      • Actually, William M Briggs, Jdonnell, IS NOT a scientist, a fact easily verifiable by surfing over to his website.

        Just so you know what your dealing with, here’s the homepage of JDONNELL.

        Yes, it does look like a senior citizen on myspace.
        http://mysite.du.edu/~jdonnell

        Note the lack of any scientific/quantitative/objective credentials.

        He shows up here periodically, generally when the academic year is slow and he’s lacking for his normal prey.

        • Jdonnell

          I hope this poor guy doesn’t start getting hits from the Crisis Crackpots. The false inference from the use of how I ID myself on Crisis replies is accidentally repeated in this person’s site. I am not the person on that site and hope he isn’t pestered because of my user name.

          • Ben S D

            I don’t know about Crisis readers, but some of these deniers are dangerous. Many climate scientists have even received death threats.

          • You might be the king of “Crisis crackpots”. (No need to capitalize “crackpot”).

      • Jdonnell

        Briggs is a statistician, not a scientist. An MA doesn’t confer the expertise necessary to be called a “scientist.” His academic teaching is in statistics.

        Even his expertise has been called into question, as on this scientific website:

        “William Briggs claims on his blog at wmbriggs.com to be a qualified statistical expert, and he felt moved to criticize Phil’s use of the graph and what the graph shows, but he totally screws that up clearly demonstrating that he needs to rethink his qualifications. Or his honesty.

        First, Briggs obnoxiously tells us that he has already blogged about how to cheat or fool yourself with time series, and that Phil had not read this blog post or done his home work, as though anyone on this planet was required to, or interested in, paying much attention to him.”

        For more see, http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-has-misunders/

        You make a big deal out of arguing for his scientific expertise, but you ignore what real scientists have to say about GB. Their overwhelming consensus differs entirely from what he argues. He is in the position of those in the Vatican who dismissed Galileo’s science.

        • William M Briggs

          Ah, the cowardly Greg Laden. Readers wanting to know about this man and his deleterious effects on science can start here:

          http://wmbriggs.com/post/15356/

          I notice JDonnell keeps trying to say Briggs is not what he is. Interesting, when it is easily ascertained that Briggs is a genuine card-carrying scientist. Readers might enjoy this sequence proving that claim, which also simultaneously proves the claims made in the article above:

          http://wmbriggs.com/classic-posts/#climate.hotmodels

          Lastly, it is worth noting that JDonnell is not himself a scientist, thus I think it best we follow his advice and ignore non-scientists on questions concerning global warming.

          • Jdonnell

            Frankly, you don’t know what I am. Briggs isn’t a scientist; he’s a statistician, trying to use statistics to discount real scientists’ findings re. GB. It is worth noting that the comment to which I am now replying relies mostly on ad hominem comments (which is quite different from my pointing out the facts about Briggs’s supposedly scientific credentials–an M.A. in “weather”). Rush Limppaugh is notorious for being unable to distinguish weather from climate. He is not alone.

            • William M. Briggs

              I’ll call that bluff. Let’s see your verifiable scientific bona fides, JD old son.

              To other readers interested in why global warming is not as problematic as the culture has it, this series:

              http://wmbriggs.com/classic-posts/#climate

              Finally (and then I’m out for good) to the commenter below who wishes I weren’t trying to make a living blogging, I’m right there with him. Amen and amen.

              • Jdonnell

                My bona fides are not in question. I have never claimed a expertise, only that I am able to read what the scientific consensus on GB consists of. That you now want to change the subject from GB to me is only an indication of your weak position. GB denial has been a lucrative position for some to take and publicize. It would of course be relevant if that applies in this case.

                • “My bona fides are not in question.”
                  One cannot question the nature and extent of a nullity.
                  I have never claimed a expertise, only that I am able to read what the scientific consensus on GB consists of.

                • Mollie Norris

                  You sure blew your only qualification; you’ve demonstrated your inability to comprehend arithmetic in your support of fraudulent consensus surveys.

            • Frankly, you don’t know what I am.
              Yes we do.

              • Jdonnell

                No you don’t. And, your comments show that you don’t know much of anything else, either.

                • You advertise your ignorance with abandon.

                  • Jdonnell

                    I cite facts and you simply attack me. GW is a reality; Crisis kids can’t compute.

                    • GG

                      They can think unlike the credulous.

                    • Jdonnell

                      Like yours, the deniers’ thinking is clouded–often by a reactionary political ideology and sometimes by the lure of money to espouse denial. Rush Limppaugh is an example of the former as well as an example some dupes and dummies see as a “thinker.”

                    • GG

                      The money is associated with the phoney global warming kooks.

                    • Jdonnell

                      Yes, it is awarded to kooks–the GW deniers. ExxonMobil has doled out plenty to them, to mention just one example.

                    • You in no position to complain about be attacked. If AGE is such a reality, stop wasting electricity

        • GG

          Your para expert is as authentic as you are.

        • Gail Finke

          A Masters in any scientific study DOES qualify one as a scientist. If every scientist in the world had to have a doctorate, we’d have very few scientists!

          • Jdonnell

            An M.A. in science does not make a scientist. An M.A. in physics does not make a physicist, etc.
            There are thousands of Ph.Ds in science, thank you. In an article in “Nature,” the preeminent journal of science: “The number of science doctorates earned each year grew by nearly 40% between 1998 and 2008, to some 34,000, in countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).”

            Some scientists do not hold doctorates but have made such achievements in science that they are called scientists. This does not apply to the author of the article.

            • GG

              You are the authority? Too funny.

              • Jdonnell

                You can’t seem to be able to read. I cited facts from a highly respected science source. Your comments have consistently been like the one you make above–empty, like their source.

            • Mollie Norris

              A sad strawman argument; 51 papers published in scientific journals is a far superior definition of a research scientist than your definition – someone who agrees with you.

              http://wmbriggs.com/public/briggs_cv.pdf

        • Mollie Norris

          Keep repeating your lies. If you repeat your lies a sufficient number of times they become true, you know.

          (1) Ph.D., 2004, Cornell University. Statistics.
          (2) M.S., 1995, Cornell University. Atmospheric Science.
          (3) B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1992, Central Michigan University. Meteorology
          and Math.

          http://wmbriggs.com/public/briggs_cv.pdf

          • Jdonnell

            Thanks for providing a list that supports what I have pointed out about Briggs’s credentials. The list shows no Ph.D. in science, just an M.A., which does not make one a “scientist.” Briggs is a statistician. His M.A. might land him a nice job as a TV weatherman, who could boast impressive credentials for that position.

          • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

            What happened to the PhD in atmospheric physics that you previously claimed he had?

        • Mollie Norris

          Probably an IQ or psychological problem; I can’t think of another excuse for your preference for the opinion of Greg Laden, a person who describes himself as a biological anthropologist, with no educational record or cv, over someone with a masters in atmospheric science and a BS in meteorology and employment experience as a professional meteorologist.
          Actually, George Orwell suggested another; “Ignorance is Strength”

          • Jdonnell

            Mollie, I’m afraid that you have the facts confused, as I point out in other replies to your comments about Briggs’s credentials. You are in error in attributing to him a degree he doesn’t have–even as is shown in the list you provide but don’t seem able to understand.

            You dismiss Laden’s scientific credentials but you also dismiss by implication the overwhelming scientific consensus on GW, which is summed up in a NASA report as:

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.” See: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            You can’t have it both ways: you can’t dismiss one person for not being a true scientist and therefore not worth listening to on matters scientific and then reject what nearly all the expert scientists are saying–97% of them.

    • Vinay Bhat

      Yes, the tone of the article and that of the articles on the author’s blog are rather combative. There are very few credible scientists in the world who oppose the consensus. The usual suspects are listed at http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12032015/leaked-email-reveals-whos-who-list-climate-denialists-merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-fred-singer-marc-morano-steve-milloy and include the author. I doubt that any of those who oppose the consensus would argue with the general idea that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will, absent mitigating factors such as increased particles in the atmosphere, contribute to rising temperatures. I doubt there are any who would argue that the earth is warming. Instead what we see is scientists arguing about the accuracy of certain models or the sensitivity of the climate (i.e., how much it will react if greenhouse gases are increased by a certain amount.)

      • Jdonnell

        You are correct. Playing with statistical models while denying GW is looking at a puddle on the beach and missing the coming tsunami.

        • I’m assuming you are an expert on playing with things.

      • Mollie Norris

        31,487 scientists versus 1 history professor at your link, Naomi Oreskes.

        http://www.petitionproject.org/

        • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

          The Petition Project is a joke. Anyone claiming to have a science degree can sign it. You could sign it dozens of times under different names if you feel like it. One scientist, as a joke, signed it on behalf of her dog. Somebody signed it pretending to be one of the Spice Girls. It’s hilarious!

    • Ben S D

      The tone is more spiteful than glib. The people that have opposed climate science and been proven wrong, repeatedly and publicly refuted in the peer-reviewed literature, have not always “gone gentle into that good night.” Some have been very bad losers. They’ve dug their heels in and berated the winners publicly and in a most undignified fashion. Thank God most climatologists who had sincere doubts 10 or 20 years ago have been willing to change their paradigms in the face of new evidence. There are only a few sore losers left, but they make more noise than all the good scientists put together.

  • Greg Cook

    Let’s try this: let’s take global warming off the agenda; however, can we then pride ourselves on how well we are taking care of God’s creation? How’s our water supply? How much pollution? How much chemical levels in humans? Can we agree that the state of the environment is bad for people and bad for business?

  • Marcelo C. Santos

    The Pope is infalible in subjects of Catholic faith, and only that.

  • I take the long view. Let us assume that humans are going to ruin…what? The world. Hardly. They may ruin civilization as we know it, but they won’t ruin or destroy the world.

    Remember the dinosaurs? The theory is that they were totally (except for birds, perhaps) wiped out by a rather large rock that fell out of the sky. And yet, here Earth is, 65 million years later, just chock full of all kinds of life in all kinds of environments.

    So let’s assume that humans pollute the world so bad that we wipe ourselves out, along with a large proportion of all living things–just cockroaches and lower forms of life left (although probably some lizards and small rodents, too). Then imagine that you have a time machine and come back 10, 20, 30 million years later. I think you would find that Earth would be a rocking place with lots of lush flora and lively fauna.

    And really, I seriously doubt, with or without polluting ourselves to death, that humans are going to be around in 10 million years.

    So relax. Pop the top on a can of beer. Sip and savor the cool brew while you’re savoring the beautiful, pollution-enhanced sunset, knowing that we can’t destroy the Earth.

  • Johnny Rango

    The scientists are all wrong, but, dear reader, I assure you I am right.
    Gee I wish this had been written by someone who isn’t trying to make a living by blogging.

    • GG

      Which scientists are wrong? The left wing ideologues or the smart ones?

      • Johnny Rango

        Framing the issue in that way betrays a misunderstanding of the definition of science.

        • GG

          Claiming science is not badly infected with politics is absurd.

          • Johnny Rango

            Badly infected, to the degree that the majority of climate scientists, by the hundreds, are simply venal liars who are bent on misleading mankind for the sake of their warped ideology, reputations and greed? And who is claiming this? A self-styled expert who says he makes a living from his blog? If this expert has so much on the ball on this topic, let him present his case to the experts and see if they agree. Oh wait, the experts can’t be trusted, are against “the truth,” and therefore the expert is sidelined to making his case at an online Catholic journal, where he can combine his views on what the “secular salivate” over with his bold eureka on climate science. Perhaps he and Michael Behe should team up.

            • Mollie Norris

              Briggs’ views are consistent with the majority of scientists, who are censored in the media, and AGW supporters are bigots who refuse to acknowledge the evidence of that.
              Briggs is a solar scientist and has many publications which present his case to to other scientists and statisticians, and you have an emotional need to ignore this fact since it contradicts your cognitive bias and isn’t a source of ego gratification.
              You’d rather quote a “97% consensus” in which the author, an independent cartoonist (skepticalscience John Cook) initially discards 2/3 of the data which doesn’t confirm his preconceived results (based on his emails) and labels 41 out of 11944 abstracts in support of an AWG crisis as 97% support rather than 0.3%.
              It’s only possible to ignore the many published references to this fraud if you’re really afraid of truth.

              • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                John Cook is a cognitive psychologist skilled in the understanding of the psychology of conspiracy theorists like yourself.

              • Johnny Rango

                You can cite your intuition all you like that those who disagree with you have an “emotional need” to do so. The fact is, yours is the marginal opinion on climate science.

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

          • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

            This is the projection of a conspiracy theorist. He assumes hundreds of scientific institutions have reached the same conclusions because they are involved in … a massive conspiracy.

      • Mollie Norris

        The ones who retract their politically correct statements based on pseudoscience when they get caught, for one: Left-wing ideologues are ideologues by definition, not scientists. Their ideology is destructive to people and the planet, and supports only money and power.

        “GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount. Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.”

        : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3Z1p9QIwc

        • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

          Daily Mail = tabloid. Please don’t quote this rag in any scientific discussion.
          As for your comments on “left-wing ideologues,” a study was undertaken to observe how ideological bias affects the understanding of science. A factual article on global warming was prepared. Then four groups were selected — two conservative and two liberal groups were selected. Each was divided into two sub-groups. To one subgroup in each category, the article was provided with a brief statement about how small government, free market solutions could be used to address climate change. To the other, a statement about government intervention to control climate change was added. After reading the article, liberals from both groups were able to cite the scientific information fairly accurately and were unswayed by the ideological statements in the articles. Conservatives provided with the same facts but an ideological statement about small government, free market solutions were receptive to the facts. However, the conservative sub-group provided with the same facts and a suggestion of big government intervention were more likely to reject the science and, in fact, to become further entrenched in their anti-AGW beliefs.

  • I see that there are a lot of brainwashed who swallowed Al Gore’s LIES.

    Good for you! Keep it up!

    “Scientific” proofs??

    Yeah! right!

    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

      How did I ever miss that brilliant refutation of all the scientific studies?

      • GG

        You mean the data they keep changing?

        • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

          You and Paul need to get your work published. It’s irrefutable!

          • GG

            Hey, you are a true follower.

  • Vinay Bhat

    “[T]here has been a growing divergence between real-world temperature observations and model simulations. On average, models simulate more than twice the observed warming over the relevant period. Over 95% of the models simulate greater warming than has been observed, and only a tiny percentage come tolerably close.”

    We don’t need the models to know that 2014 was the warmest year on record and that 13 of the 15 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000.
    http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally

    The models accurately predicted severe drought in the western US and increased precipitation and severe storms in the northeast. http://www.bradford-delong.com/2014/01/weather-and-climate-or-californias-scary-drought-this-year-the-view-from-la-farine-lxxxiv-january-28-2014.html

    We also know that unanticipated aerosol pollution, much of it from China, accounts for some of the difference between certain model simulations and real-world temperature observations. However, it is also possible that the models were correct and real-world temperatures have been underestimated by half.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

    The Holy Father is showing great wisdom by acting to protect humanity, particularly the poor, who will be hit hardest by the coming changes.

    • GG

      The “experts” cannot predict the weather next week accurately. You must be Al Gore.

      • Vinay Bhat

        Ad hominem. Non responsive.

    • Ben S D

      I would be interested in William Briggs’ response to your Real Climate article.

    • Mollie Norris

      Models didn’t predict drought: NOAA

      “In contrast to this pattern, the CMIP5 models have a quite uniform SST response to radiative forcing with a modest maximum in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. However, nature has deviated steadfastly from such an SST trend and, when looked at over even a century or more, the observed SST trend is towards an increased, not decreased, east-west gradient (Karnauskas et al. 2009), but even that might be consistent with centennial timescale natural variability (Karnauskas et al. 2012)
      http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/MAPP/Task%20Forces/DTF/californiadrought/california_drought_report.pdf

      2000 Year Record of Global Warming and Cooling
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Ljungqvist-2000-yrs-temp-reconstruction.jpg

      To the GOP and the Pope: Forcing Higher Energy Prices on the Poor is Immoral
      January 20th, 2015
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/page/6/

      • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

        Golly, Mollie, you understand so little of what you cut and paste that you’re a huge asset to us climate change believers! In reality, computer models predicted the current drought more than 10 years ago when Prof. Lisa Sloan and Jacob Sewall published their paper, “Disappearing Arctic sea ice reduces available water in the American West” (Journal of the American Geographical Union, 2004.)

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    Global Warming is a HOAX, invented by the UN and politicians. It is bad, politically motivated science and the Church should keep out of it if it doesn’t want to lose prestige and authority. Politicians offer money to scientists who are willing to dish up the results the politicians like to hear with only more money on the pipeline. Does anyone believe that because they are scientists that they are not open to corruption like so many other sinful human beings.
    The fact is that were are now in a global cooling cycle for some 13 years. Even if the hypothesis of global warming due to human intervention in the cllimate were true, it would only be about 1 degree centigrade which would also have positive effects.

    The most recents winters in the U:S, have been characterized by extreme cold, but the global warming gurus say (get this!) that the exteme cold is due precisely to global warming. There is no scientific proof that what warming is actually taking place is due to carbon dioxide which is necessary for life and is produced by plants, trees and the like. In fact, it is much more likely that it is due to some changes in the sun which affect the oceans, which obviously has nothing to do with human intervention.

    Why did the global warming freaks and gurus change the terminology from “global warming” to “climate change”? Precisely because the global warming narrative had lost credibility. As for climate change, it is extremely complex and cannot be measured properly by man and it happens constantly. Computer models tend to predict what those who make the programs want (garbage in, garbage out). Over the centuries there have been periods of global warming and global cooling. At the time of the Vikings Greenland could produce wheat. At other times the Thames in London was frozen over. Supposedly, the so called “greenhouse gases” are being produced by the increased activity of factories. How is it then that after World War II, when the productive capacity of Europe and other parts of the world was cranked up to the maximum, there was a cold period and during the Great Depression when factories had closed and industrial production plummeted there was a period of warming. Shouldn’t it have been the opposite? Temperatures are taken in cities and airports which are several degrees above the country areas. In a word, with money and ideology driving the global warming craze, scientists, many of them not the best, get the results they are looking for. Not surprising.

    I wonder if there will be a showing of Al Gore’s ridiculous video in the Vatican so that Pope Francis can see it and gobble up the ridiculous scenario Gore presents there.

  • Mal

    Global Warming fabricators Immorally conceal (or deny) the fact that climate models are faulty. I am not sure whether this is done by design – or not.

  • An Orthodox Christian

    There is a quote that I heard somewhere which sums it up beautifully:
    “Don’t discount the science because you don’t like the economics of it.”
    Yes, we can’t destroy the Earth….that is technically true, HOWEVER…we can kill ourselves and make life for what survives very difficult for a long time. His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew has for years been advocating for Environmental Concern. This activism has caused him to be named “The Green Patriarch.” It is great to see Pope Francis following in that vein…..as Christians it is important to be good stewards, and sometimes make painful choices to protect the Earth.
    We are woefully short sighted as a people, just looking at the dollars and cents of it. Libertarian/Conservative Economic Ideology be damned if it isn’t what will work.

  • Science

    Why are there no actual data or calculations shown to back up these broad assertions?
    Without data this us nothing more than gibberish diatribe. The writer makes very big claims but has not backed up s a single one with any actual testable data.
    Where is your data, show your math.

  • The Pope makes a huge mistake in perceiving humanity can do anything significant about climate change..

    Proof has been hiding in plain sight that change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide
    (CO2) does not cause climate change. The science is solid. Cooking the books hasn’t hidden the proof. Only existing data and the fundamental relation between physics and math are needed or used.

    The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause climate change are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

      So why is Venus, which has an atmosphere of greenhouse gases, so much warmer than Mercury, which has very little atmosphere but is closer to the sun?

  • zlop

    ” Why is the Catholic Church entering into the fray of doubtful global warming science?”

    City of London (Rothschilds) control Vatican Finances
    The Corporation of the United States of America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XHl4j5xF-Js#t=5
    “The Rothschilds & the Vatican” https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FNg6xwwc48Y#t=92

    • Mollie Norris

      You nailed it zlop!
      The disinformation mill has made it nearly impossible to state this truth without a troll attack claiming anti-semitism and/or tinfoil hat adhoms.

      • zlop

        “The disinformation mill” is enhanced by disqus. I have requested a block button several times. There are endless synthetic entities attempting to provoke and dumb down.As it is, cannot take disqus blogs seriously, just entertainment to coalesce thinking.

        • Mollie Norris

          You don’t think wading through tons of moronic bs and ad homs enhance communication? I don’t either. It beats deleted comments, though. Twitter has started shutting people down, and I’ve had disqus comments pending for days on some sites. Cabal control of the print media and death threats are pretty effective. Obama’s threats about prosecuting non-PC scientists for crimes against humanity seems to have backfired, though.

          • zlop

            Disqus has to allow some communication, to keep the channel open.
            There is a lot sabotaging going on. Even the firmware in some hard drives is corrupted

            Amusingly, Alex Jones prisonplanet banned me after I posted images of Shape Shifting John Kerry (no official reason given, just banned)

            White on Red ” We are unable to post your comment because
            you have been blocked by Prison Planet. Find out more.”

          • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

            Probably because Obama didn’t make any such threats, but don’t let facts get in your way.

    • Mollie Norris

      Amazing also that the Rothschild family owns a geoengineering company that’s dumping poison all over the earth and the Weather Channel to fabricate climate crises.

      • zlop

        “Rothschilds Conduct “Red Symphony” – henrymakow” is a good read. Now-days. more of a City of London and Chatham House conspiracy plots. — abeldanger makes the Serco connection for international plots.

    • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

      Because the science is no longer doubtful and a preferential option for the poor, who are being most affected, is part of Catholic teaching.

      • zlop

        “Because the science is no longer doubtful ”
        There is no doubt that IPCC, greenhouse, net bottom warming dogma is incorrect. On this fraud, global tyranny is to be built.

  • hombre111

    Sooo, Mr. Briggs is a certified expert on his subject, one of the two percent or so of scientists who deny the reality of global warming. Why is Pope Francis concerned? Because, as a representative of the poor, he understands that global warming is one of the great moral challenges of our day. The rich will always take care of themselves. Pope Francis is concerned about the fate, not merely of the millions, but of the billions.

    • That 2% assertion is nonsense. Those who are paying attention are aware the planet stopped warming more than a decade ago. Cooling is happening. The graph below is what to expect.

      Proof that CO2
      has no significant effect on climate and identification of the two factors that
      do cause climate change are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

      • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

        No, dude. As others have repeatedly pointed out, 2014 was the hottest year on record. Thirteen of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000. Some misguided attempts have been made to cherry pick data rather than looking at all available information.

        • GG

          Uh huh. How hot was it 10,000 years ago?

        • The planet warmed from the depths of the Little Ice Age until about 2001. Asserting that it is warmest at the end of a warming period is not very profound.

          Besides that, the random uncertainty in any of the data is about 0.09 K so stating that 2014 is warmest, when it is little more than a statistical artifact is, at best, not very knowledgeable.

          Five agencies report average global temperature. I monitor them all. Before some agencies started cooking the books, lowering earlier temperatures to make it look like there is an uptrend, the trend of the average of the five was down. The cherry picking is picking the agencies that have been cooking the books.

          The ‘pre-cooked’ data since 1996 are graphed below. (the reference temperature is different from the graph above (which uses all available information). Also, the above graph only uses the three agencies that go back to 1850 or earlier)

          • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

            This image shows how baseless your claim is:

            http://www.wildwildweather.com/dan/Skepticsrz.gif

            • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

              Also: There’s an interesting new article out by climatologist Matthew England (UNSW) in Nature Climate Change. It shows that while the atmosphere has continued to warm since 2001, 93.4% of global warming is going into the oceans, in which warming has not braked. Since 2001, we have been in the negative phase of the IDPO, which can greatly increase trade winds and reduce El Ninos. England’s paper can be found at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2575.html

              • Apparently you are gullible enough to believe that increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 3 parts per 10,000 to 4 parts per 10,000 radically changes the amount of solar energy that the oceans absorb.

                As to ocean cycles, the key word is cycles. The surface temperature goes up and down in cycles. The reported average global temperatures (AGT) use surface or near surface temperatures.

                • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                  What you look for are the fingerprints of human-induced global warming, and the most compelling of these is the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature change. The stratosphere is warming while the troposphere is cooling. This has been confirmed through multiple (including satellite) observations. The chances of this happening without increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide are infinitesimal. The disparity cannot be explained by the sun, by volcanoes, by external factors, or by internal variation (such as La Ninas, El Ninos, and other oscillations.) There is tremendous social diversity in the work behind this science with many (often competing) institutions from multiple countries coming up with the same result.
                  If you disagree with the overwhelming and knowledge-based consensus — which is based on a consilience of multiple lines of evidence leading, social calibration, and social diversity — it is incumbent on you to write a paper overturning what has so far been shown. It’s very easy to try to destroy and tear something down, but you need to be able to prove what you are claiming. The consensus has been reached through a very long and thorough process. If it is wrong, you need to prove it.

                  • The conclusion that sunspots don’t correlate is true but misleading. It is the wrong comparison to make. Those who truly understand the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) understand why. The excellent correlation (95% since before 1900) of calculated with measured temperatures is between the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies and measured average global temperatures.

                    The proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is not complicated. The key is realizing that, if CO2 is a forcing, its effect on temperature must result from the time-integral of the CO2 level (or some function thereof). When this is applied to multiple corroborated paleo estimates of CO2 and average global temperature, the only thing that consistently works is if the effect of CO2 is negligible.

                    A peer reviewed paper which identifies the factors that do cause climate change (at least as far back as temperatures have been accurately measured world wide) is published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471 .

                    A paper which proves that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is in review.

                    Both assessments are discussed at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

            • Actually it shows how uninformed you are. This misleading graph is cherry picked from the total measurement data since 1850 as shown in my first graph above. It doesn’t show the recent data shown in the second graph. Also, it only shows data from one agency instead of the ‘average’ from all reporting agencies that I use.

              Incidentally, SkepticalScience does not appear to understand the proof that CO2 has no effect on climate.

              • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

                The graph explains your error very well.

                Your claim that carbon dioxide has no effect on climate is one that even every educated climate denier would deride. Surely you understand the greenhouse effect? If carbon dioxide has no effect on climate, why is Venus warmer than Mercury, even though it is farther from the sun?

                • If you had looked, you might have noticed that your ‘cherry picked’ graph is just a small part of the full story which I used to get a 95% correlation with measured temperatures since before 1900.

                  Once anyone who understands science grasps the proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate, they agree. Its pretty obvious. The word is spreading. A brief explanation is in http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

                  The ‘greenhouse effect’ (never mind that it has little to do with how greenhouses work) is fine. Its the enhanced greenhouse effect that is wrong. Part of understanding the ‘greenhouse effect’ involves understanding a bit about spectroscopy, thermalization, reverse-thermalization, and the rudiments of quantum mechanics.

                  Thermodynamics explains Venus vs Mercury temperatures. CO2 is transparent (does not participate radiatively) at nearly all of the wavelengths significantly involved on Venus.

    • Mollie Norris

      No, Briggs is in the 99.7% of scientists who acknowledge that there’s been no warming for over 18 years; the scientists not included in the .3% who believe there’s a global warming crisis in surveys fraudulently misrepresenting the opinions expressed in surveys of abstracts.

      • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

        At least three studies have shown that between 97% and 98% of active climate scientists support the conclusions of the IPCC. The consensus increases when you look at people who are publishing papers on the topic. I have a friend with a PhD in computer science who has published over 100 papers in his area of expertise. He says he doesn’t expect climate scientists to be able to understand what he’s talking about and he doesn’t understand what they’re talking about, but he accepts the process of science and the “dictatorship of facts” over opinions. Bear that in mind when you hear electrical engineers with bachelors degrees or even biochemists with PhDs opining on climatology. Engineers, doctors, and computer scientists, etc., can all claim to be “scientists” at some level, but that doesn’t mean they understand the complexities of climate science.

      • hombre111

        18 years is the current conservative “proof.” Real scientists say a trend study of less than thirty years is invalid. “Yahoo Answers” laughs the 18 year argument out of town.

        • Mollie Norris

          Thirty years is the minimum period of time to define a climate change, but AGW theory is that CO2 causes warming, so the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over an 18-year period contradicts AWG theory, unless a lag time in temperature increase is added to the theory.

          • hombre111

            The Yahoo author is commenting on the unreliability of cherry-picked periods of time, in general, saying that a thirty year period is the minimum needed for anyone to talk scientifically about change, or the lack of it, over time.

            Anyway, it is good to see you toning down on the apocalyptic hysteria. Apart from the first creation story to appear in Genesis, in which man and woman are made stewards of the earth, I don’t pay much attention to scripture quotes about this issue. And we have not been faithful stewards.

        • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

          Of course, the atmosphere HAS warmed over the past 18 years, the oceans much more so. The “18 years” claim comes from the fact that 1998 was a very warm year due to the largest El Nino ever recorded, so deniers like to start “the record” from 1998 and say, “Oh, look! It’s cooled since 1998.” It’s an outrageous example of cherry picking. Then 2005 was warmer than 1998, as was 2010, which caused confusion. And, finally, 2014 — without an assist from an El Nino — was the warmest of all. 1909 is still the coldest on record. I wonder why we aren’t breaking cold weather records?

          Notwithstanding, the models predict that there might be a 10-year period of relative cooling (although that decade will be warmer than the 20th century average) due to a variety of factors. This will not disprove AGW” — it will simply indicate that other forcings are at play.

          • hombre111

            Thanks for breaking this down. Mollie, of course, will stick to her guns. People who study the brain comment on its ability to dismiss any argument or fact that disagrees with our cherished notions. I am probably as guilty of this as anyone else, but I do try to read the other side.

  • Billy Dee

    While I disagree and am frankly disheartened with the poster’s “doubtful science” claim, I do agree with the poster’s opinion that the Catholic Church has bigger to address right now than global warming/climate change; the distortions of the liberal media, the sex crisis, the marriage crisis, and the general salvation of souls is much more important than the climate right now. To the rest of you who agree with the poster on the first point – that climate change is a reality – your position is contradictory to science. Sure, you can say that “the science behind it is doubtful”, but that’s like saying “the science against geocentrism is doubtful”- it is simply a statement. Nothing more. The fact is the majority of scientists – including Catholic and theistic ones – are saying climate change is real. If you criticize Bob Sungenis and Rick DeLano for “The Principle” but you are one of these climate change deniers, then you may want to check yourself. That climate change is happening isn’t debatable; what is more debatable is the human impact on it and what we can do to slow it down. However, we can agree these issues should not be at the forefront of the Catholic Church, who has much more eternal problems to worry about right now.

    • Billy Dee

      bigger problems* to address right now*

    • GG

      The amount of propaganda and ideology involved in this topic is monumental. To even begin to sort it out requires skepticism not credulousness.

      • Billy Dee

        Why is it then that top Catholic scientists- including theologically orthodox ones – believe in climate change? Surveys that record temperatures and other data are not propaganda- they’re just that; data. You’re not doing the Catholic faith any favors by denying climate change. Many non-believers use people like you and geocentrists to justify their unbelief (bad reason, but there’s still no need to give them that reason). What is debatable is the precise effect humans have on it. Catholics are best to acknowledge science but work the salvation of souls first, which is why I sympathize a lot more with that complaint (that Pope Francis should be writing about moral crisises, etc.

  • Marie Fordtner

    Marilyn vos Savant in Parade magazine, May 3, 2015, Pg 11 answers a question: for 100 years, humans have been pumping water from the underground water table. How much has this contributed to the rising oceans?
    One team of researchers reported that the demands for water could account for as much as 42% of the rise, surprising even experts. When water warms, it expands. About half the rise is due to warmer oceans simply occupying more space.
    Personally, (Marie), Colorado River Water is used 7 times before disappearing before ever getting to the ocean. National Geographic photographer, explorer, forgot his name.

MENU