![Vatican-workshop-page-banner-1[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/vatican-workshop-page-banner-11.png?quality=75)
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.”
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.