![Vatican-workshop-page-banner-1[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/vatican-workshop-page-banner-11.png?resize=620%2C304)
World’s Leading Scientific ‘Skeptics’ of Man-Caused Global Warming
Invite Public and Press to Open Events April 27 and 28 Just Outside the Vatican
The Heartland Institute is sending a team of climate scientists to Rome next week to inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate science: There is no global warming crisis!
Monday, April 27, 1:00 p.m. GMT +2 (7:00 a.m. ET)
Hotel Columbus
Via della Conciliazione
33 – 00193
Rome, Italy
A slate of independent scientists and policy experts offer a “prebuttal” to the Vatican’s April 28 “Climate Summit.”
Tuesday, April 28, 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. GMT +2 (7:00 a.m. ET)
Palazzo Cardinal Cesi
Via della Conciliazione n. 51 (Piazza S.Pietro)
00193
Rome, Italy
Climate scientists and policy experts lay out a detailed case explaining why climate science does not justify the Holy See putting its faith in the work of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Both events are open to all press and the general public. Go to Heartland’s Vatican Environment Workshop page for real-time updates, presentations, and podcasts.
For more information, please contact Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org (preferred) or 312/731-9364 (in Rome beginning Monday, April 27) or Gene Koprowski at gkoprowski@heartland.org or (office) 312/377-4000 or (cell) 312/852-2517 (in Chicago).
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Tuesday, April 28 is hosting a workshop titled “Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity” to “raise awareness and build a consensus” among people of faith that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming. The Heartland Institute – the world’s leading think tank promoting scientific skepticism about man-caused global warming – is bringing real scientists to Rome next week to dissuade Pope Francis from lending his moral authority to the politicized and unscientific climate agenda of the United Nations.
The Vatican’s summit features two men – Ban Ki-Moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, and Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs – who refuse to acknowledge the abundant data showing human greenhouse gas emissions are not causing a climate crisis and there is no need for a radical reordering of global economies that will cause massive reductions in human freedom and prosperity.
Heartland’s experts will send this message to Pope Francis: Please do not put the enormous weight of your moral authority behind the discredited and scandal-prone United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Instead, speak out for the poor and disadvantaged of the world who need affordable and reliable energy to escape grinding poverty.
“The Holy Father is being misled by ‘experts’ at the United Nations who have proven unworthy of his trust,” said Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast. “Humans are not causing a climate crisis on God’s Green Earth – in fact, they are fulfilling their Biblical duty to protect and use it for the benefit of humanity. Though Pope Francis’s heart is surely in the right place, he would do his flock and the world a disservice by putting his moral authority behind the United Nations’ unscientific agenda on the climate.
“People of all faiths have a moral calling to continually seek the truth,” Bast said. “That is why Heartland is sending a contingent of real scientists to Rome next week. We are bringing the Vatican a message of truth for all with open ears: The science is not settled, and global warming is not a crisis. The world’s poor will suffer horribly if reliable energy – the engine of prosperity and a better life – is made more expensive and less reliable by the decree of global planners.”
Tell him the benefits of preventives also. – They could actually help in releasing less human induced CO2 to the atmosphere….
We need more CO2 not less.
The Church doesn’t believe in preventives. It believes in abstention. It’s only a matter of time before they declare exhaling CO2 a sin.
jorgekafkazar April 25, 2015 at 11:45 am
The Church doesn’t believe in preventives. It believes in abstention.
Think about that comment, jorgekafkazar.
If the Catholic Church believed in abstention rather than ‘preventives’ (is that American for artificial contraceptives, or specifically condoms?) there would be no next generation. I don’t suppose that you meant to, but you are confusing two things. (Don’t worry, it is normal practice for non-Catholics to make confused comments when they comment on the Catholic Church.) The Catholic Church teaches two things which are relevant to what you are saying. The first is that sexual relations should be confined to people who are married to each other. That is called chastity. Thus people who are not married to each other should abstain from sexual relations. That’s your abstention. The second thing is that sexual intercourse should be open to life. That means that no artificial means should be used to prevent conception.
Best wishes for success on this mission. He should be fully willing to listen, or at least one would think that a man of his nature and spiritual outlook would listen with an open mind.
Did you forget the ‘sarc’ tag, or…? An open mind? This is the head of the Catholic Church, goldminor! An open mind? I can’t believe you said that.
Yes, I said an open mind, and I meant that in every sense of the word. I found it hard to understand how he could have arrived at his views on the climate debate in the first place. If he has taken his stance on faith, then he certainly shows that the Pope is indeed fallible. Whoever has advised him in reaching this decision is also derelict in not doing a diligent study to properly inform him of the two sides of the story.
>>Yes, I said an open mind.
Come on, Goldminor.
The entire edifice of the Church is based upon faith rather than facts. In fact, the less facts the better, because facts can be troublesome – both to the Warmist Church and to the Catholic Church.
Ralph
Note he referred to “a man of his nature” and not “a religion steeped in dogma”. We’re not talking Pope Benedict or Pope Urban VIII who turned Galileo over to the Inquistion the second time.
It’s certainly worthwhile to get all sides of the story to Pope Francis.
There’s the problem – right there. He is the man, the Pope and the figurehead of the Catholic Church all in one. As a man, he can be progressive and free-thinking, but be constrained from doing much by the office of the Pope and the conservative nature of the Church hierarchy. I hope he not only listens with an open mind, but has the wisdom to free himself of some of their constraints.
As a man, I believe this pope leans left. Hopefully, at the minimum, he will refrain from lending his authority to the CAGW crowd. To keep from amalgamating religion, politics, and science, the skeptics should also refrain from encouraging the pope to endorse their viewpoint.
But noaa, the position of a “skeptic” is to seek after truth, whatever the source. I hope the Pope is also a truth-seeker for that’s the only worthwhile viewpoint.
I was raised Roman Catholic. I am grateful for that, and for what they instilled in me. On top of that they were excellent teachers, and understood the need for proper disciplining of young puppies. The high school I went to was run by the Jesuits. That was also very good. You learned or you dropped out and went to a public school. I was certainly into the Catholic teaching. I was an altar boy for many years. However, my epiphany came when the time came to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. I was 12 years old. Being an altar boy, I was to be in the main procession for this ascension to a new level as a Catholic. As such I was certainly excited and filled with anticipation. Yet during the unfolding of the ceremony, I came to realize that what I was searching for was not going to be found on that night. I knew this with all of my being that my path lay elsewhere. And so I went in search on my own, with the gifts I had been given.
I was to receive the true Gift of Confirmation 4 years later. All of my life up to that point, I had only prayed for 2 things for myself. First was for wisdom, and secondly for faith. I received both when I was 16 years of age in the year 1966. Although the fulfillment of the second prayer request was unexpected. I did not receive faith. I received the gift of no longer needing faith to know God.
goldminor, no one’s arguing with that. I am a devout atheist, but I have absolutely no care in what you or anyone else believes. Believe what you want! My point is that the head of the Catholic Church, and Catholicism itself, isn’t, and isn’t ever going to be, ‘open minded’. It’s a contradiction in terms. Religion is a search for comfort, not for the truth. Even you must be aware of that. As such, ‘a’ religion insists that you close your mind to all the other beliefs and to the truth itself. A religion insists that you believe ‘that’ religion! Otherwise you are merely spiritual, and not a member of a particular religion. Do you see?
Sorry to be blunt, but to talk about the head of the Catholic Church being open minded is pure nonsense. And believe me, I’m being as polite to you as I can there! It’s much worse than saying that Michael Mann will look sceptically at the issue of AGW. I’m not criticising your faith (as I said, believe what you want. Who cares, really?), I’m having a pop at your choice of words and phrases. The head of the Catholic Church simply CANNOT be open minded. In this life, you either take things on faith, or you seek evidence. The head of the Catholic Church is the former, I am the latter.
@ The Ghost…you sound so certain that his thoughts are fully closed on this issue, and on other issues. Your thoughts are certainly firmly set in stone. It will be interesting then to see what comes from this meeting. Overall, I would think that the odds are no better than 50/50 of the Pope changing his stance. Still, I am an opened minded man myself, and as such I will not prejudge another,s thoughts, absent evidence to the contrary.
Global Warming isn’t about science; it’s about socialism and wealth and power redistribution. I’m sure Francis is perfectly okay with that.
Good luck with that, Heartland…
I hope you speak Spanish…
It seems appropriate to say ‘Godspeed!’
Ah, yes….CAGW “heretics” head to Rome to enlighten the Pope on the fallacies of CAGW dogma…
Historically, such envoys usually ended up with the “heretics” being excommunicated from the Church and a few imprisoned and eventually burned at the stake…
Hopefully, the Heartland envoy will only suffer being excommunicated from the CAGW religious cult…
Pope Francis is very Socialistic and CAGW is a very important doctrine of the Socialist catechism. I don’t see Pope Francis abandoning his strong CAGW religious beliefs, but miracles do happen…
I wouldn’t abandon hope yet. The Catholic Church is no stranger to frauds and corruption in powerful places. The child abuse scandal is significant enough to burn in their memory, and one of the Vatican accounting groups was found embezzling.
The pope should at least be open enough to consider the possibility that he has been lied to by powerful interest groups. There are too many lives at stake for him to simply dismiss this out of hand.
SAMURAI
This pope has his head stuck up Karl Marx’s ass. He needs to pull it out and read the bible from a different perspective.
Eugene WR Gallun
Perhaps there is a different perspective to Pope Francis’ MO. He seem genuinely involved in helping the poor. Truth is that poor islanders were indoctrinated they were hit by global worming, not a weather disaster. So Pope’s reflection to the event was a bit … lacking.
Please give this Pope a chance 😉
Brethren and cistern, let us all pray to St. Plagioclase for a miraculous cure for all sufferers from proctocraniosis.
Eugene– Pope Francis is from Argentina, which is ranked around 160th in economic freedom; just a few place above North Korea and Cuba….
Accordingly, Pope Francis was propagandized from his childhood in the joys of Socialism….
People from oppressive Socialist countries either become strongly anti-Socialist or believe the government propaganda and blame their failed Socialist system on evil capitalist exploitation….
Pope Francis is, unfortunately, strongly in the latter category, so I don’t see the Pope changing his beliefs on CAGW dogma….
Take it to ’em, Heartland!
I pray the Pope…. and the world…. will listen and understand.
I can’t say the Catholic Church has got even a poor record in science, with creationism etc etc. I hope the poor Heartland team aren’t burned at the stake – the common practice of the catholic church for scientist sceptics not all that long ago!
Cardinal Pell, now a senior member of the Pope’s advisory team was a well known climate change sceptic in Sydney before he was summoned to the Vatican. Heartland may do well to seek out Pell’s council.
It is the climate political scientists that are trying to ‘burn the poor Heartland team at the stake’.
Bast says: “People of all faiths have a moral calling to continually seek the truth,” Bast said. “That is why Heartland is sending a contingent of “real” scientists to Rome next week.”
I think the deal with the UN for the Pope to use his influence to sway the faithful towards agw belief was done a while back….dark days ahead…
Isn’t “The Pontifical Academy of Sciences” a contradiction of terms, just like Mr. Moon and Mr. Sachs are a contradiction on scholarship and science (because neither of them are scientists)?
Good for them – at least for trying. This is far too imbedded in the mindset, to expect a change in course just yet. The bandwagon is rolling and the pope and friends want to jump on.
Remember how long it took for the Vatican to acknowledge its errors regarding Galileo!
Kurt in Switzerland
P.S. Pierre Gosselin’s site “No Tricks Zone” is down. Anyone know what’s happening?
Pierre commented on Facebook that it is an Internal Server Error at the host site.
Thx, nzr.
‘The bandwagon is rolling and the pope and friends want to jump on. ‘
They need to be careful not to fall under the bandwagon, ‘twould not be music.
To the moderators – extremely important
Apologies for this off-topic comment, I hope the reason will become apparent.
I have been following WUWT since I first started studying global warming in 2008. I attended meetings for both Lord Monckton and Anthony, and supported them both, on my own blog and on WUWT. In 2010 in fact, I posted the following comment on this blog regarding the disgraceful behaviour of the alarmists in trying to disrupt Anthony’s talk:
Anthony even posted two articles written by me (URLs below). But now, after a period of relative inactivity on my part due to private matters, I return to find that my reputation, both personal and professional, has been trashed here by the behaviour of an anonymous coward signing my name to malicious, fact-free attacks upon other posters (whom in fact, I admire and whose opinions I by-and-large support). None of those articles coming from American IP addresses were written by me. I regard them as deliberate defamation on the part of the coward who wrote them, and if I can obtain proof of their identity they can expect a law suit. Unfortunately, it seems it was generally assumed that I, the real me, was in fact the author of those messages, whose contents I completely and absolutely condemn as the nasty, deceitful rubbish that they are.
However I am a real person, with an on-going history of absolutely honest, argued from the evidence, commentary here on WUWT, which anyone who looks back at the history prior to the attack of the coward a month ago will easily verify. I live in Toowoomba region Queensland Australia, I was for 30 years a lecturer in computer science at the University of Southern Queensland, I retired from the uni in 2008, when I became interested in global warming. My wife and I both met Anthony in Brisbane at the Irish Club in November 2010. In fact we were the first to arrive and welcomed him before the meeting started when he came out on his own before the other speakers and started to set up his equipment. I hope these details are enough to jog Anthony’s memory – certainly the impostor won’t know them. We both have a significant public profile in Toowoomba, 120km west of Brisbane on the Darling Downs, due to my wife Gitie’s efforts in organising the peace-building Toowoomba Languages and Cultures Festival in August each year. This is the City and Region’s largest single one-day event. Gitie was the Queensland State Government’s inaugural Queensland Regional Cultural Diversity Ambassador and for the past two years the State Government has deputised us to go to remote communities on Australia Day to help them feel part of the larger community and spread the spirit of one country, united in peace across all racial and language backgrounds.
In case you are wondering if this is a trick by the impostor, I provide some more details. Since my interest in global warming started, I have authored a real book, Carbon Is Life, available both in paperback and as an ebook, the paperback can easily be checked on amazon.com, where you will find my real name, which I omit here in case it causes this comment to be deleted automatically. You can check it again on my own website, bunyagrovepress.com. If the moderators would like to write to my email as attached to this letter, I will arrange for them to be able to download a copy of the digital edition, in which they will find many comments supporting both WUWT and Anthony himself, including a recommendation in the Resources section. If any of the moderators are in Australia, they will be able to find a copy of the skeptic Quadrant magazine for April 2015 on sale in newsagents right now, with a paid-for advertisement for this book on page 55. Quadrant are quite picky who they will allow to advertise, and they accept my adverts (but not all that many from others!). Also, when Lord Monckton releases the final list of signatories in defence of Willie Soon, you will be able to see my name amongst them – now that is something the impostor doesn’t know!
Gitie and I also run our own blogs: peacelegacy.org, which is about building peace in general, but in practice has been mostly posts by me about the fallacy of the catastrophist warming theory. Anyone perusing that site will easily find many positive references to Anthony and WUWT. We also have a web site about communicating with birds, and about Australian wild birds in general: wingedhearts.org. That site has tens of thousands of bird photos going back to about 2001, and by no possible means can it be considered any kind of deception.
As a serious, skeptical author and scientist who has put in the hard yards to write a serious, science-for-the-layman book about the importance of carbon dioxide to the life cycle, including ourselves, the poor, and wildlife, I am the very last person to go to a string of spoofed IP addresses with BS anti-skeptic rubbish in order to ruin my own reputation. I do hope this is abundantly clear. My comments are always posted from my home in Southern Queensland just outside Toowoomba under my real name and using the IP address allocated to me at the time by the same well-known Australian ISP from the very beginning – absolutely never in my life on any topic have I posted as anyone else or attempted to be anyone but my true self, known to thousands of people in and around Toowoomba, including our city mayor.
As I said, my reputation and my honour, both personal and professional, are invaluable to me, so if what I have said here so far hasn’t yet convinced you that I have been the victim of one of the foulest impersonations imaginable, please contact me at the email address given with this comment (which is not my usual one, in case the impostor knows that one) or, if you doubt that it is genuine, look up my email address on wingedhearts.org and use that. I will be glad to provide whatever extra information or evidence as to my true identity that you may require. As for the future, I suppose I shall always have to log in to post, or the impostor might just start up again.
Lastly a comment about the general situation. We have become used to alarmists threatening us, firing or attempting to fire us, misusing our words, distorting the truth. But now we have a case where at least one of them is actually creating a complete false “history” to defame one of us and break apart our goodwill towards each other, splitting us apart one by one. Is this a result of that one person’s hatred of me alone, or is it a part of a larger scheme to find ways to wreck the work of those of us who, all differences aside, are united in wishing to know the truth? One thing for sure. If it succeeds, it will be copied.
(And yes, this comment appears under my real name – my middle name, which I usually omit.)
References:
The comment quoted above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/15/formal-complaints-against-professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg/#comment-530438
The two articles authored by the real me:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-simple-analogy-on-climate-modeling-looking-for-the-red-spot/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/03/a-question-of-watts-are-we-heating-the-earth-too-much-with-heat/
Good on you Thomas. I have learnt you have to be vigilant and quick to defend your chosen online moniker. Have had the same done to me on other blogs. But fortunately, adding comments under their comment showed them up. Now the moderators on the blog know enough difference.
You are game man to be a sceptic at a University here. They are so blind with rage at anyone disagreeing, they have started a course at UQ for how to defeat sceptics. How more anti science can you become?
Lastly Cardinal Pell from Australia is a sceptic. He is currently getting the Vatican’s books straightened out. So not all there are disciples of the new Gaia religion.
Sorry to hear about the troll. It’s always frustrating when that happens.
Robert, has your avatar ever been a tree kangaroo?
Brilliant!!
This is going to be INTERESTING!
Who cares what ‘Jorge Mario Bergoglio’ (yes, that’s his name) thinks anyway? I don’t care what he says, thinks, does, or what he doesn’t. goldminor’s comment at the top is the funniest! An open mind??? Er, yeah, ok then.
You seem obsessed, Mr Cooley (deceased), with the idea that the Catholic Church is of its nature anti-science. I suggest you open your own mind on this matter by reading, for example, a history of the Vatican Observatory at http://vaticanobservatory.org/about-us/history
Was not the originator of the Big Bang Theory, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven a Catholic priest?
If you you want to see a list of Catholics who have contributed massively to the wealth of human knowledge over the past 500 years (without any papal interference) try Googling “Jesuit Scientists from the 16th century to the present”.
This may have more to do with what the Church can do to appear more in step with what the kids are into these days, then trying to accurately access a scientific question.
“Then” or “than”?
And the kids are starting to ignore this global warming claptrap. Again the Catholic Church is twenty years behind the times.
Eugene WR Gallun
Yes they are ignoring it. My high school son and daughter, and almost all of their friends completely ignore it. And they go to regular liberal minded public schools.
Their teachers continually tell them that humanity is destroying mother Gaia and CO2 is poison, but they are teenagers, they don’t listen to a word of it. It’s remarkable.
My teacher played a video once and warned the class that all known oil reserves would be completely exhausted if we didn’t reign in our greed. I recall my friend and I rolling our eyes and the finger wagging didn’t stop either of us acquiring V8’s as our first cars when we got our licences.
I should probably add the target for the world completely running out of oil in the video, based on known reserves and projected usage patterns, was by the year 2000.
Surely the much quoted ‘precautionary’ principle would now indicate a ‘wait for a while longer’ to check the temperature record’.
The climate models have grossly overstated any so called ‘global warming crisis.
Near surface temperature record is almost flat for 20 years.
All other temperature dependent parameters show no increase in threat to humanity.
Do ‘decarbonise’ our energy supply will drive the world economy into decline and lead to countless millions of people into real poverty and early death.
Surely what is required is a scientific study to ascertain if we really have a problem with CO2 and cost effective alternative energy supplies.
The Pope should remember Galileo let open science give the final word to direct our actions
Once again Heartland takes the lead in the long, difficult, generally unappreciated effort to correct the horrid distortion of science that has led to this damaging and totally scientifically invalid climate change silliness. Shortly after this expensive effort they will be conducting still another International Conference on Climate Change. This one will be in Washington, D.C. on June 11 and 12th. That event will probably cost them well over half a million dollars. Without Heartland, we climate change skeptics would be scattered, disorganized and almost totally unheard. Thanks Joe Bast and company. You are heroes.
Well said John. I agree, Jo Bast and Co are heroes.
Yes, thanks to the Heartland Institute we have a voice for common sense in the climate debate.
In 1600 the Catholic Church burned Giodarno Bruno alive at the stake with his tongue stitched so that he could not address the assembled ghouls.
His crime? This amazing philosopher and scientist had claimed that the sun, not earth, was centre of the universe.
Perhaps the Heartland team should avoid any reference to Bruno during their visit.
Perhaps the Heartland Institute should remind the Pope that the Church has often been lead astray when it ventured into areas of science and politics, and that great harm and injustice has followed.
And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him.
I remind all that the position of the Catholic on the matter of what rotated about what was the ‘consensus science’ for centuries in Western Europe. It is not known as the Ptolemaic system for nothing. I see said here, once again and repeatedly, the claim that the Catholic Church was filled with ignorant beliefs is based on the Church being misled by the scientists of Greece.
Get a grip. Stop blaming the non-scientists for believing what the scientists told them. The Church had no major issues with multiple explanations until Galileo deliberately humiliated an archbishop one evening (as was his wont) and thereby generated a powerful enemy who had a mind to use it.
Like climate charts, be careful about picking historical starting points of convenience. Before Ptolemy the sky was heliocentric.
Point of difference here, Bruno was found guilty of heresy because he denied the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, his views on the universe and its nature were added to the list of charges, but they were not central. Had he simply held those scientific views he would have been, most likely, excommunicated from his Dominican Order. Still, point taken, that the Catholic hierarchy has a history of dealing unkindly with those who question their beliefs.
Yes Mark, If I may modify the last sentence…
“Still, point taken, MOST EVERY GOVERMENT OR RELIGIOUS GROUP POWER ORGANIZATION at that time period in history, has a history of dealing unkindly with those who question their beliefs, AS DID THE GODLESS FOLLOWERS OF MARX AND LENNIN, WHO PERPETUATED THE GREATEST DEMOCIDE, “DEATH BY GOVERNMENT IN WORLD HISTORY.
In this century perhaps the Islamist are the last throwbacks to such a sad chapter in human history. However I do not trust the modern progressive one world government types in the least.
David A
April 25, 2015 at 2:29 pm
“Yes Mark, If I may modify the last sentence… ”
Remarkably, you can kill 50million+ people with your political partisanship and yet in a generation or two, thereafter, recruit three quarters of the the globe to follow this illustrious path. Progressives have prepared the ground by de-educating people over this period so that the slate is clean and the message is attractive. When they said those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, I thought they were talking about a long time ago! I think we rejoiced too loudly when the iron curtain fell – the traffic of ideas and freedom wasn’t one way. Those that lost, found an infrastructure waiting for them and they knew that the loss was only temporary. Socialist blocks like the EU, UN, NGOs, and the 5th column Universities even and perhaps particularly in the US have worked their magic in the quarter century since the so called “fall”.
The majority of ordinary people wanted freedom and the dissidents, but what about those who had no employable skills outside the ideology? Marxist economists, political scientists, psychologists, apparatchik bureaucrats, amazingly found a very receptive world. They are teaching in your universities, they are planners in the UN, the NGOs needed their well honed skills. I think a decent book could be written themed – We opened the prison gates and it wasn’t the prisoners who escaped.
the first question the pope will ask $
That’s what Hillary would do
The pope would do better to focus on the Clinton-Putin connection with uranium ending up in Iran.
I wonder if the Pope has ever seen personally some of the data that is available on the reference pages here and on other web sites. If Vatican protocol allows it might be useful to take in a laptop and show His Holiness the contrast between real data and modelled predictions , and also perhaps the current Arctic and Antarctic sea ice results which to my untutored eye do not seem to be following the CAGW script as faithfully as one might expect.
The Arctic is certainly interesting to follow lately. After setting a record low during what should have been a peak period, it has now trended sideways out of the -2sd level. In another week it might reach the median trend line, if it stays on the current heading.
Yes, very interesting:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
The dip into the -3sd level occurred when the Arctic was sending all its cold air down to North America.
I don’t think mainstream Catholics have taken much notice of various Popes for at least the last 50 yrs so i don’t see the incumbent Pope holding much sway amongst his flock on climate science. I suppose it is good P.R for the alarmists doing the cocktail circuit in Paris later in the year.
The Pope is putting all his chips on 00, when the ball has already fallen into #15. The Church may never recover from this. There are two prophecies that the days of the Papacy are numbered, with one indicating that Francis is the last of the line.
And if a crisis did occur and faith is at issue, my tribe can help y’all out with some swell peer-reviewed rain dances. (For a modest fee.)
I hope they can talk some sense into Vatican advisers and the Pope. The Pope and the Church are being made foolish by the climate doom promoters.
Global Warming: The following questions need an answer:
1. How accurate is the average temperature curve constructed based on interpolations and extrapolations over around 80% of the area where no continuous data series are not available; and where data are available, there is a large difference in density of network – for example in urban areas the density is high and in rural areas the density is low and both areas present large scale changes in land use and land cover patterns with the time.
2. How much is the contribution to the global temperature curve by (1) anthropogenic greenhouse gases, (2) land use & land cover changes, and (3) other factors.
3. Is global warming synonymous to climate change? Or Global warming is a small part of Climate Change?
4. Is climate refers to Temperature only? If not, all other climate parameters are controlled by temperature or other parameters also control the temperature over and above the natural Sun related seasonal & diurnal changes and local changes associated with topographic conditions? For example, just as that of evaporation or evapotranspiration estimates using Thornthwaite model and Penman’s Model.
5. Is natural variability a part of changes in meteorological parameters such as temperature & precipitation?
6. Is natural variability is part of changes in temperature in the Ocean waters and surface temperatures?
7. Why there are step-wise temperature changes since 1851 to date? Is it due to rise in global average temperature synchronized by natural 60-year cyclic variation in temperature?
8. What is the real term impact of local general circulation related impacts on averaging to get global average temperature?
From AR5 “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period”. That means, 50.1% is also more than half; but it not only includes anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and also by other anthropogenic forcings. That means the anthropogenic greenhouse gas component is still less than 50%. They are all qualitative but we need an answer in quantitative terms to postulate the associated impact on glaciers retreat, ice sheet melt, ocean rise, etc.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
more than half of the observed increase
=======================
in other words, they haven’t a clue.
A true scientist would have a figure like 74% +/- 8%. Something that can be calculated, tested and verified.
“More than half” is a nonsense figure. One might as well pull a number out of a hat.
[But it is worse than you think: “Extremely likely it is more than half …” .mod]
IPCC couldn’t be that precise. Their formulation would have to be a figure like 50% +/- 40%.
Actually your first question should be: “Is global average temperature physically meaningful?”
If the answer is no, then the rest is moot.
Is global average temperature physically meaningful?
===================
spot on. it can be shown that for the exact same amount of energy in and out, the earth can have an infinite number of different average temperatures.
that is because the average is linear while radiation is a 4th power. thus, if you make a small place very cold and a large place slightly warm, the average is unchanged, but the total energy changes significantly.
Dr. Reddy, before plumbing the problems of the spatial relationships and extrapolations from thermometers, we should really decide what it is we want to get from the thermometric network. If it is to detect dangerous increases in world temperatures of 2 to5C, we could get our warnings from a dozen stations in pristine locations around the temperate zone (half way between the no-warming tropics and the enhanced warming polar.. The hot late 1930s early 40s temperatures were detected in US, Greenland, the English CET, the Armagh station in Northern Ireland. This is pretty much good enough. We would use, perhaps three or four more for Asia and half a dozen for the Southern Hemisphere. Is it possible to sneak a global average of 5C, no! 3C, no! 1C, apparently not with these thermometers all showing 0.6 to 0.7C per century.
Also [sea] level. We don’t need any guages at all if the worry is 2 to 6 meters in a century. Probably air photos of a few vulnerable lowlands each decade, or just ask the Nederlands if there is a problem from time to time. No, under the guise of refining the data to detect a signal, the distaster cheering section are simply creating a signal.
Absolutely devastating. I hope the journos catch on.
It’s worth a try but it’s faint hope, most Catholics around the world are climate alarmists, so I expect he’ll stick with what the majority of his flock believe.
The pope, and by extension the Catholic Church are a perfect example of the phrase “useful idiot(s). They have no clue that the bandwagon they have jumped onto, far from being a force for good, is in fact just the opposite. Good luck to Heartland in their venture, and I applaud them for trying, but I doubt they will have much success.
My Catholic sister-in-law thinks I’m nuts to even question Global Warming.
It’s not as if ‘impending doom’ has never been used as a motivator by various religions.
I have Atheist engineers at work that think I’m nuts for questioning the AGW meme… even when they are provided data to refute it.
It is about money….forget the science. This was and alway s
Will be about money and power. The pope will not loolk past the $ sign. Btw I am catholic and a complete denier.
It is true that one of the Pope’s senior advisors is Cardinal George Pell. He wrote an excellent article several years ago where he shows that he is well aware that cAGW is a religion and simply false. Although not a Catholic(or a follower of any set religion) , my respect for the man went up substantially. For a cloistered man of the cloth, he showed worldliness. Saw him in the street about a year ago-unfortunately I was talking with some other people and did not want to be rude. If there is a next time, I will make sure I do greet him and congratulate him on his wise stance. Also have to find out the correct way to address a cardinal. Being in to astronomy, I had better not say “Your Prominence.”
Getting back to the Pope’s insane stance on climate change-he is a Jesuit-the first Jesuit Pope. Jesuits have a deep-seated hatred of the Catholic church(said to stem back to the Vatican’s deceiving the Templars) and this treasonous Pope could be a centuries old payback. Perhaps the Pope did not get along with George Pell. I do remember being most pleased when I read that George was becoming a senior advisor.
I wish the Heartland Institute luck. They should go in with George Pell in support.
I just heard a radio program yesterday about how in the 1930s Mussolini conspired with the pope at the time with the goal of ending democracy and the separation of church and state, bringing the church back to its former status and power. Now it’s the UN. Sounds like New World Order goals to me.
It would have been easy for the Vatican to oppose Fascism. It’s not like the Vatican was surrounded by millions of armed Fascists. Oh. Wait. Never mind.
The story about Serbia, Croatia, Italy and the Third Reich is detailed in the book ‘Hitler’s Pope’. The Pope was not so much interested in the topics markopanama mentions as he was in getting the government’s to agree that Bishops (national figures) were to be appointed by Rome, not elected within the country. Plus XII worked for decades to achieve this with a concordat with each leader. That leader’s politics was not as important as the concordat. In the case of Hitler, the final agreement was never signed.
It is not reasonable to lump one man’s ambitions with that of a Church, whoever he is. It’s a bit too convenient.
Thank God for those independent scientists funded by the Heartland Institute.
Good on the Heartland Institute to try, but organised religion has long ago decided to worship Gaia. There’s just too much money exchanging hands in the temple.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/tell-me-why/
Pointman
I only hope Heartland Institute send someone who can speak the Pope native language.
Since the Pope will not be attending this event, I doubt that language will be a determining factor in the outcome.
Does this finally signal the pro-active phase of climate skepticism? Fighting climate religiosity by enlightening religious leaders. May Gaia speed and bless this noble quest to protect the papacy from false idols. GK
I can’t find the names of the “scientists” who are heading uninvited to hang out near the Vatican. Can anyone help?
You are beyond help.
Utterly predictable that talking point regurgitators like commenter “Sir Harry Flashman” show up here, oblivious to how their beloved AGW leaders – Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Naomi Oreskes, Leonardi DiCaprio, John Kerry, and dare I say it, Pope Francis – are not scientists. Speaks volumes for that side when all they have are diversionary talking points instead of any sort of willingness to engage in scientific debate.
I thought it was weird that no scientists were mentioned, but then I remembered that all scientists are evil.
Just waiting for the outraged letter campaign directed at the Vatican demanding that the pope be sacked for speaking to Heartland.
The Catholic Church stands at a cross roads. Will it once again become a tool of the State, to raise taxes on the poor, only this time on a global scale?
“Our Lady of blessed acceleration don’t fail us now”…..Elwood
I’m skeptical becasue the South American church was heavily influenced by liberation theology which was nothing more than Marxism given theological language. So I don’t know how effective Heartland will be given the U.N.climate ideology is Marxism given pseudo scientific language . Hopefully it will turn out well.
Speaking with religious heads to dissuade or persuade them of anything factual or philosophical is evidence that the speaker also may not know his head from his a**.
Now before you throw rotten tomatoes on me, this venture probably has other good benefits, such as world stage publicity and eyes on their presentation. I seriously doubt this panel believes they will affect the Pope’s mindset.
Quite so. But, if the Pope gets to grandstand with the world’s mass media breathlessly reporting his every holy utterance, skeptics must seize the opportunity to counter the infallible nonsense with a few facts,. which by chance alone must fall on a few ears of those enormous throngs of faithful Catholics virtually gathered at the papal feet, even if the Pope himself is not fazed.
Why? Let him do. The doomsday market is saturated nowadays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_21st-century_religious_leaders. Competition for the remaining faithful souls requires prioritization sooner or later.
it’s kind of a strange concept. Asking a religion to look at the evidence that another newer religion that is not scientifically valid.
For what it’s worth, the Catholic Church’s official position is that it accepts the fact of Evolution by natural selection. That sets it apart from every other major religion. I’m with the commenters who say “Who cares what the Pope thinks about anything?” But it might offer a sliver of possibility that someone in that vast, misguided hierarchy might be amenable to hearing, and capable of understanding, actual science…
This is the beginning of the major backdown from AGW from the climate science establishment http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/14243/20150422/global-warming-progressing-slower-than-we-thought.htm
expect to see this for years to come from “Nature” until its “disappeared”
Of course it will not be admitted ever.
No. When has this environmental political movement ever admitted to or apologized for unethical science or reporting to further a cause? They are the good guys so they get a get out of jail free card. Meanwhile how is Wille Soon doing?
Thanks, Eliza. They even say: “So to better and more accurately understand the future of global warming, a team at Duke University relied on empirical data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.”
But, having said that, they go on as expected from “Nature”:
“However, it should be noted that these results do not suggest that global warming is letting up, and that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years. Warming could very much increase in the years to come.”
I hope the Heartland Institute will point out how this so-called “hiatus” strongly suggests a very low climate sensitivity, as opposed to the high sensitivities used in the IPCC models.
Hundreds of millions a year are being raked in by “environmentalists”. The Pope wants in.
Can we anticipate a mass-excommunication of ‘deniers’?
Glad to hear this! I am going to email them some encouragement.
The Pope’s position has little to do with science. He is motivated by the idea that the third world poor will benefit from the massive redistribution of wealth from first world economies.
So argue on that point.
We have a Poverty Crisis not a Climate Crisis.
Show that raising energy costs disproportionately hurts the poor. That’s the Church’s remit – the poor.
I was not making an argument but simply stating what seems to have been missed by much of the article. Heartland presenting its science will achieve little if that issue is not addressed.
Ultimately, whether we agree or otherwise, most climatologists consider this a real environmental issue, the world community (Govts) is in tandem thinking and much of the movement is also motivated by similar values to the Pope (safeguarding earth and redistribution of wealth with a one world Govt also desired by some).
You can hardly blame a Pope for embracing the movement given his sentiments and concern for the poor when choosing his name. His concerns for the safeguarding the earth and real effort for the disadvantaged are in keeping with his Church’s doctrines.
I live in Australia and even the PM Abbott has recanted on his views that “climate science is crap;” he can’t afford to take any other line politically.
These issues have little to do with science and clear thinking with the exception of the carpet baggers and industries which stand to gain enormously (ie clear thinking on how to make money).
PM Abbott is setting up a “think tank” involving Bjorn Lomberg to try and develop optimum economic solutions. Does anyone think Abbott has not received criticism even from within the UWA staff? Such are the times we live in.
This Pope has gone on record several times that the greatest challenge to help the poor today is income redistribution from the industrialized countries who stole the natural resources from them to make their wealth. He’s part of the problem that the end justifies the means. He fits the term useful idiot quite well. He, along with all other religion, will be quickly discarded once they are no longer needed.
I would hope that you are correct. At the same time, we must recognize that religions do serve a certain purpose, but one that must be seen as a mixed blessing.
As with all human institutions, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And so the power of the masses of the adherents to the various religious beliefs can be used by those at the top for purposes not in accordance with anything spiritual, but for political reasons alone.
Of course, the Vatican has its Swiss Guards, and its bankers. Some say the Vatican is fabulously wealthy.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely” was said regarding the Papacy by Lord Acton.
I thought ‘absolute power…’ was coined by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). Was he later made a Lord?
But others disagree saying it was already popular.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html
It always gives aphorisms, adages, maxims, proverbs, truisms and the like added impact when they are attached to a famous person, which in this case, at least, seems warranted, as Lord Acton’s pithy and precise rendering of this long recognized human failing is irreducible.
It’s good sport though, to double-check if a favorite saying was really said by whom you think it was.
But the importance of this adage resides not in by whom it was said, but rather in its inherent truth, and that fact presents big problems for our species, as we have seen.
Acton is commonly and frequently referred to as “Lord Acton.” A search on “lord acton” -“baron acton” yields 141,571 hits, whereas -“lord acton” +”baron acton” yields but 15,531. I’ll be happy to debate this further if you wish. Perhaps we can draw Lord Monckton [102,482 hits, and rising] into the discussion.
Lord Acton was, as far as is known, the first to say that absolute power corrupts absolutely, The simple realization that power corrupts was probably expressed early on as, “Ugh. Crown make head belong him plenty-plenty big,” circa 14,000 BC, deponent unknown. Acton’s contribution was the absolute/ absolutely part of it, which, afaioaek, had not been expressed previously in such terms.
And, yes, Steve, it’s a good idea to check attributions before posting quotes. I had already looked up Acton’s quote several months ago for another comment, and deemed it apropos.
jorgekafkazar April 27, 2015 at 11:39 am
I agree completely.
Poor nations “stole” resources from the rich? HA! An Ethiopian Emoperor in about the mid to late 20th century, “stole” some eucalyptus tree saplings from Australia, it was a gift (Aparently). Quarantine was a bit different then! Now eucalyptus trees grow like weeds, drawing ground water like there is no tomorrow. That’s the drawback from an introduced specise. The benefit is that the trees produce lovely long straight trunks and branches. They also keep growing even if cut down to the stump. The locals love’em, build with ’em and burn ’em!
[Snip. You regulary label people as denialists, denisers, etc. Stop it. -mod.]
It was Sunday morning 15th of February 2015.The sixth Sunday in Ordinary time in the Church’s liturgical calender – the Sunday before Lent.
this takes us to a web site from a Bolivian communist agitprop site which Christian aid are ‘partnered’ with.
I had been an ardent practicing catholic for as long as I could remember now being into my 73rd year.
That morning, as I entered church, I was handed various charitable pamphlets among which was a blatant propaganda item from Christian Aid asking me to send to the so-called Scottish Parliament, a flyer requesting said legislators to ‘send a strong message to the Paris Eco-fest’ to limit catastrophic man made global warming.
When I did a bit of due diligence, I discovered, thanks to Paul Holmwood at
http://www.christainaid.org.uk/ActNow/blog/january-2015/reflections-on-climate-change-from-bolivia-aspx
Like all other so-called Christian charities, Christian aid is completely corrupted and is a fully paid up member of the catastrophic man made global warming society.
Subsequent to the above event at our local church, I wrote to our Bishop and our Parish Priest, expressing my abhorrence at the corruption of my/our faith by embracing the pagan new religion of worship to the goddess Giea.
I did receive 2 rather anodyne reply’s which evaded the issue of the catholic churches heresy.
Much to my regret, I have decided that after 70 odd years attendance at mass and the sacraments, I can no longer attend mass whilst the current paganism exists.
As this Pope is a Jesuit, I do not hold out any hope that a sensible outcome will be forthcoming either from the intervention of the Heartland people, or that the Popes Bull next week will give me any consolation.
You do realise that most, if not all “rituals” in the “Christian” and “Caholic” faiths are derived from pagans. “Chrismas cake”, “yuletide log”, “Easter”…even the Romans “adopted” some.
Per the dictionary: Jesuit, n., (often lowercase) a crafty, intriguing, or equivocating person.
Lived in Ireland, devout Catholic country. Some of the worst and nastiest people I have had the displeasure of knowning and, unfortunately, living with. Lived with Philipions, also devout Catholics. Charming and wonderful people. Want crime? Go to Waterford, Ireland. Want great food and company, go to the Philipines. However, a Philipino friend of mine, now a semi-ex-Catholic, became so after visiting the “Vatican City” with her sister, with walls smothered with gold…while her country folk look for scrpas on waste dumps in Manila.
I work with Atheists and have some Atheist neighbors. Most of them are devout believers in the AGW meme… and are some of the nastiest and most uncharitable people I have ever had the misfortune to share the earth with.
It all comes down to personal experience, doesn’t it Patrick?
That ‘broad tar brush’ of yours works in both directions…..
But even that broad tar brush did not succeed in obscuring the golden walls, or did it?
I’m not catholic and I haven’t been to any place with ‘golden walls’.
I don’t willingly contribute to any organization that would waste their constituents wealth like that.
Now, I suggest you try turpentine, to get that self administered tar off y’all.
Mac the Knife April 25, 2015 at 1:25 pm
Ah, you retaliate against Patrick with a petulant tit-for-tat response, and now try to take the high ground, while hurling a false accusation at me,
I am an atheist, due to the lack of factual evidence.
Wanna ask me a question ?
I’m right here.
I’ll be nice, promise.
SteveP,
I haven’t left the high ground but your petulant baiting attempt is noted.
Now, seriously…. try the turpentine.
U.K. (US),
You are entitled to your own belief systems, as is everyone else.
I give respect to those that show respect to others.
Mac
“Mac the Knife
April 25, 2015 at 10:42 pm
SteveP,
I haven’t left the high ground…”
So you look down at the rest of us? So, you too tar others it seems.
Dear Joseph Bast (Heartland Institute President),
I do not see any downside to the Heartland Institute’s strategy of “sending a team of climate scientists to Rome next week to inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate science: ‘There is no global warming crisis!’ “.
Of the utmost importance is who Heartland Institute has been able to get on the “team of climate scientists”.
Have you made public the names of the members who are on the team that HI is sending to Rome?
John
Why don’t you send your questions directly to The Heartland Institute?
https://www.heartland.org/
Mac the Knife on April 25, 2015 at 11:19 am
– – – – – – –
Mac the Knife,
I addressed my comment to HI’s president only here on this thread for two reasons.
First, it has been my experience here at WUWT that HI often follows and does inline commenting on lead posts that are from or about HI. It usually works to get a response when they are addressed. I think it would be helpful for them to engage here on this thread.
Second, I want to have an open discussion on this thread about why the names of members on “team of climate scientists” may not yet have been publicized and how the team’s tactical effectiveness could best tailored to who is on the team.
‘Mac the Knife’, I think HI has been doing a significant amount of good work in creating wide interest in the open marketplace of climate science ideas and education.
John
John,
Thanks for the explanation.
I think well of the Heartland Institute as well.
Mac
Sounds sort of like a Hail Mary.
Certain persons currently scheduled to speak at the workshop, including UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon and Jeffrey Sachs, director of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, are outspoken advocates of the man-made global warming hypothesis. They and other climate alarmists have misrepresented the facts, concocted false data, and tried to shut down a reasonable, scientific debate on the issue of climate change. This conduct violates the Eighth Commandment: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
https://www.heartland.org/Vatican-Environment-Workshop
yeah, that is one Monckton needs to rememeber, this time he better does not spread lies about Dr, Pinker again.
(Reply: Accusing someone of lying is serious. Specifically document your charge where it cannot be refuted or to be just a difference of opinon, or go elsewhere. -mod)
Yes, well the 8th or (9th) Commandment prohibits bearing false witness, but I don’t think its application here is well considered. The sinner bears false witness against an innocent person, but not against a thing.
From a spiritual perspective, It’s wiser to invoke the 10th Commandment. They want our stuff; it’s just that simple.
Apparently, the Pope doesn’t know the 10 Commandments.
Rather, the failing CAGW conjecture is better attacked from a logical perspective by pointing out that the alarmists are resorting to the bogus tactic of special pleading to argue their case.
In this case the general rule is the Null Hypothesis. The Special Pleading is the claim that now something new and never before experienced is taking place because of man, without offering any evidence that this is true.
Pope Francis is smarter than than they he is and he will likely see through all the Heartland Institute’s ignorance and anti-science agendas. Are they also going to try to convince him that smoking tobacca products is safe too?
I hope he tells them (nicely) what he thinks of their “scientific team”.
The Pope won’t even be aware of this
You appear to have confused HI with the ignorant, anti-scientific IPCC.
Oh please! Which side (using anti-science propaganda) pushed for the safety of smoking tobacco back in the 1960’s?
The exact same anti-science campaign that it developed back in the 1960’s with its fight for tobacco industry has been (wrongly) incorporated into climate change debate. The problem for those that have put their faith in the HI agenda is that the truth eventually wins out just like it did with tobacco debate.
If history is any guide (and it is), at some point in the not-too-distant-future the HI will eventually capitulate (quietly) after it loses the climate change debate.
I expect that it will carry on and work on yet another public debate issue to use its anti-science campaign on in order to confuse the public again. Sadly, the gullible again will simply fall right in line (no independent thought here) with that new political agenda issue too as they just seem to never learn from the those lessons. Basically the blind leading the blind and hurting all the rest of us.
Your argument is foolish. The tobacco use issue is separate and different. Arguing “sides” and trying to tarnish the reputation those who disagree is ridiculously anti-scientific. Come back when you can argue evidence please.
The evidence, like the truth, are out there. You only need to get the blinders off that you received from the Heartland Insitute in order to see both of them.
What does tobacco have to do with anything?
The issue is the repeatedly falsified hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic climate alarmism (CACA), for which there is not a single shred of actual physical evidence & all the evidence in the world against it.
History is indeed repeating. In the first half of the 20th century, regimes & academia were on the eugenics bandwagon, with disastrous results. Now fake, perverted, corrupted “science” is repeating that anti-human mistake.
Dennis Hlinka
April 25, 2015 at 1:13 pm
What evidence do you imagine is out there to support CACA?
Is there something about the mind of the gullible here that can’t comprehend how the very same agenda process that the Heartland Institute developed in it’s past support of the tobacco industry and is now re-using here in the climate change debate are not one and the same with similar eventual results?
Scientific facts win out no matter how much anti-science propaganda is thrown at it by the Heartland Institute and its anti-science campaign process it developed in the 1960’s.
Dennis Hlinka
How many Big Government “so-called scientists” can Big Finance buy for Big Academia for 90 billion dollars in just three years, if the Heartland Institute can buy an entire (but-non-existent!) skeptical community for just 25,000.00 in one year? How many “scientists” who work for Big Government buy for 1.3 trillion dollars a year in new tax money for Big Government and 30 trillion a year in Enron-developed carbon credits for Big Finance per year?
What now is your propagandist “evidence” for CAGW? Now that it has been steady temperatures for 18 years?
If you believe that only the Heartland Institute holds the view that CAGW is disproven, or if you believe there are no individuals who have come to that view because of their own research into the available data, then you are willfully ignorant of the truth, which is readily available if you simply abandon the lines you have memorized and objectively look for yourself.
By trying to convince the Pope with their propaganda by sending in some unknown group of “scientists”, it is a sure sign that the Heartland Institute is getting even more desperate in its last attempts to win a war it is finding it is losing. It’s followers will be the last to know how they were manipulated.
Dennis,
The scientific facts are that there is no evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming. The interests of regimes, “Green” industries & academia conspire to keep these facts from the public.
It is gullible to imagine that these interests, as shown by the Climategate emails, are not now behaving as Big Tobacco used to do.
milodonharlani: “The scientific facts are that there is no evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming.”
What valid scientific literature can you provide that supports that argument? Remember, WUWT and the Heartland Institute are one of many non-valid scientific reference sources.
milodonharlani: “It is gullible to imagine that these interests, as shown by the Climategate emails, are not now behaving as Big Tobacco used to do.”
Can you tell me which large, industrial group is the Heartland Institute supporting in the climate debate? Here’s a hint: They are just as big as the tobacco lobby and they produce products like oil and coal.
Trying to conflate the idea that a group of independent climate scientists are somehow comparable to the big conglomerates of oil and tobacco is really a ridiculous argument. Even if climate scientists could somehow combine and try to put together all their assets, I am sure they would not even come anywhere near 1% of the financial assets of big oil and big tobacco.
Dennis Hlinka
Your blinding hatred is shining forth! The Big Science climastrology budgets last year alone was 33 billion from just US federal budgets: Big Government was recently estimated at 365 TIMES the money that your “big oil” money had. Further, ALL of the Big Government money went to purchase the “science” and labs and computers and travel and entertainment of political money FOR climate research and “Big Green” influence and propaganda. Gee. Even the money Big Oil “donated” due to extortion and funding directly to the Greenpeace and WWF and enviro groups every year is 100 times what Heartland spent one time to one skeptical group.
You are lying about the money. We just don’t know why you are lying.
It is astonishing just how wrongly you have been indoctrinated. On the whole, “Big Energy” is very much aligned with the believers in CAGW. Higher fuel costs = higher profits. Enron wanted desperately for Cap and Trade markets to be established.
Re: The HI– If you dismiss an assertion solely because it is made by an individual or organization with whom you disagree, then you are not qualified to engage in a proper, meaningful discussion. People on all sides of this issue are guilty of this weak-minded bias. So at least you aren’t alone…
At least you are consistent. You base your argument on every single thing EXCEPT the evidence.
No convincing the gullible! Meanwhile, I will go back to my science you can go back to your gullibility.
takebackthegreen: “If you dismiss an assertion solely because it is made by an individual or organization with whom you disagree, then you are not qualified to engage in a proper, meaningful discussion.”
As an atmospheric scientist, I think I am more than qualified to know and fully understand what the scientific facts are on the subject of climate change and how the Heartland Institute is not telling you the truth. As an educated scientists, I have every right to point out that the mis-information that the Heartland Institute is spreading out into the public debate forums.
While I am sure your opinions are heartfelt, are they really backed by the science or are they based on propaganda spread by biased, political front groups like the Heartland Institute and others like them?
As an alleged “atmospheric scientist,” you do your profession a disservice by consistently avoiding evidence-based argument in favor of unfounded assumptions, and irrelevant personal commentary. Nothing you have said in this thread so far adheres to any accepted standard of scientific, rational debate. It doesn’t matter who I am or what I do. What matters is the veracity and verifiability of what I say.
Recall, Darwin was an amateur naturalist, not a professional scientist. His Theory is true because it is falsifiable but has not been falsified, not because he wore a beard, or had ideas about Race that would make him unpopular today.
If you are a scientist, please act like one.
OK takebackthegreen, you asked for the evidence, here is the latest:
I have made my point about the global warming continuing on other blog sites despite the repeated claims of those on the opposing side that believe that global temperatures have stopped rising and are in a 30-year period of decline starting around 2000 (you know the reasons: the decline in sun’s solar activity over the past 2 decades (with apparently insignificant effects if any found in the global temperature record), a cold PDO to continue (NOT! – see below), a hoped for increase in volcanic activity (without evidence of or scientific basis), some period of colder AMO (with initiation time and relative strength forecast yet to be provided)).
However, my scientific position on the fact that global warming is continuing is fully supported with the following physical data (and more):
1) Global temperatures remain at the top half of the long-term trend-line sigma-1 (1-std deviation) channels: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/offset:0.39/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1850/offset:0.3/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/offset:0.6/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/offset:0.18/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1910/offset:0.18/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1910/offset:0.6/trend
2) Global temperatures within the sigma-1 (1-std deviation) since 1978 continue to rise (higher highs and higher lows): http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1968/offset:0.39/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1968/offset:0.3/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1978/offset:0.54/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1978/offset:0.54/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1978/offset:0.34/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/offset:0.8/trend
3) Glaciers continue to retreat (equilibrium times increasing): http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/glaciers-figure1-2014.png
4) Sea levels continue to rise: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel1/sl_ns_global.png
5) Arctic temperatures are the highest they have ever been this time of the year in the satellite data record: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2015.png
6) Arctic sea ice extent continues to run near the bottom of the sigma-2 (2-std deviations) band through the maximum ice period: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
7) El Nino is expected to strengthen this year leading to a possible new peak in overall global temperature records: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Sea.gif
8) Global SSTs remain at their record peak as the monthly PDO has now reached up to levels not seen since that super El Nino peak in 1998: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1850/mean:12/offset:0.8/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1850/mean:12/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1910/offset:0.55/trend
9) The rising ocean heat content (OHC) remains at its peak without any signs of a slowing trend: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
I could go on with many other physical parameters, but the key point I want to make here is that with over 71% of the earth surface (the oceans) now at recently set peak temperatures and with additional heat energy (OHC) continuing to be stored in them and the heat capacity of ocean water not allowing heat to be quickly transferred away, how can those on the opposing side expect a quick change in these physical parameter trends listed above in order to have global temperatures dropping down in the next 15 years to annual levels set back in the 1970s (JB)? The basic ocean/atmospheric physics and mathematics I learned over the past 40+ years of my professional, scientific career does not support such positions.
Now takebackthegreen, what is your background on this subject and what scientific evidence do you have to support your position? Again no WUWT or Heartland Institute sources please.
I appreciate your effort, even though the data you present have already been refuted elsewhere, and #7 is simply irrelevant. However, your last two sentences prove my point: You can’t understand–or won’t follow–basic principles of debate.
1) There is no context in which my background matters. You’ve provided no biographical details, and I haven’t asked because that information is irrelevant (as well as unverifiable).
2) You may not decree what sources are acceptable. (Where did you get the idea that you can??) For what conceivable purpose would I spend time responding to someone who tries to arbitrarily, and illogically, control the content of my response?
In other words, you are not a scientist. Case closed.
My question about what your background is very relevant since you initially questioned my qualifications. Since I established that I am a trained scientist I have every right to ask you for your qualifications in order to establish what you truly understand about climate science.
Based on your non response to my request, you apparently do not have a science background. Therefore, you do not even have a the base understanding that is needed to fully grasp the complexity of the subject of climate change.
Dennis Hlinka (Challenging milodonharlani.)
Odd. I’ve just re-read all of your words here, and find that you have not established anything other than your self-asserted claim that you are a “atmospheric scientist” – therefore, I can make a logical claim that you are being paid (and have been paid since release from from your propaganda institute (er, college) strictly for your defense and words justifying “climate change” for your Big Government salary and lab expenses and budgets.
Therefore, I can conclude you have no credibility nor expertise in anything but your ability to write papers for Big Government to continue getting Big Government grants to justify Big Government taxes for Big Finance.
Now, if you have never received taxpayer money for yourself nor your institution (your assumed place of work and salary and promotion and publication), then I will be required to change my conclusion.
Oh wait! From the web … Now, just what is your relationship with the Big Government eco-sucker fund (er, firm) of Washington DC firm called Sullivan Environmental?
Again, you are mistaken (as well as childishly ineffective at making insults). I absolutely did not ask anything about your background or qualifications. I don’t care about them because–again–they are irrelevant and unverifiable. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Your rhetorical style seems to mirror the tragically corrupted “public discourse” on the subject, where everything EXCEPT the science is used to bash one’s opponent. Science shouldn’t be a brawl. I’m not interested in that nonsense. But as a parting gift, I’ll play your game, in the hope that you finally get the point:
One of the following accurately describes my qualifications:
A) I’m an investment banker with an MBA from Harvard.
B) I’m a government employee with a degree in Biomedical Engineering.
C) I’m a MacArthur Grant recipient studying American scientific literacy.
D) I’m a high school dropout who watched “An Inconvenient Truth;” who wrote down the apocalyptic predictions along with their clearly stated and specific time frames; who has been ticking off each prediction as it proves false; and who marvels at the gall of hubristic idiots who believe they can understand, much less CONTROL the climate of an entire planet.
Hint: it isn’t “D,” but I like it.
Take care as you head for higher ground. Wear sunscreen. Also, google the term “interglacial” if you want to know what you should really be concerned about.
Going back to subject of this blog posting, Pope Francis is bringing the Church into the 21st Century with his embrace of scientific facts. He will likely see through the WUWT delegation of “non-scientists” coming there to waste his time on their non-scientific talking points.
Perhaps the delegation should start their conversation with the Pope with the following quotes from one of your fellow deniers (ferderble):
“The long history of the Church choosing the wrong side in scientific debates can be used as an accurate barometer to determine fact from fiction. If the Church say the science is right, you can rest assured the science is wrong. If the Church says the science is wrong, you can rest assured the science is right. The louder the Church speaks on matters of science, the more you can be sure the Church is wrong. Only when the Church remains silent on matters of science can you be sure the Church is correct.”
I am sure that will win them over to your side of the debate.
Dennis, do you think someone has to be a scientist to pass a valid comment? Surely not? I have a base understanding of physics, a very good one. I have written a ‘science’ television script. I know how a Black Hole is formed (I can explain the complete process off by heart). I understand what is happening in nuclear processes. Yet I left school with no scientific qualifications at all, and neither did I go to university. But I have argued with scientists on forums who refuse to believe that I’m not a scientist! (I’m quite proud of that). NO ONE understands the complexity of climate change – that’s the problem! If they did then they would be able to program a model that was unerring. You say that you’re an atmospheric scientist, and you write as though it is fully understood. You say that you fully understand the scientific facts of climate change. No, you don’t. No one understands the complexities of positive and negative feedbacks, no one can explain the lack of a tropical hotspot, and no one can explain the ceasation of lower stratospheric cooling (THE key point in AGW). If you refute what I say, then just answer that alone; why did the lower stratosphere cool UP UNTIL 1995, then cease? You won’t answer because you don’t understand it – no one does. It singularly dismisses the idea of man-made warming.
?itok=e3kGJ5sc
what is heartland’s anti-science agenda? what, and now you got a problem with tobacco too?
smoking tobacca products is safe too?
===============
the correct analogy is human sacrifice. throughout history the cure for bad weather has always been human sacrifice, until in the end the priests themselves are sacrificed.
today’s AGW drum beat is no different. the poor are to be sacrificed to save them from the evil of CO2. the rich will congratulate each other, secure in the knowledge that they have done their part to help the poor avoid the evils of CO2.
the poor shall rest easy. they died in a noble cause, sacrificed to save the world from CO2.
Hlinka, as someone who campaigned against tobacco from 1965 I take offence at your attempt to link sound, scientific scepticism about catastrophic global warming with that evil industry. My father died young from smoking and the scepticism with which I viewed the claims of self-serving tobacco scientists and doctors I now use to examine for myself the outrageous claims for the magical powers of CO2.
How dare you drag the sound and valid criticisms of the fiddled and fabricated global climate alarm industry down by mentioning in the same breath the vile peddlers of tobacco? You, sir, should develop a sense of shame.
Disastrous as has been the tobacco industry in terms of human suffering, it pales in comparison with the scandalous misrepresentation of the facts of climate change and the insidious plans it’s promoters have to filch the public purse.
In the 45 years since DDT was banned some 22,000,000 children under five have died from preventable malaria, save in those countries that continue to use DDT. Only ‘climate science’ operates above that level of fanatical misrepresentation of the facts. I reject your smears out of hand.
Those who would be global planners
Speak in agitated manners
Telling of our coming doom
Like Debby Downer in the room
Incessantly they go on preaching
“Children guilt we should be teaching!
For we’ve sinned by overreaching
Mother Gaia’s limit!”
Men of true theology
I’ve never known, that cannot see
This earth does not belong to ye
Who only live here in it.
The planet then is God’s alone
And all it’s elements he owns!
Outreaching any man’s control
And vexing now the Papal Soul.
May God guide His Grace to Papal wisdom.
(please strike “outreaching” and use “perplexing” instead)
And if, through that Grace to Papal wisdom, Pope Francis decides in favor of the climate scientist’s consensus position?
WE’RE SCREWED!
But, at least I tried…
But if the Pope’s decision is based on the wisdom he receives from the Grace of God, isn’t that what God wants to happen? Maybe only those on that side of the debate (against God’s direction) are screwed?
Oh, and Catholics sometimes refer to the Pope as “His grace” to clarify the context of my closing comment.
I think the Question here, is whether there is a special dispensation of wisdom to the pope. I constructed my poem to be speaking within the Popes paradigm, not my own. If you want religious argument, you’ll have to find somebody more religious than me. 😉
I do not expect any change from the Vatican or its Pope.
That’s a good thing right?
Besides, for Pope Francis to lecture on the evils of the seven deadly sins, when all of his employees engage in all of them on a daily basis, is a non-starter. A manufactured crisis like Catastrophic Global Human Warming (CGHW), can be turned-on and turned-off as needed to shake money from the faithful. But as poles indicate the public is largely ignoring (rightly) manufactured crises like CGHW the Vatican needs to squeeze the rock now to get whatever blood-money it can, otherwise it will have invent its own crisis without the help of Al Gore and Jimmy Hansen and Barak Obama.
Ha ha
A church once contacted my surveying company to do some work on their property, elevations for drainage mostly.
I visited the site to estimate a cost.
The whole time I was watching the clouds, I figured if God wanted to spite an atheist this would be the perfect opportunity. I guess God likes to watch us running around chasing our tails, while millions die.
He probably doesn’t care dude. That is the game after all. We’re born, we run around chasing our tails while trying not to die too young! If God exists, he’s probably kicked back into a galactic easy chair and watching the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
Just to be clear and for the fun of it, it was you that said “he”, not me.
So, you deal with it. 🙂
“The Heartland Institute is sending a team of climate scientists to Rome…”
Heartland have a ‘team’ of climate ‘scientists’? They are who, exactly?
Do you really believe that there are no legitimate, independent scientists who disagree with the flawed proposition of CAGW? If so, your screen name is well chosen.
I saw a blow-back coming on that statement too, good question.
When I have a leaky pipe, I call a plumber not a carpenter.
When I want to know about faith, rather than ask a scientist, I will ask the Pope. When I want to know about Global Warming, I will ask knowledgeable scientists.
A religious plumber might believe your pipe isn’t actually leaking. It wouldn’t matter that you can prove it is. You can’t trump faith with evidence.
Faith contradicted by evidence is superstition. Your evident hostility towards faiths of your own devising does not become you. I don’t believe in the same superstitions you don’t believe in. Why do you rage against cartoon religions as does Dawkins?
First of all, you have the incorrect word. ‘Superstition’ is actually the belief in that one event causes a second event.
Secondly, my hostility toward religious belief DOES become me.
Thirdly, how do you know you don’t believe the same ‘superstitions’ that I believe? You don’t know me.
Lastly, I ‘rage’ as you put it, because it is the base of the world’s problems. Without religion, humans would find a lesser cause to kill each other, so the world suffering wouldn’t be as bad.
>First of all, you have the incorrect word. ‘Superstition’ is actually the belief in that one event causes a second event.
Anything that is contradicted by facts is mere superstition. Many people have been led to believe that CO2 causes dramatic, predictable warming of the globe, should it increase. It does not. That is a superstition. Misattribution of cause to effect is one version. Incorrectness about effect from a cause is another.
> Secondly, my hostility toward religious belief DOES become me.
In who’s eyes?
>Thirdly, how do you know you don’t believe the same ‘superstitions’ that I believe? You don’t know me.
You are misquoting me. Please take a second look. I don’t believe in the same superstitions you don’t believe in. We both agree that there are superstitions and we both don’t believe in them. That doesn’t make me hostile towards all things religious.
>Lastly, I ‘rage’ as you put it, because it is the base of the world’s problems. Without religion, humans would find a lesser cause to kill each other, so the world suffering wouldn’t be as bad.
I rage because people blame the religion for the behaviours of those who claim to follow them, yet don’t. Organised campaigns of hated have never had need of religions. Political haters have managed to kill scores of millions just in the 20th century without raising the prospect of religion at all. The bitter in-fighting of the atheists is just as bitter and deadly as the effects of faith-based pogroms. Without religion men would tear each other asunder like wild beasts for moral suasion would have no purpose or benefit.
The Catholic Church may be an important player in supporting objectivity return to climate science; or not. HI approaching them will be interesting.
Personal Note: As a person who does not possess belief /faith in the mythologies/ superstitions/ supernaturalisms that are the fundamental basis of religion, I only have respect for one religion; I respect the Catholic Church. The only basis for the respect I have for the Catholic Church is their crucial role in saving the works of Aristotle from destruction.
John
Well, all us Villagers well know one of the ‘Heartland experts’ with an inside track to the Vatican:
https://www.heartland.org/experts
Care to enlighten the rest of us, cus your rather cryptic comment seems to indicate some nefarious conduct on the part of a …….villain.
No hard facts ?, just gonna go with the insinuation for now ?
Imagine the effect on Catholics when Global Warming is revealed by actual climate data to be a hoax. The realization that the Church helped put us in the grip of world-wide, Fascio-Socialist tyranny will destroy its credibility forever. Francis will go down in history as man who killed the Church, thinking the end justifies the means.
You Know Nothing really aren’t helping.
What makes you think we are trying to help ?
Well let’s face it… the Church doesn’t have a very good track record of listening to the views of ‘heretics’, especially those who turned out to have been right! So I don’t like their chances. In any case, it speaks volumes that the Church is now wading in on this debate; taking sides with the so-called ‘consensus’. It shows how much of a religious mantra it really is. Who needs science when you have religious leaders telling us where the truth lies?
Unfortunately your argument is false because those historical heretics were scientists who were proven correct as they went against outdated religious doctrine.
You all seem to be frustrated with the idea that the Pope now appears to be listening to the scientists and not the industrial interests who give their financial backing to the Heartland Institute as it supports their financial interests.
The difference here is: The climate scientists support their positions with science (which unfortunately for you, the Pope also is basing his educated opinions on) while the industries support their positions with money and how to maintain it by distributing it to their strongest support groups like the Heartland Institute.
Hlinka, you accuse the wrong party. Scientists were not contradicting ‘outdated religious doctrines’. They were correcting the mistakes of earlier scientists whose pronouncements the Church accepted in good faith. Stop inventing evidence.
The long history of the Church choosing the wrong side in scientific debates can be used as an accurate barometer to determine fact from fiction.
If the Church say the science is right, you can rest assured the science is wrong. If the Church says the science is wrong, you can rest assured the science is right. The louder the Church speaks on matters of science, the more you can be sure the Church is wrong.
Only when the Church remains silent on matters of science can you be sure the Church is correct.
ferderble,
Not so. I know of scant few instances where “The Church” chose the wrong side. I suppose, you are referring to Galileo? Well, I have read all of the documents on that subject so I think you may want to reel in the categoric slam. I am willing to relay the history if you honestly would like to know. I won’t do the “tit for tat” thing and get into the tiresome and often hyperbolic church banishing game.
For a side that puts so much faith in the nature of things as produced by God, you sure seem to have so little faith in the Church that is ruled and guided by God. That all seems just a little hypocritical to me.
Remember, God is the one that created all the molecules of the air and GHGs. As a result, he also created the natural responses of any compositional changes of those molecules in the atmosphere, whether or not those changes be natural or man made. CO2 increases from major historical volcanic events eventually caused a corresponding increase in global temperatures after the initial cooling by the ash particles. Similarly, increases in CO2 by humans react the same way in the atmosphere with increasing global temperatures because that is the way God designed them to react when their concentrations are increased.
Luckily for us, scientists has been able to identify those natural reactions through their research and are able to tell us that global temperatures will change accordingly. The scientists didn’t create those natural responses, God did. They are just reporting what their research is telling them. For that they are considered the evil incarnate by those that have certain financial interests that are harmed by those natural responses.
I think this will be the test of whether the Pope believes in karma.
Heartland has worked hard to disprove the ridiculous assertion that second hand smoke is dangerous to health. Let’s hope they can convince the pope that the research behind AGW is similarly flawed.
There is no documented evidene to show second hand CO2 is dangerous.
Why is it a “ridiculous assertion?” : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535610803002198
“You all seem to be frustrated… ”
===============
You are so far out of your depth….I almost feel sorry for you.
Odd, I’ve noticed that anything that mentions Heartland Institute seems to attract negativism from otherwise unheard from personalities…
Dennis Hlinka: “historical heretics were scientists who were proven correct as they went against outdated religious doctrine.” Indeed. This is precisely what’s happening now. Outdated religious doctrine is being proved wrong by Nature no less!
Religious IPCC/CRU doctrine dictates that their model projections are right despite the fact – conceded by the IPCC/CRU themselves – that global temperatures have been diverging from said model projections for nigh on twenty years. This means the religious dogma (that the models are right) is wrong. How can it be any other way? The models are wrong. Period. They are wrong because Nature herself is doing something entirely different with her climate settings, something unpredictable, something the models cannot seem to emulate. Nature doesn’t care about the models or how much money your side has spent on them, or what your politics is.
The great American physicist Richard Feynman warned about this nonsense approach to science when he severely criticized researchers who manipulate their data to fit preconceived notions or who stop looking at data that contradict their hypothesis and assume that the data must be wrong.
Feynman also famously remarked, “if your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” He was talking about exactly this sort of thing. The computer model forecasts are obviously wrong if actual temperatures are diverging further and further with each passing month. Therefore, as Feynman correctly said, the hypothesis upon which they are based is also wrong.
EXACTLY.
” The Heartland Institute – the world’s leading think tank promoting scientific skepticism about man-caused global warming – ”
I thought the world’s leading think tank for the topic was either WUWT or the NIPCC.
Pope Francis is about to issue the RC Church’s position on climate change this summer. His opinion will be largely influenced by the UN, the Royal Society, the American Physical Society, which, as you know, are politicized and do not agree with you or the general position of WUWT. He rightly cares about the earth and wishes to influence the worlds population to adopt behaviors that represent positive custodial posture. When his issues the official position, it will NOT be one of those INFALLIBLE opinions from the Church’s magisterium, but it will be one from him as the political leader of the Archdiocese of Rome and by association, of 1 billion people.
This is going to be a mess for me as AGW skeptic and a person who disagrees with the Pope on this matter.
I thank WUWT, Anthony, Lord Monckton, The Heartland institute for advancing the skeptics position prior to the encyclicals publication.
I advise the visitors to the Vatican to visit and email the Pontifical Science Academy and the encyclical author as well.
This raises the profile of WUWT, and the Heartland Institute and puts them equally in the room with the UN.
Very wise move gentlemen and ladies!
Bravo. God speed.
I am so proud of Mr Watts, the great people at the Heartland Institute, Lord Monckton, Mr Marano, and the rest of the contingent.
All I want is a statement from the Pope that leaves a door open to evidence. You guys are the only people who can make it happen. BRAVO!!! You guys are great! Thanks Anthony!
Paul Westhaver,
Can you point out to me a public announcement which has stated the names of the HI team members (going to Rome)?
Appreciate it if you can tell me.
John
What John Whitman said.
I’ve responded when people within the Church have invoked its authority in support of the catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming theory. So I’ve been disturbed by prominent Catholic skeptics’ compromising good positions by making demonstrably false, silly assertions in purported support. I would have reservations about seeing them in the mix.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04/24/climate-skeptics-descend-on-vatican-will-attempt-to-influence-pope-on-global-warming/
Thank you, Mr. Westhaver.
Paul Westhaver on April 26, 2015 at 5:18 pm
– – – – – –
Paul Westhaver,
Thank you for info.
John
Also… some others…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/27/climate-scientists-head-to-rome-on-urgent-mission-to-save-the-pope-from-clutches-of-manbearpig/
Paul Westhaver on April 27, 2015 at 9:44 am
– – – – – – –
Paul Westhaver,
Hey, thanks for that additional link to a source that discusses who is on the HI sponsored team that went to Rome to inform the Catholic Church.
John
Joe Born on April 26, 2015 at 5:31 am
– – – – – – – –
Joe Born,
You have put your comment addressed to me in the ‘reply’ area of my comment to Paul Westhaver, I only asked Paul Westhaver if he could provide a source of any knowledge he as about the names of the people on the HI team going to Rome. So, I do not think your comment is responsive to my comment to Paul Westhaver.
None the less, as to your comment, can you rephrase it? I do not understand your comment as written. I would appreciate your further articulation.
John
Like you I’d like to know whom they’re sending. In my case it’s because I have reason to be concerned that certain of them would be too easily dismissed as not credible,
Joe Born on April 26, 2015 at 4:33 pm
– – – – – – – –
Joe Born,
Thanks for your clarification of your previous comment.
John
Dennis,
”milodonharlani: “The scientific facts are that there is no evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming.”
What valid scientific literature can you provide that supports that argument? Remember, WUWT and the Heartland Institute are one of many non-valid scientific reference sources.”
We were all sure you were going to show the evidence of CAGW. This is fundamentally your problem. There is no scientific proof to support your belief.
Eamon.
It fits his theological agenda, so I doubt science will sway him.
Correct
Is it worth pointing out to the Pope that the people pushing climate change are the same people supporting Muslims killing Christians all over the world?
Do you have evidence to support that assertion?
“Dennis Hlinka April 25, 2015 at 6:36 pm”
Response:
In short you either don’t know what the CO2-Climate Change hypotheses predicted to begin with or have changed them to something else after their failures. CO2CAGW’s record of 100% Prediction Failure means that the idea that “CO2 drives climate” has been Scientifically Falsified, which you have only managed to prove by not citing any CO2-specific prediction successes.
Your argument in favor of continued warming is irrelevant in the sense that the question instead is the cause of warming since 1950. In this respect the CO2CAGW hypotheses specifically predicted against the period of no GMT warming now extending over the last 18 yr., which, again, is known in Science as a “prediction failure”. Changing or diverting the prediction ex post facto to something else does not make this blatant GMT prediction failure disappear. The only period since 1950 even significantly correlating CO2 increase to GMT increase was the time from ~1977 to 1998. Otherwise, there hasn’t been any GMT warming – from 1950 to 1977, and from 1998 to current.
Likewise, you have changed other “CO2-Climate Change” predictions ex post facto: 1] CO2-Climate Change” predicted an acceleration of Sea Level Rise, which has not happened; 2] CO2-Climate Change predicted a decrease in Sea Ice at both Polar areas, not merely in the Arctic, which has also not happened.
I don’t really know how many Glaciers CO2-Climate Change predicted to retreat, but finding that only 40 out of ~160,000 lost mass is pretty weak evidence for a world-wide retreat; and it still raises the question as to the cause of the mass loss. Mt. Kilimanjaro lost mass because of sublimation due to drier air, caused by “land use change”=deforestation below at ~10,000 ft.. No net loss has been found in the Himalayas despite the ipcc’s claim that they would all be gone by 2035, etc.
There was no Tropical Tropospheric Hot Spot found, no increase in atmospheric water vapor content or optical density, no decrease in Stratospheric temp, no decrease in out-going Electromagnetic Radiation, no increase in Accumulated Cyclone Energy, and no increase in “severe weather events”, which the ipcc itself now seems to have delayed as a prediction until after 2050.
If these Prediction Failures do not suggest to you that something is severely wrong with the “CO2 drives climate” hypotheses, you need to significantly increase your skeptical capacity – especially since skepticism is at the heart of the practice of real Science. Right?
Judging from the inanity of his comments, he first needs to greatly increase his cranial capacity.
“Lewis P Buckingham
April 26, 2015 at 5:14 am
At the same time they may seek to speak to individuals in the Vatican, such as Cardinal Pell of Australia,a competent, no nonsense prelate who is concerned for the plight of the poor.”
Are you serious? He covered up decades of child abuse in the Church in Australia and just loves to spend up large. Concerened for the plight of the poor? Laughable!
He was forced to do so, and to a point, due to media pressure. It was not voluntary on his part hense the public statements he made. If no-one “complained” it would still be “masked”.
Of course we all know how the church’s views on Science have worked out in the past. If there is anything at all to gain from this, it might be to “find out what the Catholic church” proclaims and then go for the exact opposite.
If there is anything at all to gain from this, it might be to “find out what the Catholic church” proclaims and then go for the exact opposite.”
Teh stoopid – it burns!.
Is there going to by any moderation of this thread at all?
I’ll be happy to smack down the Know Nothings, but don’t see how that’s relevant to this site’s purpose.
Very best wishes in Heartland Institute’s visit to Rome to bring the best climate change counsel to the Roman Pope. I think it is a gracious gesture and I am sure it will be appreciated.
This is for anyone who appreciates Roman sculpture. The occasion is the signing of the European Constitution by leaders of the European countries. The statue is a portrayal of Roman Pontifex Maximus Innocent X. (The photo with Tony Blair is a little harder to link.)
http://foreignpolicynews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Signing-of-the-EU-Constitution-17-June-2004.jpg
“Spain’s Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, left, and Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos sign the European constitution beneath a towering statue of Pope Innocent X in an historic hall on Capitoline”
Blair explains conversion to Catholicism
Former PM tells Italian audience that church can make globalisation ‘our servant, not our master, lit by God’s love and paved by God’s grace’
http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h–/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/8/28/1251468226180/Tony-Blair-at-a-press-con-002.jpg
Blair did not become EU President as he had hoped.
• Ric Werme
April 25, 2015 at 6:44 am
Note he referred to “a man of his nature” and not “a religion steeped in dogma”. We’re not talking Pope Benedict or Pope Urban VIII who turned Galileo over to the Inquistion the second time.
It’s certainly worthwhile to get all sides of the story to Pope Francis.
Ric, It gets a bit boring constantly referring to Galileo. Why not try referring to one of the thousands of other scientists ‘persecuted’ by the Catholic Church, especially ones in the last hundred years. (sarc)
Has anything come of this?
Everyone else is reporting that the document is already written and ready to go out. Does this meeting amount to a check off step to say they did it? Oh well, the truth will be reconciled in about 200 years by Vatican revision standards.
There will be no Vatican in 50 years if Francis doesn’t wake up. The safest policy is Truth. Global Warming is based on lies.
Or it will be surrounded by migrant camps from those already being displaced by religious aggression.
Raised Catholic but now I’m a Lutheran.
Pastor was out of town yesterday so I had to endure a biased green propaganda piece by a church member masquerading has a sermon.
I felt like standing up and refuting everything she said.
I’m tempted to ask my pastor if I can do a rebuttal sermon.
Myron Mesecke
Yes. Do so. You will be making a strong, real-world contribution.
What help will you need?
Although the Church continually tells us that Infallibility is strictly limited in scope, nevertheless, the mindset of infallibility in all matters unconsciously pervades that institution. In 1870, Lord Acton travelled to Rome in order to lobby against the adoption by the First Vatican Council of the doctrine of Infallibility. He was unsuccessful. They did not listen. That is when the Church began going off the rails. Quem Deus vult perdere dementat prius.
Later, in this context, Baron Acton wrote: “I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”
[emphasis mine, above–Jorge]
Quem Deus vult perdere dementat prius.
Although the Church continually tells us that Infallibility is strictly limited in scope, nevertheless, the mindset of infallibility in all matters unconsciously pervades that institution.
In the first part of your sentence you recognise that the infallibility claimed by the Catholic Church is ‘strictly limited in scope’ but then you talk about ‘the mindset of infallibility in all matters’. Seems to me you are a bit confused. You were right the first time. The Catholic Church does not claim to be ‘infallible in all matters’ and there is no ‘mindset of infallibility in all matters’. The basic problem is that there are too many people who think they know the Catholic Church but in fact all they know is their own caricature. As the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church. ….As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.”
And, by the way. I would like to tell you that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. You don’t agree? Then on your logic you are not listening to me.
Nor are you listening to me. Unconscious, unstated beliefs can and do exist in the presence of conscious, stated beliefs, no matter how sincere. You overlooked the word “unconsciously” in my comment, an important qualifier. But perhaps you don’t believe that humans have both conscious and unconscious beliefs and thought processes. In which case, there’s no point in trying to discuss anything that complex with you, let alone your own religious tenets. Jesus said, “And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9) Yet Catholics call the Pope “The Holy Father,” which is quite inconsistent with the words of Jesus. If we shouldn’t, according to Jesus, be calling the Pope “father,” much less should we call him “infallible,” in any sense of the word.
Lank at the altar
I can’t say the Catholic Church has got even a poor record in science, with creationism etc etc. I hope the poor Heartland team aren’t burned at the stake – the common practice of the Catholic Church for scientist sceptics not all that long ago!
Where on earth do you begin with a comment like that?
Let’s look at a few of the clichés which have been used on this thread.
Let’s take ‘open-minded’. What does ‘open-minded’ mean? Does it mean that you never make up your mind and have an opinion about anything? Is someone who takes the position that CAGW is a myth, ‘open-minded’ or has he made up his mind? If someone has come to regard a certain type of evolution as being true and that anybody who believes otherwise is wrong, is that person ‘open-minded’? If someone has examined the evidence and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead does that mean that they are not ‘open-minded’? It seems to me that many people are using the term ‘open-minded’ to mean nothing more than ‘you need to agree with me’.
Let’s take ‘searching for the truth’. Is it possible to arrive at the truth? Many people say that scientists have discovered the truth about certain relationships in the natural world. Do we take these ‘laws’ as being ‘true’ or do we have to keep on searching for the truth?
Is someone who says that the common practice of the Catholic Church was to burn scientist sceptics not all that long ago, searching for the truth?
Common practice? Really?
Is someone who says that the Catholic Church has a poor record in science really searching for the truth? (Well, there’s Galileo and, err, Galileo and, err, Galileo and, err, Galileo…) Try searching on all the Catholics who have made important scientific discoveries if you are really ‘searching for the truth’.
As for ‘creationism’ that tends to be promoted by certain kinds of Protestants. All that the Catholic Church teaches is that God is the ultimate creator of the universe. It does not require any Catholic to hold to any particular theory about how God created the universe. But, then, anybody seriously ‘searching for the truth’ would have discovered that.
The inability of some to believe in a supreme being is many times a rresult of vanity. I am not sure if we have the final answers in particle physics or quantum mechanics or general relativity but I believe that the evidence indicates enough proven observations that I choose to believe in them. I will say, however, that it does not take any huge amount of faith to believe in God, compared to particle and quantum physics, which border upon the mystical. Particularly if one considers the probabilities of everything in the universe being so “finely tuned” as it apparently is for us to be here and observe the universe that we see. There seem to be a great number of Catholic bashers on this site who are looking for agreement with their personal ideas to be expressed by the Pope. Many of whom do not understand today’s Catholic teachings. For instance as an old Catholic, who attended Catholic school, I have never heard any pronouncement that one needs to be a Catholic tto be saved. Not too many other churches take such a position. Even many Christian churches decree that one must be at least a Christian to be saved. Not the Catholic Church and though I am not extremely religious and do not buy all of the minutiae that the Church sells, I have looked at a great many other religions and still find the Catholic path the best one for me very much for their lack of condemnation of other faiths.
As for the Pope, he is a Jesuit. They are always, in modern times, for the poor. Unfortunately they have not yet grasped the historical fact that free enterprise has done more to raise people out of poverty than has socialism, which has, indeed, killed more people than any other philosophy and has generally been a godless philosophy. As an engineer and one time physics major with a great deal of probability and statistics background, I see much more proof for a god in science than argument against one. The church may ultimately screw up on the issue of anthropomorphic global warming, but then like all human organizations it is run by people. I agree with those who think the Pope should stay out of it or at least reference both sides of the issue and keep an open mind.
We shall see.
I was taught by nuns, the Sisters of Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt*. Many times, Sr. Polygrippa* and the others hammered it into us that non-Catholics were all going to Hell, except possibly those lucky enough to die before they were 7. I shall not catalog further the forms of emotional abuse children were subjected to in that school. And, yes, the Church has walked back many of their pronouncements since, but the fundamental teachings of the Church have not changed. Sex is still dirty.
* The names have been changed to protect the innocent. Not all nuns were of this stripe, even back then.
Jorge,
I never heard that from the Sisters of Notre Dame, but for sure they were big on sin and guilt. So I know that of which you speak. And what fun would sex be if it wasn’t dirty? My point was that few churches do not tell folks that their flavor is the only one that will get you into the pearly gates. Don’t know if the Catholic Church has always been so “open minded” but they have for at least the last 60 years. Not including the sisters of perpetual guilt, of course. Great name by the way as the ones I had would also have qualified in that regard! Over the centuries the church, all churches, have done a great deal of harm but also much good. I decided not to throw out the baby with the bath water. My wife’s family was of Mennonite extraction and I can tell you that what we were subjected to was nothing compared to what those folks got. Of course, that church was founded by an excatholic as well I believe. One needs to keep an open mind whether it’s science or religion.
What I meant in using the words “open minded”, was that will the Pope give consideration to the sceptics side of the story by listening objectively to the arguments presented? Being that he himself is not a scientist, he then has to rely on the thoughts of others to make his decision. As he is an educated and principled man who is also the head of an important institution that carries weight in this world, then listening to those who hold a contrary opinion in this debate should be of importance to him.
I stay open to the possibility that he may yet do just that, even though I would not bet on the prospect of him changing his stance. I certainly hope that he would see the light of reason to where he would at least drop his full endorsement of CAGW, and consider altering the stated position of the Church on this matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
Thanks, Gerry. An impressive list, in some ways; in others, not. As has been stated here many times, numbers don’t constitute an argument one way or another. And the primary issue here is not whether there are Catholic scientists, but whether the Church as an institution has been of net benefit to science, or not.
I’d give it the benefit of a doubt, but we should take into account the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, not exactly an institution designed to permit the free exchange of ideas, scientific and otherwise. [I’m likely the only commenter here who actually owns a copy of the Index. It is, Deo gratias, out of print.]
I would be remiss not to point out that the link you included is labelled at the source: “This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information.” Weasel words! Biased or unverifiable information! All having insinuated themselves into the sacrosanct, yea, the infallible, halls of Wankerpedia! I am shocked, shocked, I tell you!
The Index Liborum Prohibitorm was created for a legitimate purpose.
I’ll make a contemporary comparison.
Many ISPs prevent you from accessing certain “malicious” web sites. Google filters your search results. Facebook, twitter, etc wikipedia especially, will prohibit the discussion of, linking to, or otherwise retransmission of a host of ideas that they arbitrarily decide does not meet their criteria, self interests.
I hardly think that your motives for commenting are objective either. Nobody’s are.
Gerry Shuller’s legitimate point is that the Catholic Church has always advanced science, it still does and like always will. The rhetoric to the contrary is largely unfounded. Even the case of Galileo, modernists hype his contributions to science and outright lie about his trail proceeding. (I have a copy of them translated into english) Science’s creation itself is often attributed to Roger Bacon, a catholic monk.
Noteworthy is your need to attempt to rebut Mr Shuller with a book, written by catholics to protect catholics, which they are entitled to do, and then you extrapolate on your insinuated intent of the publication as if it was to suppress science. Well, we all can read. We all know that you weren’t being helpful nor honest. You just wanted, to take a shot at the church.
So take a shot at Google, Facebook, etc. See how long you last on facebook if you erect a page attacking Mark Zuckerberg. David Brandt ran a Google filtering sight called Scroogle and Google put him out of business.
What you fail to understand or acknowledge is the ILP was not written to suppress science. It was written to promote the self-interest of the RC Church. That is something that you do, Obama does, Google does, etc etc.
To conflate a ILP as anti science is a distortion to perpetuate a 5 century old lie. Gerry Shuller correctly pointed out the numerous cleric-scientist, destroying the myth that the church is anti- science. You just had to try and get you digs in. Shame on you. So much for rational objectivity.
Jorge: I graciously accept your surrender.
But, Gerry, I was taught by the Jesuits, so I may be biased! My Astronomy professor at a well-known secular university covered the Galileo affair in full detail, with brief mention of Giordano Bruno, “who said the sun was a star, among other more blasphemous things.” The prof also taught me determination of orbits and astrophysics. He gave me his personal copy of the Index before he died. He was not a Catholic.
Paul, your “contemporary comparison” is a mammoth failure, equating the Index to slimy Google tactics, unless you’re being sarcastic/ironic. The Index was (also, if you insist) aimed at suppressing dissent in every possible area. Science was included. End of story.