Pope Francis Apparently Doesn’t Know IPCC Climate Objective Contradicts Catholic Doctrine.

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Pope Francis advocates the global warming agenda of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with the help of the Obama White House. Apparently, he doesn’t know their ultimate objective of reducing and controlling population generally contradicts Catholic doctrine. The irony is that as a Jesuit, the ideological church police, he should know, but apparently, his personal, political and economic perspective trumps it. He also doesn’t appear to know that population control comes naturally with industrial and economic development.

Coercion of the Pope to the global warming message likely began with John Kerry’s visit to the Vatican, ostensibly to discuss Middle East issues. The Boston Globe researched Kerry during his Presidential run and discovered that,

The Kerry family was traced back to a small town in the Austrian empire, now part of the Czech Republic. There, the paper discovered that before immigrating to America, the Kerrys changed their name from Kohn and converted from Judaism to Catholicism.

His Catholicism caused him much political trouble during his presidential campaign. Now the Obama administration has taken the next step, which is standard in the entire development of the IPCC climate campaign, by involving the top bureaucrat of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gina McCarthy.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters that her aim in visiting was to show the Vatican how aligned President Barack Obama and Francis are on climate change. She said she wanted to stress that global warming isn’t just an environmental issue, but a public health threat, and yet also a chance for economic opportunity.

The last comment parallels the political objective identified by Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart, who said,

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

These objectives appeal to a man familiar with the slums and poverty of Argentina. The problem is the more likely objective is to eliminate the people in them. Consider Prince Philip’s quote;

I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist… I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.

I recommend the list begin with monarchs.

Religious and political analogies abound between environmentalism and its subset, global warming. Former Czech Republic President, Vaclav Klaus, who gave the keynote address at the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York, warned about the growing trend.

Nevertheless, there is another threat on the horizon. I see this threat in environmentalism, which is becoming a new dominant ideology, if not a religion. Its main weapon is raising the alarm and predicting the human life endangering climate change based on man-made global warming.

Figure 1 shows how, as usual, cartoonists see the trend ahead of most and are able to comment without fear, until recently.


Figure 1

I wrote about similar parallels between religion and global warming by comparing Al Gore to the Pardoner, in Chaucer’s (c.1342 – 1400) The Canterbury Tales. Gore pushed carbon credits like The Pardoner pushed indulgences or pardons, hence his name. Here is Paul Johnson’s description of the Pardoner.

“The Pardoner, a seller of indulgences, is a complete and shameless rogue; but Chaucer, not content with exposing his impudence, shows how good he was at his job and how powerfully he preached against sinfulness. The Pardoner had also been taught to use the figure of death to scare his hearers.”

The opening lines of the Pardoner’s Tale provide the parallel with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) message.

“My lords, he said, in churches where I preach

I cultivate a haughty kind of speech

And wring it out as roundly as a bell;

I’ve got it all by heart, detail I tell.

I have a text, it always is the same

And always has been since I learned the game,

Old as the hills and fresher than the grass,

Radix malorum est cupiditas.”

(“greed is the root of evils”)

The Club of Rome (COR) took the Malthusian idea that world population would outgrow food resources and expanded it to all resources. They sponsored the 1972 book Limits To Growth, which was a forerunner to the IPCC Reports approach. It used simple linear trends for population and resources to project catastrophic projections. They used computer models to create the illusion of scientific accuracy.

The argument was twofold. Pressure on resources was occurring simply by natural rates of population increase, and developed nations were using the resources at an accelerated rate. The goal was also twofold. Reduce population overall and reduce industrialization that caused the increased demand on resources.

First and foremost of the Club of Rome Neo-Malthusians was Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book, The Population Bomb, became the bible for environmentalists. It also convinced most people, even though virtually all its predictions were wrong, that the world was overpopulated. Ehrlich also co-authored a book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, with the person, John Holdren, who continues the fight, but from a position of power as Obama’s Science Czar. It is entirely likely that he is pushing Obama, Kerry and the EPA among others on the climate agenda.

What were some of the views on population Holdren set out in the book?

“• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.”

Most Americans would oppose such measures, so Holdren had a solution to bypass them, using the shield of the Constitution.

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

Who concluded that such laws “could be sustained”? The answer is Holdren and his cohorts. But they also control the justification for action, because Holdren decides when “the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger society”.

Holdren disavowed all these beliefs at his Senate confirmation hearings and in additional press releases, which said in part,

“This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization.”

Notice that Holdren doesn’t disavow his view on overpopulation. He only says, government shouldn’t control it, especially with forced sterilization. Clearly, he still thinks overpopulation is a problem.

In a larger sense, it doesn’t matter because major policy positions and global conferences continue with incorrect claims about overpopulation. It is central to the Principles of Agenda 21 set out in, what else, a Synthesis Report. It triggered the UN international population conference in Cairo in November 1994, with Vice President Al Gore leading the US delegation. One interesting comment about the Cairo conference, that shows some things haven’t changed, was this cryptic note.

Despite dire predictions that the conference would be the focus of attack by Islamic militants, there were no violent incidents.

Little else has changed either. Proponents of the IPCC and their anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis continue their crusade (pun intended) by inveigling the support of authority figures, like the Pope and by inference, associated groups. These are classic, appeals to authority, like Lord May’s use of the Royal Society to persuade other science societies to support the AGW cause.

Most members of the Societies didn’t know what their leaders were doing and many demanded retraction or at least restatement. Many of the parishioners are rebelling against religious involvement. A few years ago, members of the Catholic Church of Scotland, who were annoyed that their bishop had directed priests to preach against global warming, approached me. Their view was biblical,

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

The Pope apparently did not think through his commitment to the IPCC claims as expounded by the Obama White House. Likely, he was easily persuaded, because so much of the false claims fit his socialist ideology. He tried to walk back his commitment by jokingly suggesting he was not promoting population control. He said,

“Some think, excuse me if I use the word, that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits…but no,”

He later backtracked on this comment.

Wednesday, he seemed to pull back from that statement. Speaking of his recent trip to the Philippines, where he presided over the largest mass in history, he said “it gives consolation and hope to see so many numerous families who receive children as a real gift of God. They know that every child is a benediction.”

He called “simplistic” the belief that large families were the cause of poverty, blaming it instead on an unjust economic system. “We can all say that the principal cause of poverty is an economic system that has removed the person from the center, and put the god of money there instead.”

This comment appears to show further lack of understanding, created by an idée fixe.

Ironically, both the IPCC and the Pope fail to recognize the proven dynamics of the Demographic Transition. This theory basically shows that population decreases naturally when industrial economic development is allowed. The key is it must be allowed without interference from government or the church as this author explains.

As with all models, the demographic transition model has its problems. The model does not provide “guidelines” as to how long it takes a country to get from Stage I to III. Western European countries took centuries though some rapidly developing countries like the Economic Tigers are transforming in mere decades. The model also does not predict that all countries will reach Stage III and have stable low birth and death rates. There are factors such as religion that keep some countries’ birth rate from dropping.

The good news is, most Catholics are not listening. In Catholic countries, the population rate has declined considerably. Reportedly, the best measure is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), the expected number of children born per woman in her child-bearing years.

Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would tend towards zero.

Fertility rates for four predominantly catholic countries are;

Poland – 1.41

Hungary – 1.41

Italy – 1.48

France – 1.98

But the Pope doesn’t need to worry; Italy, France, and other European nations are offsetting the decline with Muslim immigrants with higher TFRs.

Apparently, the Pope could learn from the French philosopher Montesquieu. He reportedly said, whenever he was tempted to talk about something on which he had little knowledge, he remembered his personal guideline. Never talk to other men about his wife, because they might be more knowledgeable on the subject than he was. Maybe the problem for perspective is that the Pope doesn’t have a wife.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Has the Pope explicitly said he recommends any action in climate change?
Just saying that we should care for creation isn’t controversial for the Pontiff.
So has he asked for any specific action?

The article is struggling to find guilt by association, and doesn’t succeed. It’s a hit piece, without substance.

David Socrates

This article is a mix of religion and politics. Difficult to do from the get-go, but even funnier on a blog about “science”

Robert Austin

warrenlb is struggling, without substance, to criticize. Tim Ball makes some interesting observations, but as with most politico-religious ideas, they are endlessly subject to dispute. As for D Socrates, he erects the straw man that WUWT is purported to be a blog strictly about science. my impression has always been that this is Anthony’s blog and that it posts what Anthony considers interesting.
(That is right, and there is nothing stopping moderators from getting fed up with a couple of constant nay-sayers, and keeping their comments in long-term moderation. Those commenter should understand that posting is a privelege, not a right. If they cannot act as if they are guests in Anthony’s living room, there are literally millions of other blogs where they can post their views. -mod)


give us your money or you will burn in hell.
Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.
Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force.

Roman Catholic Church’s wealth impossible to calculate
It is impossible to calculate the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church. In truth, the church itself likely could not answer that question, even if it wished to.
Its investments and spending are kept secret. Its real estate and art have not been properly evaluated, since the church would never sell them.
There is no doubt, however, that between the church’s priceless art, land, gold and investments across the globe, it is one of the wealthiest institutions on Earth.
Since 313 A.D., when Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire, its power has been in near-constant growth.
The church was able to acquire land, most notably the Papal States surrounding Rome, convert pagan temples and claim relics for itself. Over 300 years, it became one of Europe’s largest landowners.
For the next thousand years, tithes and tributes flowed in from all over Europe. Non-Christians and even fellow Christians were killed and their property confiscated. For example, the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople in the early 13th century brought it gold, money and jewels.


A friend of mine, Phillipino, in New Zealand spent time in Italy and the Vatican on holiday once. She returned disturbed at the extreme wealth the Church has accumutlated over the centuries while her fellow countrymen, women and children live in abject poverty in slums and rubbish dumps in Manila (Her home town).
I, myself, whitnessed the “wealth” of the Catholic church in Ireland, along with all the hypocricy and abuses.

the Pope wants redistribution of wealth. which is very much against catholic doctrine since redistribution of wealth is socialist/progressive/communist speak for theft.

the Catholic Church has a long history of redistribution of wealth. it takes the wealth of the poor and gives it to the church. in the name of doing good they have done very well indeed.

climate change has a great deal in common with the church. both want money to save the earth from the sins of humanity. both preach that we will burn if we don’t give.
Both are big on talking about future salvation, in return for money today. both have profited greatly. neither has demonstrated any power to actually save anyone.

It’s just another case of ‘do as I say, not as I do’. The day the Pope says he’s going to redistribute his church’s immense wealth to the poor, I will sit up straight and pay attention.


Then there is this, which may wife (Catholic) says that she personally knew of similar occurrences in the 1960’s. Of course I’m sure that large donations were made to the church for their efforts:


WOW!! In the category of it is worse than we thought.
Up to 300,000 Spanish babies were stolen from their parents and sold for adoption over a period of five decades, a new investigation reveals.
Mr Moreno’s ‘father’ confessed on his deathbed to having bought him as a baby from a priest in Zaragoza in northern Spain. He told his son he had been accompanied on the trip by Mr Barroso’s parents, who bought Antonio at the same time for 200,000 pesetas – a huge sum at the time.
‘That was the price of an apartment back then,’ Mr Barroso said. ‘My parents paid it in instalments over the course of ten years because they did not have enough money.’

What a relief it is to find so many people here in the West (and here at WUWT) selling all their excess (that is, excess as compared to a person who has no home, car, cell phone, golf club membership etc.) and avoiding creature comforts in order to give significant amounts of their personal proceeds to the poor. Living an austere lifestyle themselves in sacrifice for their fellow man is the proper example for the RC Church to follow. Hearing so much criticism of the Church’s wealth and the obvious solution to the problem of poverty gives me hope and a perfect example that I myself should consider once I’m back from my month long vacation to Europe. I am in awe of the critics of the Church’s wealth who are undoubtedly using library computers to post their comments after their transit ride from their modest rental apartment.

The difference being that none of them claim to represent Y’shua the Messiah on earth.


MC … they get this close, “Pontifical Academy Of Sciences Pushing For Climate Treaty…Finds Fossil Fuels Akin To “Modern Slavery”!

M Courtney

That’s from Der Spiegel which isn’t traditionally pro-Church – so cauthion is required.
Even so these two comments imply that the issue is not yet set.

On why a climate treaty is important, Chairman Sorondo spills the beans, telling Spiegel that “climate change has adverse impacts on the poorest two thirds of the world’s population who have no access to fossil energies but who have to bear the consequences of their consumption. Bartholomeos I, the Patriarch of Constantinople, compared climate change to modern slavery at the Conference of Religious Leaders in December.”

OK, so the Patriarch of Constantinople is concerned. as though Istanbul hasn’t other problems for the Catholocism right now.

And on the upcoming encyclical on climate change, to be released in either June or July, Sorondo refuses to tell Spiegel what is going to be in it. “We will see.”

It’s politics.


Yes, just look at the number of quotes from Pope Francis that are in the article. One, err, err, err…Any quotes on climate change? Why bother quoting the man when it’s much better inventing his views for yourself.

“Apparently, he doesn’t know their ultimate objective of reducing and controlling population generally contradicts Catholic doctrine.” Suggest replace “generally” with “fundamentally and broadly” or maybe “completely.” Thx.

The Catholic Church has a great track record on science, just check with Bruno. When Constantine formed the Roman Catholic Church in 300 AD, it ushered in nearly 800 years of massive improvement in technology of torture devices and scientific progress in numerology, astrology and alchemy.


Rome had no science. Rome was an engineering society. They made absolutely no progress on the science of the ancient Greeks – who were they schoolmasters – and their slaves.


This is not the first time that the Church has fallen into the trap of compromising with the world.It is disappointing to see a Jesuit, who are reputed to be well educated and discerning, fall for something as obvious as the climate obsession.

Maybe the goal is to undo the Original Sin of partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That “Knowledge” seems to be disappearing.


It shouldn’t surprise you, Dr. Ball, that the Pope is supportive of the UN. The Pope is a Jesuit. The Jesuits have been intertwined with the Communists and globalists for years especially in Central and South America. The Jesuits have always been behind Fidel Castro as well. There is no shortage of literature on the subject. In fact, Google is your friend.

Alan Robertson

Agreed. I once had the pleasurable company of an ex- Jesuit coworker who had left the order over their leftist proclivities.. We had many enjoyable discussions about math and science and the world as it is, sometimes over games of chess, seasoned with bottles of cognac and my wife’s good cooking.


I attended Catholic high school and college in New Orleans. It is the belief of Jesuits and clergy in general that one has not the right to be wealthy, but simply comfortable, while they live in their gilded homes and eat off of gold dinnerware. I asked one of my professors (who happened to be a priest) how Catholic doctrine regarding the wealthy differed from that of Marxists, and he had no response other than to be perturbed with me for the rest of the semester.


Makes sense.
Religion + science = climate science
Kind of like chocolate + peanut-butter = Reeses peanut-butter cup. Tastes good, but of no nutritional vale.

My view:
Overwhelming evidence for Evolution, DNA, Plate Tectonics, AGW = Findings of Science
Overwhelming rejection of AGW = rejection of science = rejection of DNA, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and other findings of modern day science.

The only people I know of who “Overwhelmingly” reject OR accept all those things are rather weak-minded.


There is evidence for evolution – it is observed.
There is evidence for DNA – it is observed.
There is evidence for Plate Tectonics – it is observed.
But newsworthy AGW- we haven’t seen the tropical hotspot, the acceleration of warming post-1950 or climate models with predictive power. We haven’t go the evidence.
If you let AGW in to the science fold, just because it is studied without finding any evidence, then you really need to let Astrology, Ufology and cryptobiology in too.
But for me, not yeti.

Also, of those topics listed by warrenlib, only one has been declared “Settled Science” (implying no need for further research or research funding).

Pop quiz, match the values:
1. Rate of lunar recession.
2. Rate of separation of Atlantic continental shelves.
3. Satellite measured sea level rise.
4. Maximum ground subsidence in Jakarata.
a. 1.5″/year
b. 1″/year
c. 1/8″/year
d. 10″/year
There’s not a competent scientist on the planet who takes this climate alarm seriously. –AGF

Robert Austin

Would your views allow you to repost with CAGW substituted for AGW? After all, many noted “deniers” accept some level of AGW (from unmeasureable through trivial to benign).

warrenlb can have his opinion. Lots of folks have wacky opinions, like Jehovah’s Witnesses.
But I note that every comment below his contradicts him in one way or another.
We have the CONSENSUS! ☺ 
Apparently in this, too.

Steve Reddish

Considering that “overwhelming evidence” for AGW is yet to be presented, AGW is not yet a “Finding of Science” any more than polar bear population decline is.
That unsubstantiated opinion is the basis of your view shows us you have joined the church in figure 1.
P.S. Your statement about what others believe is merely a projection of your own low standards for evidence informing belief.

David Socrates

Dbstealey, some of your opinions are pretty wacky


dbstealey, I know it’s a joke but it’s still playing dirty.
He’s on the away turf – of course we are going to disagree.
The question is whether our disagreements are substantiated.
I think we did OK.
But having done OK on the Guardian I know that numbers of comments are not necessarily proportionate.

M Courtney,
Yes, it was a joke. But my post was substantiated, 100%. When I posted it I noticed the total consensus.
Now there’s one that proves the rule…

JJM Gommers

Robert Austin, what do we have : CAGW – AGW – GW
Al Gore, Mann, IPCC et al belong to the CAGW category, assuming Armageddon
The Pope, Obama, MSM et al belong to the AGW category
Skeptics/lukewarmers are in the GW category and they assume minor anthropogenic impact
Deniers assume zero or negligible impact and by definition not in the GW category.
It becomes a little bit more difficult nowadays due to the fact it changes to CC-climatechange
Maybe it’s necessary to standardise the definitions


JJM Gommers
February 1, 2015 at 12:33 pm
Perhaps you could try the term “Hard sceptic” instead of “denier” .The first use of the “D” word in the climate debate was to equate AGW sceptics with holocaust deniers.
As a hard sceptic, I see those adopting the Lukewarmer position making this an endless battle. The debate is winnable, but only when the hard sceptic position is adopted by far more sceptics.
I believe the reason so many sceptics hold the lukewarmer position is fear. Fear of looking foolish. “warming, but less than we thought” seems “safe” for those who fear they don’t fully understand the physics. At WUWT, this fear drives many lukewarmers to attack hard sceptics in what they believe is an effort to keep sceptics looking reasonable.
But to be a lukewarmer you have to believe unreasonable things –
– believing you can use the two stream approximation of radiative physics within the Hohlrumn of the atmosphere.
– believing that the oceans are a near blackbody not a SW selective surface.
– believing the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR.
– believing incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool.
– believing adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability.
– believing radiative subsidence plays no role in tropospheric vertical circulation.
The lukewarmer position is not so much a position of reason, it seems more a position of fear.


Anthropogenic Climate Change may not be a “conspiracy” designed to lead to socialism, but it has been co-opted for that purpose by the left. This is why they are so vehemently insistent that the “debate is over” and we get on to “solving the problem”.
Of course all of these solutions require “progressive” or outright socialist solutions; punitive taxation, loss of individual property rights, government imposed rationing of resources, cap and trade schemes, redistribution of wealth.
Naturalism and Conservation have undergone the political transformation to Environmentalism and then on to “Environmental Justice” which is just a quasi-religious branch of the real core of the lefts agenda the “Social Justice Movement”.
Pope Francis is only too eager to make the Catholic Church an ally in the “struggle”.


If the shoe was on the other foot, the typical lefty Marxist warmist would howl and piss and moan if a conservative religious icon stood up and told the world what it had to do, whatever it was, and they would shout that person down. Hypocrites.
The FALSE PROPHET here is a scientifically clueless foolish tool. The scary part is he is working with the most anti-Christian rabblerouser this country has ever had as an occupant of the oval office.
The grand pooba ought to think really carefully here: as temperatures drop off from low solar activity during the next few years, he will clearly be seen as either stupid, or a liar, or both, and his personal credibility and that of his church will drop off precipitiously with the temperatures.
Does the leader of one of the world’s largest religions really think God intended for humanity to be led down the destructive Agenda 21 road based on a pack of lies?


It was almost 400 years ago in 1616 when Pope Paul V visited judgement on Galileo. Just because he went against the consensus of the time. Pope Francis will find his much more educated flock of today far less amenable to any appeals to his authority in matters scientific. Well me for one.


Sorry Tim – but the “proven dynamics of the Demographic Transition” is not proven. It’s hocus pocus. Look at ancient Greece and Rome when demographic decline brought in the destruction of their empires followed by the “Dark Ages” now relabelled the “Medieval Ages”. Look at ancient Egypt when demographic decline brought in the “Dark Ages.” There are many, many examples throughout history and it has nothing to do with modernism or industrial development. Look at demographics like the way sceptics look at climate data and you will see cyclical trends. Look at demographics like an alarmist and you will see unprecedented trends.

Mike M

False. Demographic Transition is a primarily an effect from mass wealth brought by the benefits of the industrial revolution fueled by free market capitalism.
The indigenous US population would stabilize by about 2040 if not for over a million immigrants we allow here every year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wm4KVpVLOE For every million we allow to come here from the third world each year – the third world produces another 10 million. https://www.numbersusa.com/
Clearly bringing 1/9 of them here every year is NOT going to solve anything and having that many is endangering the very cultural that created the wealth by supplanting it with a culture of government dependency. Instead of expecting individual resourcefulness from immigrants to the USA who came here for economic opportunity, were seeing way too many come here expecting a handout and they are producing children who want the same thing. The third world must become rich on their own by developing their own resources the same way that we did. Only then will their populations also stabilize but CAGW charlatans stand in the way of allowing that to happen.


“False. Demographic Transition is a primarily an effect from mass wealth brought by the benefits of the industrial revolution fueled by free market capitalism. ”
Nothing that you’ve said following the first paragraph supports your first paragraph. Anyone can make up a theory as to why population increases and declines. You can even blame it on sunspots, weather cycles and agricultural development. Someone is bound to say its all this and everything.

islam brought on the dark ages. check the dates of the dark ages. coincides with the muslim advance, the barbarians actually took to the civilization of the Romans and preceded the dark ages and the muslim expansion..


Actually the dark ages is generally attributed to what followed the fall of Western Rome. The great flowering of the sciences occurred in Muslim Spain with development in medicine, mathematics, astronomy and many other sciences. Western medicine has been greatly influenced by these developments. Many medical instruments and diagnoses developed there were used in Western medicine well into the 20th century. From the 13th to 15th century Muslim population in the Middle East, North Africa and Spain began to decline while European population began to increase rapidly. Much of the early sciences followed the route of Ancient Greece to Muslim controlled Spain, to Western Europe instead of Ancient Greece to Western Europe.

…… the dark ages were a direct result of muslim advance. there is lots of recent archeological evidence as well as the Jungers Layer in the Mediterranean. Up to that point there was still a spice route available to europeans as well as law and civilization (not the same as the height of the Roman empire but still in the same context). After the encroachment of islam then history stops. no construction no books (the muslims burned all the books they came across save one). In fact you can not show any new construction following the invasion of the muslims in archeological history (with the exception of a sad mosque in Spain), but you can find Roman style architecture right up to that time.
it wasn’t safe on the mediterranean sea until the 1800s due to the barbary pirates. That is when the USA sent the Marines in to pacify the mediterranean.
climate science isn’t the only fraud being foisted on us by the elitists.

Inventions of the “dark ages”: the heavy plough, horse collar, horse shoes, tidal mills, the wine press, the hourglass, artesian wells, the blast furnace, the chimney, distilled liquor, the rib vault, spectacles, the treadwheel crane, the mechanical clock, oil paint, the spinning wheel, the vertical windmill, the water hammer… ‘t Dark Ages were so dark, even the light bits were dark!

Sorry Tim – but the “proven dynamics of the Demographic Transition” is not proven.

Nothing in science can ever be “proven” in the strict sense. In the vernacular however, something that has been repeatedly demonstrated to work is “proven” to work. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that industrialization leads to wealth and wealth leads to decreasing birth rates.
This is quite an unexpected result, because in animal populations, increasing wealth (more food) leads to increased birth rates. This suggests that it is not strictly wealth that leads to decreasing birth rates, but something that comes about as a result of wealth, such as education and mechanization.


John Maynard Keynes was absolutely right … until he was absolutely wrong because Milton Friedman was absolutely right. Too bad Milton Friedman was not absolutely right long enough for most of the younger generations to get to know his name because it seems like Keynes could be right again. So it is with the “Demographic Transition.” It is a micro study that explains as much as needed to satisfy the need that no more study is needed until it can explain no more.

JJM Gommers

A side effect of DT is a shift in the social classes with subsequent birthrates. Education lowers the birthrate but indoctrination(religion) is doing the opposite.


In fairness, he could live there but chooses to live in an apartment instead.


Well he is supposed t be the “Last One” after all, so maybe he has decided to shape up:

don’t be fooled by the poser …he is a full blown communist.

GPM, I agree. If it walks like a duck, and has feathers, and quacks…

Eamon Butler

Still waiting for him to put a ” For Sale” sign on the Vatican.


I doubt any pope joined the priesthood 40+ years earlier in their careers because it was a guaranteed path to a lifestyle of palaces and private jets. It’s the office, not the man, that justifies those trappings. That’s like asking why does this Obama guy get to live in a beautiful mansion on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and gallivant around the world in a custom one-of-a-kind 747 with a really hot blue and white paint scheme? How unfair is that?
Its not uncommon that a nation, religion, foundation, association, or multi-billion dollar corporation has a really sweet headquarters for its leader of the day to occupy while in office. They don’t give it to him at retirement and build a new one for the next guy.
Pretty sure when this pope dies, in his will it’s not going to say “to my favorite nephew I bequeath my St. Peter’s basilica, and to my beloved sister I leave my Sistine Chapel.”
On a slightly different tangent (apologies to Jimbo for spelling it out here), complaining about the incalculably high value of the Vatican’s art collection forgets that it was the Catholic Church that commissioned those works in the first place. Its like asking where did Bill Gates get the money to purchase the tens of billions of dollars of Microsoft shares that he owns.
Maybe it does here and there, but I’m willing to bet that the church generally is not running around with an open checkbook buying outrageously expensive works of art (or basilicas and cathedrals) just to improve its collection’s worth. I think its yet to raise its paddle at auction to snatch up any Warhols, Hirsts, or Lichtensteins.
Rather it keeps the great majority of all these priceless pieces of art it owns accessible for anyone to see (yeah, yeah, for the price of an admission ticket). If Michelangelo’s Pieta was privately owned, it’d be sitting in the lobby of Donald Trump’s “Trump Vatican City” only to be seen by people he wants to impress or are rich enough to be able to afford the price of admission.
Though my real point is that a Trump couldn’t buy the Pieta in the first place because it wouldn’t exist had the church not commissioned it. Its not the Vatican’s fault that it commissioned a piece of marble from a starving artist that after four hundred came to be seen as beyond value.
(Though I will concede that the church, at least in the US, can pay ridiculous sums of money for new art and architecture it commissions today. From the Wikipedia article of the LA cathedral Roger Cardinal Mahony had built:
“$5 million was budgeted for the altar, the main bronze doors cost $3 million, $2 million was budgeted for the wooden ambo (lectern) and $1 million for the tabernacle. $1 million was budgeted for the cathedra (bishop’s chair), $250,000 for the presider’s chair, $250,000 for each deacon’s chair, and $150,000 for each visiting bishops’ chair, while pews cost an average of $50,000 each. The cantor’s stand cost $100,000 while each bronze chandelier/speaker cost $150,000.[12] The great costs incurred in its construction and Mahony’s long efforts to get it built led critics to dub it the “Taj Mahony”[13] and the “Rog Mahal”.[14]”
And the building’s double-butt-ugly to boot. How Cardinal Rog was able to drive around town, seeing all the poor on LA’s streets, and spent what he spent with a clear conscience is beyond me.)

Rock bottom
Now we know that if you want to be a good catholic you cannot believe in anthropogenic global warming.
This article is the silliest I’ve seen in a while

David Socrates

I agree,



Not so silly to me. Of course I went to school as an engineer and do not espouse science for science sake and may it be of no use to anyone. Apparently you wish politics to trump science.

If you’ve notivced in the comments over the past couple months, the MMGW scare is all politics to some folks.

Brandon Gates

What would you expect from a bunch of mindless Communist zombies, DB? The cure for cancer?

Robert B

Jan / David / warrenlb: Oh, look, the three Kool-Aid kids are here!


The Pope is supposedly influential among his group, so what he says would have some bearing on the actions and beliefs of those followers. So, to this extent, what he says is important. However, as shown by historical pronouncements, the Pope’s scientific views and accuracy are rarely in agreement.

Ian W

You perhaps read the article with a preconceived idea of what it would say and so that is what you ‘saw’ when you read it.
The article said that the Agenda 21/Club of Rome approach is one based on the ideas of Malthus, the world is overpopulated and is consuming finite resources. Therefore, to avoid catastrophe the consumption must be reduced and the ways espoused include among others forcible abortion and sterilization.
Even the most atheist of readers will be aware that even contraception is not allowed in the Catholic church, which are more ‘go forth and multiply’ and that children are a blessing from God. So forcible abortion and sterilization due to population levels, is contrary to the accepted teachings of the Catholic church.
The Pope therefore appears to have taken a rather contradictory position. This was demonstrated by the article.
Note I have not mentioned anywhere in this response global warming anthropogenic or not. So your claim that the article said “if you want to be a good catholic you cannot believe in anthropogenic global warming” is a strawman argument as that was not what was written. It was more that you cannot take the Malthusian misanthropic approach to curing global warming at the same time as professing Catholicism.


Dr. Ball makes some good points, but I agree that “Goes Against Traditional Catholic Doctrine” is not a persuasive reason for opposing AGW.
It is certainly not as though the Catholic clergy have a good record, now or in the past, of getting the science right.
Historically speaking, you’d probably have a batting percentage on science questions that is better than the popes, if you ALWAYS took the opposite position.


Well, how about, then, “AGW is a load of bollocks.” ? I was a Catholic up to a couple of days ago. Either the Pope goes or I go … I went … I won’t be the only one.

Big Bang Theory: Fr Georges Lemaître.
Fr De Grassi argued that comets were outside the atmosphere; Galileo argued they were atmospheric phenomena.
Albert of Saxony (c. 1320–1390) – German bishop known for his contributions to logic and physics; with Buridan he helped develop the theory that was a precursor to the modern theory of inertia.
Roger Bacon (c. 1214–1294) – Franciscan friar who made significant contributions to mathematics and optics and has been described as a forerunner of modern scientific method.
Anselmus de Boodt (1550–1632) – Canon who was one of the founders of mineralogy.
Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655) – French priest, astronomer, and mathematician who published the first data on the transit of Mercury.
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) –Renaissance astronomer and canon famous for his heliocentric cosmology that set in motion the Copernican Revolution.
Etc, etc, etc…

Eamon Butler

I thought if you want to be a good catholic, you do as the Pope says. It’s if you want to be a good Scientist, you will not have a ”belief” in CAGW.


Why is it that some people seem to be determined to prominently display their ignorance about things Catholic. Please, Mr Butler, go away and read some book about what the Catholic Church actually teaches and then make some informed comment.


Perhaps he needs to get cardinal pell to give him a broader perspective and listen to the lecture below


Exactly. As a Jesuit ‘product’ of a 12 year education it is beyond me that the Pope appears to lack the academic backbone to apply rigour to belief.

Bruce Cobb

Warmunists like Dope Francis pick and choose which tenets of the Globaloney Change religion to believe in and champion, regardless of how convoluted and self-contradictory those tenets are. His schtick is anti-capitalism, with a soupson of misplaced environmentalism. He makes for a very useful idiot for “The Cause”.

Danny V

As a Catholic, the Pope’s path has become worrisome. I agree with Dr. Tim Ball.

tom watson aka toms3d

I do not consider myself to be a good Catholic. I do have an extensive Catholic education. I also have a lifetime of working in Science and Engineering searching for the truth of how it works. Any reasonable and honest assessment of the speculated science of anthropogenic global warming show it to be so small, that if it exists at all, it is a micro minor player in whatever the future climate will be.
Spending billions on a non existent problem is sin when people are starving or sick with no treatment as resources are wasted to prevent nothing. It extreme mortal sin to do this knowingly.
So as Jan said above.
“Now we know that if you want to be a good catholic you cannot believe in anthropogenic global warming.”
As defined by very generic Catholic Doctrine. IMHO.

Taylor Pohlman

Golden – “demographic decline dynamics not proven”.
Sorry, but the examples you cite prove it works – of course it’s cyclical, nations emerge, get prosperous, birth rates decline, health improves, and a smaller young population is burdened with a larger older one, making them vulnerable to poorer but more dynamic nations or sub-populations that are growing. Plenty of examples of that, both in history and today, just not a lot of examples of how to get past the problem. Good example from history – how about the British who had to hire Hessian mercenaries during the American revolution, to fight the dynamically growing and younger population of the colonies. Now we hire Blackwater to fight our battles.


What exactly were the industrial developments in ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt that caused the decline in birthrates and the destruction of their empires?

Why assume that industrialization was the cause? Demographics is not industrialization.
Wealthy people do not need lots of children to help out with work around the house and farm. They can buy slaves for that purpose. Poor people have no option. They cannot hire their help, they must grow it.


ferdberple said:
Why assume that industrialization was the cause? Demographics is not industrialization.
That is not my assumption. Industrialization is part and parcel of the DT as referred to by Tim Ball and the article that he linked to. Also according to wikipedia:
“Demographic transition (DT) refers to the transition from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates as a country develops from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economic system. ”
As I said in my reply to you above, its micro study in my books.


By the way ferdberple – take away the bit about industrialization and the same explanation has been around since at least the mid 19th century, so there’s nothing new about DT except the industrialization part and the modern need for mathematical formulation and grafix.


Another by the way ferdberple – enjoy many of your posts.

I have already explained that it is wealth, not industrialization that reduces the birth rates. The surprise is that this happens, because in animal populations increased wealth leads to increased birth rates. Which suggests that it is not wealth, but something that springs from wealth in human populations but not in animal populations that is the true cause of the reduced birth rates.
However, the point is that Malthusian Theory of Population is fundamentally flawed when applied to humans. Industrialization is irrelevant, except as a source of wealth.


This reads like science fiction, unfortunately when I look around, I recognize it in the world we live in. Quite sad.

r murphy

While some commentators may not care for Dr. Balls analysis for religious reasons, I think he has done a fine job of showing how these two groups (Catholic, IPCC) are willing to forgive each other certain fundamental differences in their struggle for relevance and power. Of the two it seems the Pope has been a touch less cautious than he ought to have in his rush to endorse the IPCC’s socialist goals.

Well, after all, he is not a “Climate Scientist”!

… so his opinions can be safely disregarded.

Brandon Gates

And if he were a Climate Scientist™?


In getting involved with AGW and political issues, the Pope appears to have forgotten that famous admonishment — “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…” What kind of Pope is that?

a communist one


What kind of an exegesis of that verse could possibly lead anyone to draw the conclusion that Christians should totally ignore what’s going on in the world? Of course, the Reformation doctrine of individual interpretation of the Bible has lead to some very strange interpretations. 33,000 Protestant denominations and counting. Take your pick. There’s bound to be one out there that agrees with you.
What’s strange for a Catholic is that Pope Pius XII is, quite wrongly, accused of aiding and abetting the Holocaust by not speaking out against it while Pope Francis is, apparently, criticised for speaking out on a “political” matter. Seems like with some people the Catholic Church can’t win.

this Pope is a communist. a one world proponent and a redistribution advocate. and yes he is actively contradicting Catholic doctrine.


Hidden agendas and mass deception have become the preferred method of governance in the “brave new world”. As religion is among the oldest forms of governance, these tactics have been employed successfully for centuries to control the commoners. The first thing we teach our children is respect of authority and adherence to it, without dissent. Those of authority therefore determine through consensus what is truth in the collective mind of the populace and disseminate it through the media they control. Education becomes mere programming, with the bourgeois discouraged from pursuing higher thought and punished for skepticism of established dogma.
IMHO, it is this which presently threatens the future of Humanity more than anything else

Sounds like “Common Core” doesn’t it?


“…the Kerrys changed their name from Kohn and converted from Judaism to Catholicism.”
Which means, in birthright according to Torah Law, Kerry holds the rank of kohen (כֹּהֵן, high priest), a right which was conferred on the first kohen Aaron, the brother of Moses, and his sons as an everlasting covenant. Exodus 28:1-4


BTW, in case of any dispute over this alleged priestly lineage, the DNA haplotype of the Kohen line has been identified and can be verified. The haplotype does appear to have existed since biblical times, surviving even the splitting of the Jewish genealogy among the Ashkenazim and Sephardic Jews.

Gunga Din

I haven’t checked the linage you bring up.
But perhaps you should look at the the sons of Eli.
A person’s linage from his fathers does not guarantee his relationship with the Father.

Gunga Din

BTW Aaron was of the line of Kohen but not all of Kohen were high priest.
Either way, Kerry has never spoken for God. Ketchup, maybe, but not God.

Bill Junga

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. From my experiences loony leftist Catholics are amongst the best pavers of that road.
This guy is no Pope John Paul II.or Pope John23rd.
Incidentally, I was raised a Catholic.

Tony – the hapless Canadian Envirominister hasn’t been in office for 15 years…

Note the author of the article/opinion piece…


I think we can safely ignore anyone who believes that parthenogenesis in humans is real.


I don’t agree that we can safely ignore them. There’s a lot of them.
On a lot of issues that we have to address together peculiar notions concerning the origins of the universe, life, moral codes and so on don’t interfere, but there are plenty of instances where political stances are strongly influenced by religious belief. We’ve been seeing some of that in the news lately!


You’re probably right.


Well, as a one off that is specifically designated as being outside the bounds of normal experience – we can’t. Not that it can be proven, therefore, just that such singular events cannot be proven never to have happened. The rules of induction do not apply.
If parthenogenesis in humans was considered to be an everyday occurrence then the evidence would call for a more sceptical response.
Anyway, the church is huge. It is not wise to ignore it.

Steve Reddish

No one believes that parthenogenesis has any relationship to Jesus, as that would make his birth accidental. Strawman arguments reveal desperation.

Steve Reddish

Parthenogenesis also only produces females. Another reason for irrelevancy to Jesus.


What about transubstantiation?
It’s very odd that so many climate sceptics (I would also describe myself as such) will happily question shakey scientific hypotheses yet except that a bread wafer and a cup of cheap red wine can turn into the ACTUAL flesh and blood of a bronze age middle-eastern tribesman. And do so without a sceptical thought in their heads. Mind boggling!
I’m not desperate to prove or disprove anything, people have a right to believe in whatever they want and I have a right to challenge them about it. In fact I’m sure we share a lot of common disbeliefs, Zeus, Wotan, Thor etc etc so you’re heading in the right direction ☺

Steve Reddish

The Catholic Church’s hierarchy is often politically motivated. Politics is the real basis for CAGW alarmism. We should counter CAGW with scientific evidence.
Opposing the Pope’s religion, or atheism verses Christianity, is a separate topic irrelevant to CAGW alarmism.

Alberta Slim

No. It is up to the CAGW Alarmists to provide the PROOF of AGW.
They have not because they cannot. The GHG Theory is a hypothesis that has not been proven empirically.

Before the Colombian Exchange and Industrial Revolution climate change was the principal population control, followed by plague and war. Leptis Magna supplied the wheat and olives for the Roman dole. Global cooling wiped it out, along with most of the population of North Africa. The LIA was destructive enough for Europe and China, but would have been worse without Andean potatoes. Climate change is still lethal to cultures that don’t benefit from fossil fuels, whether it’s freeze or drought, though in recent decades drought has been the killer. North Africa has been drying up for thousands of years, off and on, but it does much better in a warmer climate. So does Greenland.
So turn up the heat! –AGF


“… he is a full-blown communist”
Pope Francis, like many Jesuits, is very liberal-minded and has supported many liberal causes. He apparently encourage Obama to “liberate” Cuba from the U.S. embargo.
But, curiously, he has always taken a somewhat dim view of the “liberation theology” priests in South America, many of whom openly embrace communism.

indeed. having worked in many countries as well as several latin ones it does not surprise me. communists only go for the liberation theology if they have secumbed to it through local exposure. or it helps them locally. most countries I find are very racist in putting their people first except north america and parts of europe.
it’s not just their soccer teams they cheer.


(A wasted posting effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

r murphy

The fact that Dr. Ball has the courage to speak out about the behind the scenes machinations of the elites does not indicate a weakness of mind but rather incredible courage to speak truth to power, Elites collude, always have, always will, to believe otherwise is incredibly naive.


(A wasted posting effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)


It’s not that the moon landings were actually faked, but that the government would have been fully and immorally capable of doing it if they had decided too. That knowledge makes it all too easy to believe many of the “supposedly” loony conspiracy theories because who really knows for sure…….


You can’t help being a troll, can you?

Mike Henderson

His DNA.

David Ball

They just do not understand whose side they are on. It’s weird.

Pieter Folkens

One of the most important of Tim’s comments was citing Canada’s Christine Stewart, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” This recalls the IPCC’s Ottmar Edenhofer when he said it was not about saving the environment, but about the “de facto distribution of the world’s resources through climate policy.” It goes back to the Club of Rome’s publication, “The First Global Revolution” in 1990, in which they write about coming up with a struggle that all the disparate nations could get behind. As they said, “in need not be a real one” but only “suitable for the purpose.” Climate change was identified as one suitable for the purpose. That publication was made available at the first Rio Conference.
We can discuss the science and the numbers until we are blue in the face, but it all comes down to the political march towards global Socialism. All the IPCC intended to do was put a science-based justification on that agenda.

“Climate change” is the underlying justification for the UN’s Agenda 21.
The UN’s Agenda 21 is the Trojan horse of international collectivism.
Green is the new Red.
What they couldn’t do with tanks and guns, they now do with ‘sustainability’ and ‘regionalism.’
I think Rosa Koire’s book “Behind the Green Mask” is spot-on. Everyone should read it, and check out her videos. The woman rocks.


Anybody remember the “W.W.J.D.?” movement?
Seems like it doesn’t apply to Christian perspective as much as it used to.
Maybe it was just a fad which ran it’s course and became obsolete.

Steve Reddish

Relevance? Point?


I guess my point is that the Pope is supposed to be more like Jesus in his actions and words then anybody on Earth. Or at least that’s what my parochial schooling impressed on me. So WWJD?

Steve Reddish

Now I understand. As I am not Catholic, I never associated the WWJD attitude with the Pope, since it arose within the evangelical community.
My reading of the Gospels gives me the the understanding that Jesus forgave individuals, telling them to sin no more, while telling the church hierarchy to stay out of politics and not to impose additional rules of behavior.

Pope to Catholics Climate Funding: ‘Go forth and multiply.’

The Canterbury Tales – The Pardoner’s Tale
‘Nay, nay,’ quod he, ‘than have I Cristes curs!
Lat be,’ quod he, ‘it shal nat be, so theech!
Thou woldest make me kisse thyn old breech,
And swere it were a relik of a seint,
Thogh it were with thy fundement depeint!
But by the croys which that seint Eleyne fond,
I wolde I hadde thy coillons in myn hond
In stede of relikes or of seintuarie;
Lat cutte hem of, I wol thee helpe hem carie;
Thay shul be shryned in an hogges tord.’


Is the Pope Catholic?
Well, there is some debate on that score but, on the whole, the Pope’s position on population control is less ambiguous than AGW Central’s view on it. This is largely because the AGW castle is an edifice of many chambers and we don’t have a single manifesto to examine.
Tim Ball isn’t saying the Pope’s not entitled to pipe up about AGW, he’s saying it’s ironic who he’s holding hands with.
There is plenty of evidence that many prominent players in the AGW tragicomedy have ulterior motives and clandestine agendas but I am not prepared to stick the whole orthodoxy under one tent and condemn them as misanthropic monsters all.
I will even admit to the mildest stirring of Malthusian malice while standing in line at the DMV.

Alan Robertson

Yeppers, good points, all.

Jesus said that: Ye shall know the truth…and the truth shall set you free.” I yearn for that day to come…to free mankind from the lies of these fools!

Jim G

And He told Pontius Pilate, I have come to bare witness to the truth. In this respect the Pope has missed the mark entirely.

Prince Philip an environmentalist adherent ?
I don’t think so .
He dislikes and questions the need for wind turbines.
You mean Prince Charles – who has described sceptic people like me as being ‘headless chickens ‘ running around not knowing what’s going on ‘


Without denying the worm in the fruit, that apple may not have fallen far from the tree.
The desire to be reincarnated as a virus deadly to humans is imputed to Prince Philip.

Yet another Neo-Malthusian effort to redistribute and control population:
Gore: Spend $90 Trillion to Ban Cars from Every Major City in the World
I forget – how many mansions does algore own?

Gore: Spend $90 Trillion to Ban Cars
Gore’s plan has already been tried. As you increase city density it pushes up real-estate prices, forcing people out to the suburbs, off transit and into their cars.
It is a self-defeating plan, because it ignores economics. Mass Transit systems work when large numbers of people want to travel predictably between limited numbers of destinations. However, when these same people want to travel randomly between a large number of destinations, you need a much larger number of smaller vehicles. The cost of drivers for such a system is prohibitive, so people must drive themselves if the system is to be affordable.

tom s

Know what I am sick of? ALL religions.

Just an engineer

So are you going to give it up for Lent?

Hugh Davis

Why doesn’t someone send a copy of the GWPF’s latest publication “Unintended Consequences Of Climate Policies Unethical” to the Vatican?
see http://www.thegwpf.org/new-paper-unintended-consequences-of-climate-policies-unethical/
The Catholic Church is not however totally submerged under AGW alarmism. One of the Pope’s own cardinals George Pell, former Archbishop of Sydney, believes that a doubling of CO2 would be good for the planet because “plants would love it”
He is also quoted as having said “Radical environmentalists are more than up to the task of moralising their own agenda and imposing it on people through fear. They don’t need church leaders to help them with this, although it is a very effective way of further muting Christian witness.
“Church leaders in particular should be allergic to nonsense….. I am certainly sceptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Uncertainties on climate change abound … my task as a Christian leader is to engage with reality, to contribute to debate on important issues, to open people’s minds, and to point out when the emperor is wearing few or no clothes.”

Christopher Hanley

… doubling of CO2 would be good for the planet because “plants would love it” …
Quite so.
So called skeptics should stop being reactive, enriching the atmosphere is good for the environment.

What an interesting article, links and perspective. I really loved the last line!
“Never talk to other men about his wife, because they might be more knowledgeable on the subject than he was. Maybe the problem for perspective is that the Pope doesn’t have a wife.” ~Tim Ball
This goes to the heart of the matter. It is said that these monks, prelates, priests and popes are actually single so that they can be “married to the church.”
Please remember that Peter was a married man, as were all of the twelve apostles; their wives traveled with them and Thomas’ daughters were prophetesses. Mary also had a lot of children with her husband Joseph. In light of this, it is truly fascinating to study the adherence to monasticism in the Roman Church. And it is the Roman Church: it’s dogma throughout the Middle Ages was Plato, Aristotle, Porphyry, Galen and Ptolemy, to name a few.
But take the time to look at this interesting remark on Roman Monastics here:

Will Durant argued that certain prominent features of Plato’s ideal community were discernible in the organization, dogma and effectiveness of the medieval Church in Europe:[18]
The clergy, like Plato’s guardians, were placed in authority… by their talent as shown in ecclesiastical studies and administration, by their disposition to a life of meditation and simplicity, and … by the influence of their relatives with the powers of state and church. In the latter half of the period in which they ruled [800 AD onwards], the clergy were as free from family cares as even Plato could desire [for such guardians]… [Clerical] Celibacy was part of the psychological structure of the power of the clergy; for on the one hand they were unimpeded by the narrowing egoism of the family, and on the other their apparent superiority to the call of the flesh added to the awe in which lay sinners held them…”In the latter half of the period in which they ruled, the clergy were as free from family cares as even Plato could desire”.[18]
In his book The Ruling Class, Gaetano Mosca wrote of the medieval Church and its structure:
…the Catholic Church has always aspired to a preponderant share in political power, it has never been able to monopolize it entirely, because of two traits, chiefly, that are basic in its structure. Celibacy has generally been required of the clergy and of monks. Therefore no real dynasties of abbots and bishops have ever been able to establish themselves…Secondly, in spite of numerous examples to the contrary supplied by the warlike Middle Ages, the ecclesiastical calling has by its very nature never been strictly compatible with the bearing of arms. The precept that exhorts the Church to abhor bloodshed has never dropped completely out of sight, and in relatively tranquil and orderly times it has always been very much to the fore.[19]

In brief, may I suggest to you that what the Roman Church and the UN types share in common is Plato’s caste system consisting of Philosopher King, aristocracy, and lower classes, who are strictly controlled in what they can own or eat.

Now we have two Divine Comedies.
One Devine Comedy is presented today by Tim Ball focused on the nether regions where resides the world-views of Obama & the Pope on climate.
The other Devine Comedy was presented in the 14th century by Dante Alighieri focused on the nether regions of the then medieval world-view of the Catholic Church.
“Adandon all hope ye who enter here**” now into either Ball’s or Dante’s version of the Devine Comedy.
** in Dante’s ‘Devine Comedy’ those words were inscribed at the entrance to Hell

And please remember that a centennial of the Magna Carta is this year! Celebrate this wonderful document by watching A History of the English Language, by the inimitable Melvyn Bragg.
I particularly recommend episode 3 for this occasion: you can see what happened to men like Tyndale who translated the Bible out of Latin to English. It wasn’t a pretty sight.

This may be a wonderful opportunity for us all to really appreciate and celebrate the English language, and common law, or equality before the law.


Ah, myths are wonderful, aren’t they? Like the myth that Tyndale was burned for translating the Bible into English. What Tyndale was actually burned for was his determination to translate the Bible in a particular way. Like Luther he translated it in such a way as to bolster support for his own opinions. There’s a big difference. But some people just like perpetuating myths. It’s the only way they can convince themselves that they are right. (For those who don’t know about these things, Luther came up with a completely unheard of doctrine called justification by faith alone. So when he translated the Bible into German he put in the word ‘alone’ after ‘faith’ even though the word ‘alone’ did not appear in the Greek version he translated.)

Alba says, “What Tyndale was actually burned for was his determination to translate the Bible in a particular way. Like Luther he translated it in such a way as to bolster support for his own opinions.”
Surely it is a matter of public record and known history that Pope Innocent forbade the translation of the scriptures into any vernacular language.
“Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
– The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD

The Divine Comedies most apparent are paranoia about Conspiracies, Motivations, Politics, and (natch) Al Gore. Very little about Science itself.
Could it be that the logic of those ‘Divine Comedies’ are :
1) We don’t like the imagined Policy Solutions, or
2) We don’t like the conspiracies we imagine?
3) We don’t like the political opposition? (Liberals, Democrats, Obama, or what ever the bogeyman)
Only then to be followed by 4) We reject the Science, precisely because we don’t like 1, 2, or 3, rather than disagreeing with the science itself?


Only then to be followed by 4) We reject the Science, precisely because we don’t like 1, 2, or 3, rather than disagreeing with the science itself?
Coming from someone who has, in this forum, repeatedly challenged guest posters by complaining about their lack of science degrees, while steadfastly refusing to discuss the science presented by them, that comment is just a tad disingenuous.

I didn’t ‘complain’ about anyone’s lack of a degree. I said that if one wants an expert opinion, go to an credentialed expert, such as you would to an credentialed orthopedic surgeon for your hip replacement, not to your local barber.
And I would most certainly avoid a barber who contradicts what the credentialed surgeon says.

I didn’t ‘complain’ about anyone’s lack of a degree.
Oh bullshi*t. You dismissed Monckton’s science on the grounds that he had no degree in physics while refusing to discuss the science itself. Now you stumble into this thread espousing the exact opposite point of view, that we should discuss the science itself rather than the qualifications of the proponent. When called on it, you switch gears and start yapping about hip replacements by orthopedic surgeons. A demonstrated skill set to accomplish a known task by repeating known procedures is not science! Your about face on the issue is as disingenuous as your use of an example that has nothing to do with science. An orthopedic surgeon is no more a scientist than is a dentist or a mechanic. You contradict yourself and hide behind irrelevant analogies, but your hypocrisy is on display for anyone to read for themselves.


Warren, you mentioned continental drift in a rant. The first person to suggest the theory there was such a action was an amateur geologist and he was ridiculed for it in his life. It was later proven, after his death, by the US Navy with sea floor mapping. What were his credentials, was he an expert? And what were the credentials of Faraday, Newton and Tesla, were they experts?

Bruce Cobb

Only in a Warmist Trolls’ fevered imagination.


warrenlb: Since when is an expert opinion from a credentialed expert worth anything? ‘Climate science’ and ‘climate scientists’ in general have many expert but useless opinions based on useless climate models that disproportionately consume vast amounts of cash for no general gain for Joe Public. So much for your BS.

Oh snap! I forgot the military class in Plato’s Caste.
Correction: In brief, may I suggest to you that what the Roman Church and the UN-types share in common is Plato’s caste system consisting of Philosopher King, aristocracy, military class, and lower classes, who are strictly controlled in what they can eat or own. In particular they are not to own land, chariots or weapons.

Pamela Gray

Zeke: The English language is, said by some, not a language at all but a melting pot of all languages. As much a blend as our DNA. At best it is a scaffold on which words and turns of phrases from other languages have come, and still do come, together to form one of the most colorful and in-understandable modes of communication on the planet. If it wants to be boring, it can. And the next second it can move us to great depths of feeling. Few pure languages can claim such ability.

Yes ma’am, but in my humble opinion English is a lot more Viking than anything else. And so is our family, though since converted as Protestants by King Alfred. (:


All Medieval humor aside, Catholics here in the New World make wonderful neighbors (and bloggers)-. I remember once when I was a teenager I was stranded in a small town, and a Catholic police officer gave me a quarter to make a phone call home. He said, “You can pay me back in heaven.” So thirty years later I still remember that and look forward to handing him that coin. Although at the time I had no earthly clue what he was talking about.

John Whitman says: February 1, 2015 at 11:15 am
Now we have two Divine Comedies.
One Devine Comedy is presented today by Tim Ball focused on the nether regions where resides the world-views of Obama & the Pope on climate.
The other Devine Comedy was presented in the 14th century by Dante Alighieri focused on the nether regions of the then medieval world-view of the Catholic Church.
“Adandon all hope ye who enter here**” now into either Ball’s or Dante’s version of the Devine Comedy.
** in Dante’s ‘Devine Comedy’ those words were inscribed at the entrance to Hell

Then 12 minutes later we have,

warrenlb says: February 1, 2015 at 11:27 am
The Divine Comedies most apparent are paranoia about Conspiracies, Motivations, Politics, and (natch) Al Gore. Very little about Science itself.
Could it be that the logic of those ‘Divine Comedies’ are :
1) We don’t like the imagined Policy Solutions, or
2) We don’t like the conspiracies we imagine?
3) We don’t like the political opposition? (Liberals, Democrats, Obama, or what ever the bogeyman)
Only then to be followed by 4) We reject the Science, precisely because we don’t like 1, 2, or 3, rather than disagreeing with the science itself?

If your Devine Comedy comment was inspired by my first mention of Devine Comedy on this thread about twelve minutes before yours, then I will reply.
The operative word is ‘Devine’. When the discussion is about the word ‘science’ being utilized in the same context and sense as ‘religion’, then you get the subject of Tim Ball’s post.
Now, I do not agree with Tim Ball in most of the article, but I tend to concur somewhat with his assessment that climate change has become religion; notice I did not call climate change a science (it looks like pseudo-science). My view is a little different than Ball’s; I think climate change is mythology which is the necessary generic pre-curser of all modern religion.
So I find all of your 4 distinctions moot.

You say Science is a religion. Does that mean you think the Religion of AGW non-experts is Science?

You say Science is a religion.
He said no such thing. Your arguments rest on a combination of hypocrisy and putting words in other people’s mouths. When you start discussing the science instead of diverting attention from it, you might get some traction. But you won’t because you can’t.

davidmhoffer on February 1, 2015 at 12:56 pm

Yes. I responded in like vein to him below. I do continue to offer warrenlb my benevolent consideration.
Hey, I will leave the commentary soon to start serious partying for this afternoon’s Super Bowl 49. Take care. Go Seahawks!

John Whitman on February 1, 2015 at 12:03 pm
If your Devine Comedy comment was inspired by my first mention of Devine Comedy on this thread about twelve minutes before yours, then I will reply.
The operative word is ‘Devine’. When the discussion is about the word ‘science’ being utilized in the same context and sense as ‘religion’, then you get the subject of Tim Ball’s post.
Now, I do not agree with Tim Ball in most of the article, but I tend to concur somewhat with his assessment that climate change has become religion; notice I did not call climate change a science (it looks like pseudo-science). My view is a little different than Ball’s; I think climate change is mythology which is the necessary generic pre-curser of all modern religion.
So I find all of your 4 distinctions moot.

And then in reply ~18 min later we have,

warrenlb on February 1, 2015 at 12:21 pm
You say Science is a religion. Does that mean you think the Religion of AGW non-experts is Science?

Let me correct your perception of my comment. I basically said something like currently climate change is a pseudo-science and it is has evolved into something that has the a similar context and sense as that of a mythology on which all religion is derived.
Your ‘non-expert’ commentology (for lack of a real word to identify what it is) was suspended in argumentative mid-air.
Science, over time, self-corrects out myth and pseudo elements. Climate focused science is doing significant self-correction now, finally, after ~40 years of subjective focus. Viva la Skeptics.

Interesting assertions, Can you back them up?
1) How do you conclude AGW as concluded by all the world’s Scientific Institutions is ‘psuedo science?
2) How do you conclude only AGW is ‘pseudo’, but the other findings of those Institutions are not? Or do you consider all science concluded by Institutions of Science as ‘pseudo’?

4 eyes

resorting to authority again. Why don’t you explain why it isn’t pseudo science. You never have explained anything scientific yet or presented evidence of your beloved CAGW. Like a pampered prince you let others do the hard work.

How do you conclude AGW as concluded by all the world’s Scientific Institutions is ‘psuedo science?
Pseudo science rests on positive examples. I drank water and my aching back felt better. therefore water is the cure for an aching back. I know this to be true because I didn’t do anything else to make by back stop aching.
The IPCC admits that they believe human CO2 is the cause of rising temperatures because they could find no other cause. Therefore CO2 must be the cause.
Science on the other hand rests of negative examples. If one time I didn’t drink water and my back stopped aching, that single negative example would be all it would take science to prove that water did not cure an aching back.
Temperatures rose from 1910 to 1940, statistically identical to 1970 to 2000, yet there was minimal human CO2. That single negative example is sufficient for science to prove that CO2 is not the cause of the 1970-2000 warming.
Since climate science does not know the cause of the 1910 to 1940 warming, they cannot claim to know the cause of the 1970-2000 warming.
Pseudo science however is not bothered by this problem. The inability to explain the 1910-1940 warming is ignored, while human CO2 is assumed to be the cause of the 1970 to 2000 warming because they cannot find any other cause.
Science tells us that the most likely cause of the 1970 to 2000 warming is the same thing that caused the 1910 to 1940 warming. That was caused by “we don’t know”.


Your post says in total

Interesting assertions, Can you back them up?
1) How do you conclude AGW as concluded by all the world’s Scientific Institutions is ‘psuedo science?
2) How do you conclude only AGW is ‘pseudo’, but the other findings of those Institutions are not? Or do you consider all science concluded by Institutions of Science as ‘pseudo’?

Science consists of seeking the closest possible approximation to truth by seeking information which falsifies existing understanding then amending or replacing the existing understanding to concur with the found information.
Pseudoscience consists of supporting existing understanding as being truth and seeking information which supports the existing understanding.
Please consider if position statements by Institutions represent science or pseudoscience. You will then find the answers to your questions are obvious.

warrenlb on February 1, 2015 at 1:27 pm
Interesting assertions, Can you back them up?
1) How do you conclude AGW as concluded by all the world’s Scientific Institutions is ‘psuedo science?
2) How do you conclude only AGW is ‘pseudo’, but the other findings of those Institutions are not? Or do you consider all science concluded by Institutions of Science as ‘pseudo’?

I am back from my commenting hiatus due to doing all the parties before, during and after the Super Bowl including hangover recovery this morning. My team lost.
I have a response with a couple of points in addition to the points made in the critical responses to your comment by 4 eyes (February 1, 2015 at 3:05 pm), ferdberple (February 2, 2015 at 6:12 am) and richardscourtney (February 2, 2015 at 8:29 am).
In support of my view that climate change is pseudo-science, look at the speech by Richard Feyman entitled ‘Cargo Cult Science’. Feynman’s description of ‘cargo-cult science’ is applicable to the research paper feeder system supplying the IPCC due to its mandated charter to look for evidence biased toward supporting climate change.
Also in support of my view that climate change is pseudo-science, is that climate change community has a strong pattern to give priority to models and ‘a priori’ premises over corroborated objective observations. That is the fallacy of primacy of consciousness over existence. Only a pseudo-science has it.
Separate from the above points and for intellectual exercise only on the matter of pseudo-science, I have just off-the-top-of-mind and quickly made up a process. Let’s discuss it:

How is the following kind of process not pseudo-science?
-Mandate that a premise is real ‘a priori’ by a self-nominating consensus/ authority
-Use that premise as the fundamental basis of a theory endorsed by the same consensus/authority
-Consensus/ authority disperses funds with intentional bias toward looking for evidence supporting the theory
-Consensus/ authority gets the everywhere evidence supporting the theory
-The subject scientific theory is proclaimed by consensus/ authority as settled science
-With the evidence found then the premise is claimed proven to be a primary fact of reality by consensus/ authority



Pope simply worry about polar bears.

Alan Robertson

With all the talk of religions and what not, it’s a good time to point out the true meaning of the “72 virgins reward” for those labelled as martyrs who have performed unspeakable acts, all while trying to force God into a preconceived mold, if you will.
Those 72 virgins are nuns.
Having demonstrated a limited sense of guilt over their thoughts and actions, the subject martyrs shall be reincarnated to grow up as Catholic schoolboys, with 6 different ruler- bearing nuns for each of the 12 years of mandatory parochial school. A proper understanding of guilt is sure to follow.

Taylor Pohlman

Warrenlb: ‘And I would most certainly avoid a barber who contradicts what the credentialed surgeon says.’
Maybe, but I recommend a great book (possibly now out of print), ‘The Century of the Surgeon’ – many of the nineteenth century’s most important medical advances were made by those who opposed the ‘credentialed’ crowd, and it was just as true in physics.
Those who speak the truth and can prove they are right have the true ‘credential’.

So you would indeed go to your local barber for a hip replacement?

So you would indeed go to your local barber for a hip replacement?
A barber and a surgeon each accomplish their tasks through the repetition of known techniques. Regardless of the skill involved, neither are scientists. Your analogy is moot, and a further attempt to distract from your hypocrisy upthread.

No wonder the alarmist crowd is fast losing traction, with stupid arguments like warrenlb’s.
A much more accurate alalogy is this: you have a hangnail. You mention it to your barber. He tells you to not worry, it will be fine. AGW is much more akin to a hangnail than to any real medical issue.
AGW is not ‘cancer’, or anything else to be concerned about. The premier experts in the field have repeatedly stated that. For example, climatologist Richard Lindzen wrote:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.
Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.
Climate is always changing.
We have had ice ages, and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in hundred-thousand year cycles for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present, despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced, to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

Running around in circles and clucking like Chicken Little is the alarmists’ panicky response to completely routine natural variability. Everything we see now has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree.
Prof Richard Lindzen also wrote:
“There is ample evidence that the Earth’s temperature as measured at the equator has remained within +/- 1°C for more than the past billion years. Those temperatures have not changed over the past century.”
So global T at the equator has not changed — for more than a billion years!
Maybe our pair of hysterical alarmists here can explain exactly why we should be worried?
…Take you time, I can wait.


Might wonder what dbstealey is trying with this:
““There is ample evidence that the Earth’s temperature as measured at the equator has remained within +/- 1°C for more than the past billion years. Those temperatures have not changed over the past century.”
So global T at the equator has not changed — for more than a billion years!
Maybe our pair of hysterical alarmists here can explain exactly why we should be worried?”
No MWP. No LIA etc. But on the other hand, an increase in tropical SST:
No warming in the tropics for a billion years. But now.. dbstealey must be the most alarmist of all.


You must have missed my end-of-thread collection of past WUWT comments on the medical analogy:

an increase in tropical SST:
Your reference does not show the error bars. Nor does it show actual temperatures.
the notion that we can calculate the ocean temperatures to a fraction of a degree based on intermittent ships reports from 100+ years ago is fanciful at best.
Find rural stations from 100+ years ago that are still rural stations today. You will find that the unadjusted raw data shows there has been no change.
The problem is that for large areas of the earth there is no data. these areas have been in-filled will made up data, and this made up data has unknown error.
You cannot say how far off the calculated result truly is, except by comparing them to climate models. And if the models have bias, as they appear to have, this bias will be reflected in your in-filled temperatures and thus in the calculated average temps.
the problem is that the climate models rely on temps and temps rely on climate models. A small error in one results in a feedback loop that gets amplified over and over again.

rooter, get a grip. I gave you a well known quote and you go all ballistic.
A lot of times I can’t even understand what you’re trying to say. This is one of them. I never said or implied that the MWP and LIA did not occur. Where did you get that nonsense? And what are you trying to show with that chart? It simply tracks the recovery from the LIA. What do you want, a totally flat line?
I suggest that you get familiar with the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. It shows that there is nothing unprecedented happening. If you believe differently, it is simply your confirmation bias at work.

“Ball” said the queen, “if I had two of you possibly we could convince my family to shut up about climate change.” We need more Balls, not because I agree with him, but because he is interesting, erudite, and makes insightful points. Who else would quote Chaucer in an article about climate change and the pope!
I like the pope even though I’m an agnostic. I like Obama even though I think he and the pope are both ignorant and wrong about global warming/climate change. I dislike Holdren and Kerry and others who promote doomsday messages, but they aren’t the reason the pope or Obama embrace the CAGW exaggerations. It’s the scientific academies. Lots of over-the-top political ranting occurs on these blogs, similar to the over-the-top ranting by the CAGW crowd. Blame the pope. Blame Obama. NO! Blame the scientific academies. I wish Ball were a little more catholic in his criticisms. I am very critical of my fellow liberals- https://sites.google.com/site/climatesensitivity/
I don’t see Ball creating the level playing field that actually advances understanding and debate much beyond the polarized and politicalized “darkling plain,
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.”

Please tell us the exaggerations that you say have appeared on ‘blogs’ from scientific academies.

David Ball

It’s really very easy warrenlb. Just google “climate models”. Hope that helps. 🙂

Actually Warren, I spend considerable time showing the 1988 and 1990 model projections of CAGW that almost all science academies uncritically embraced.. David Ball is correct. And the good news is that scientific method is working. Well, sorta. The IPCC has replaced those 1990 model projections of 3.7 C per century with its 2013 much lower model projections. The earlier high sensitivity models were falsified, based the IPCC action to replace them. The problem is the pope, Obama, most journalists, pundits and public know nothing about this good news. The politicians and bureaucracy that wrote the 2013 “Summary for Poilcymakers” omit (censure may be the right word) this lowering of climate sensitivity estimates thereby guaranteeing the obsolete sensitivity estimates will continue to fuel the climate wars. One scientific academy, The American Physics Society, made a good start last year towards addressing their previous endorsement of CAGW. I hope we hear from them soon. I imagine they’re under terrific pressure by both sides in this crazy climate war. Climate science needs to get back to data and scientific method-