![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.”
Pope Francis is about to issue the RC Church’s position on climate change this summer. His opinion will be largely influenced by the UN, the Royal Society, the American Physical Society, which, as you know, are politicized and do not agree with you or the general position of WUWT. He rightly cares about the earth and wishes to influence the worlds population to adopt behaviors that represent positive custodial posture. When his issues the official position, it will NOT be one of those INFALLIBLE opinions from the Church’s magisterium, but it will be one from him as the political leader of the Archdiocese of Rome and by association, of 1 billion people.
This is going to be a mess for me as AGW skeptic and a person who disagrees with the Pope on this matter.
I thank WUWT, Anthony, Lord Monckton, The Heartland institute for advancing the skeptics position prior to the encyclicals publication.
I advise the visitors to the Vatican to visit and email the Pontifical Science Academy and the encyclical author as well.
This raises the profile of WUWT, and the Heartland Institute and puts them equally in the room with the UN.
Very wise move gentlemen and ladies!
Bravo. God speed.
I am so proud of Mr Watts, the great people at the Heartland Institute, Lord Monckton, Mr Marano, and the rest of the contingent.
All I want is a statement from the Pope that leaves a door open to evidence. You guys are the only people who can make it happen. BRAVO!!! You guys are great! Thanks Anthony!
Paul Westhaver,
Can you point out to me a public announcement which has stated the names of the HI team members (going to Rome)?
Appreciate it if you can tell me.
John
What John Whitman said.
I’ve responded when people within the Church have invoked its authority in support of the catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming theory. So I’ve been disturbed by prominent Catholic skeptics’ compromising good positions by making demonstrably false, silly assertions in purported support. I would have reservations about seeing them in the mix.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04/24/climate-skeptics-descend-on-vatican-will-attempt-to-influence-pope-on-global-warming/
Thank you, Mr. Westhaver.
Paul Westhaver on April 26, 2015 at 5:18 pm
– – – – – –
Paul Westhaver,
Thank you for info.
John
Also… some others…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/27/climate-scientists-head-to-rome-on-urgent-mission-to-save-the-pope-from-clutches-of-manbearpig/
Paul Westhaver on April 27, 2015 at 9:44 am
– – – – – – –
Paul Westhaver,
Hey, thanks for that additional link to a source that discusses who is on the HI sponsored team that went to Rome to inform the Catholic Church.
John
Joe Born on April 26, 2015 at 5:31 am
– – – – – – – –
Joe Born,
You have put your comment addressed to me in the ‘reply’ area of my comment to Paul Westhaver, I only asked Paul Westhaver if he could provide a source of any knowledge he as about the names of the people on the HI team going to Rome. So, I do not think your comment is responsive to my comment to Paul Westhaver.
None the less, as to your comment, can you rephrase it? I do not understand your comment as written. I would appreciate your further articulation.
John
Like you I’d like to know whom they’re sending. In my case it’s because I have reason to be concerned that certain of them would be too easily dismissed as not credible,
Joe Born on April 26, 2015 at 4:33 pm
– – – – – – – –
Joe Born,
Thanks for your clarification of your previous comment.
John
Dennis,
”milodonharlani: “The scientific facts are that there is no evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming.”
What valid scientific literature can you provide that supports that argument? Remember, WUWT and the Heartland Institute are one of many non-valid scientific reference sources.”
We were all sure you were going to show the evidence of CAGW. This is fundamentally your problem. There is no scientific proof to support your belief.
Eamon.
It fits his theological agenda, so I doubt science will sway him.
Correct
Is it worth pointing out to the Pope that the people pushing climate change are the same people supporting Muslims killing Christians all over the world?
Do you have evidence to support that assertion?
“Dennis Hlinka April 25, 2015 at 6:36 pm”
Response:
In short you either don’t know what the CO2-Climate Change hypotheses predicted to begin with or have changed them to something else after their failures. CO2CAGW’s record of 100% Prediction Failure means that the idea that “CO2 drives climate” has been Scientifically Falsified, which you have only managed to prove by not citing any CO2-specific prediction successes.
Your argument in favor of continued warming is irrelevant in the sense that the question instead is the cause of warming since 1950. In this respect the CO2CAGW hypotheses specifically predicted against the period of no GMT warming now extending over the last 18 yr., which, again, is known in Science as a “prediction failure”. Changing or diverting the prediction ex post facto to something else does not make this blatant GMT prediction failure disappear. The only period since 1950 even significantly correlating CO2 increase to GMT increase was the time from ~1977 to 1998. Otherwise, there hasn’t been any GMT warming – from 1950 to 1977, and from 1998 to current.
Likewise, you have changed other “CO2-Climate Change” predictions ex post facto: 1] CO2-Climate Change” predicted an acceleration of Sea Level Rise, which has not happened; 2] CO2-Climate Change predicted a decrease in Sea Ice at both Polar areas, not merely in the Arctic, which has also not happened.
I don’t really know how many Glaciers CO2-Climate Change predicted to retreat, but finding that only 40 out of ~160,000 lost mass is pretty weak evidence for a world-wide retreat; and it still raises the question as to the cause of the mass loss. Mt. Kilimanjaro lost mass because of sublimation due to drier air, caused by “land use change”=deforestation below at ~10,000 ft.. No net loss has been found in the Himalayas despite the ipcc’s claim that they would all be gone by 2035, etc.
There was no Tropical Tropospheric Hot Spot found, no increase in atmospheric water vapor content or optical density, no decrease in Stratospheric temp, no decrease in out-going Electromagnetic Radiation, no increase in Accumulated Cyclone Energy, and no increase in “severe weather events”, which the ipcc itself now seems to have delayed as a prediction until after 2050.
If these Prediction Failures do not suggest to you that something is severely wrong with the “CO2 drives climate” hypotheses, you need to significantly increase your skeptical capacity – especially since skepticism is at the heart of the practice of real Science. Right?
Judging from the inanity of his comments, he first needs to greatly increase his cranial capacity.
“Lewis P Buckingham
April 26, 2015 at 5:14 am
At the same time they may seek to speak to individuals in the Vatican, such as Cardinal Pell of Australia,a competent, no nonsense prelate who is concerned for the plight of the poor.”
Are you serious? He covered up decades of child abuse in the Church in Australia and just loves to spend up large. Concerened for the plight of the poor? Laughable!
He was forced to do so, and to a point, due to media pressure. It was not voluntary on his part hense the public statements he made. If no-one “complained” it would still be “masked”.
Of course we all know how the church’s views on Science have worked out in the past. If there is anything at all to gain from this, it might be to “find out what the Catholic church” proclaims and then go for the exact opposite.
If there is anything at all to gain from this, it might be to “find out what the Catholic church” proclaims and then go for the exact opposite.”
Teh stoopid – it burns!.
Is there going to by any moderation of this thread at all?
I’ll be happy to smack down the Know Nothings, but don’t see how that’s relevant to this site’s purpose.
Very best wishes in Heartland Institute’s visit to Rome to bring the best climate change counsel to the Roman Pope. I think it is a gracious gesture and I am sure it will be appreciated.
This is for anyone who appreciates Roman sculpture. The occasion is the signing of the European Constitution by leaders of the European countries. The statue is a portrayal of Roman Pontifex Maximus Innocent X. (The photo with Tony Blair is a little harder to link.)
http://foreignpolicynews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Signing-of-the-EU-Constitution-17-June-2004.jpg
“Spain’s Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, left, and Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos sign the European constitution beneath a towering statue of Pope Innocent X in an historic hall on Capitoline”
Blair explains conversion to Catholicism
Former PM tells Italian audience that church can make globalisation ‘our servant, not our master, lit by God’s love and paved by God’s grace’
http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h–/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/8/28/1251468226180/Tony-Blair-at-a-press-con-002.jpg
Blair did not become EU President as he had hoped.
• Ric Werme
April 25, 2015 at 6:44 am
Note he referred to “a man of his nature” and not “a religion steeped in dogma”. We’re not talking Pope Benedict or Pope Urban VIII who turned Galileo over to the Inquistion the second time.
It’s certainly worthwhile to get all sides of the story to Pope Francis.
Ric, It gets a bit boring constantly referring to Galileo. Why not try referring to one of the thousands of other scientists ‘persecuted’ by the Catholic Church, especially ones in the last hundred years. (sarc)
Has anything come of this?
Everyone else is reporting that the document is already written and ready to go out. Does this meeting amount to a check off step to say they did it? Oh well, the truth will be reconciled in about 200 years by Vatican revision standards.
There will be no Vatican in 50 years if Francis doesn’t wake up. The safest policy is Truth. Global Warming is based on lies.
Or it will be surrounded by migrant camps from those already being displaced by religious aggression.
Raised Catholic but now I’m a Lutheran.
Pastor was out of town yesterday so I had to endure a biased green propaganda piece by a church member masquerading has a sermon.
I felt like standing up and refuting everything she said.
I’m tempted to ask my pastor if I can do a rebuttal sermon.
Myron Mesecke
Yes. Do so. You will be making a strong, real-world contribution.
What help will you need?
Although the Church continually tells us that Infallibility is strictly limited in scope, nevertheless, the mindset of infallibility in all matters unconsciously pervades that institution. In 1870, Lord Acton travelled to Rome in order to lobby against the adoption by the First Vatican Council of the doctrine of Infallibility. He was unsuccessful. They did not listen. That is when the Church began going off the rails. Quem Deus vult perdere dementat prius.
Later, in this context, Baron Acton wrote: “I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”
[emphasis mine, above–Jorge]
Quem Deus vult perdere dementat prius.
Although the Church continually tells us that Infallibility is strictly limited in scope, nevertheless, the mindset of infallibility in all matters unconsciously pervades that institution.
In the first part of your sentence you recognise that the infallibility claimed by the Catholic Church is ‘strictly limited in scope’ but then you talk about ‘the mindset of infallibility in all matters’. Seems to me you are a bit confused. You were right the first time. The Catholic Church does not claim to be ‘infallible in all matters’ and there is no ‘mindset of infallibility in all matters’. The basic problem is that there are too many people who think they know the Catholic Church but in fact all they know is their own caricature. As the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church. ….As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.”
And, by the way. I would like to tell you that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. You don’t agree? Then on your logic you are not listening to me.
Nor are you listening to me. Unconscious, unstated beliefs can and do exist in the presence of conscious, stated beliefs, no matter how sincere. You overlooked the word “unconsciously” in my comment, an important qualifier. But perhaps you don’t believe that humans have both conscious and unconscious beliefs and thought processes. In which case, there’s no point in trying to discuss anything that complex with you, let alone your own religious tenets. Jesus said, “And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9) Yet Catholics call the Pope “The Holy Father,” which is quite inconsistent with the words of Jesus. If we shouldn’t, according to Jesus, be calling the Pope “father,” much less should we call him “infallible,” in any sense of the word.
Lank at the altar
I can’t say the Catholic Church has got even a poor record in science, with creationism etc etc. I hope the poor Heartland team aren’t burned at the stake – the common practice of the Catholic Church for scientist sceptics not all that long ago!
Where on earth do you begin with a comment like that?
Let’s look at a few of the clichés which have been used on this thread.
Let’s take ‘open-minded’. What does ‘open-minded’ mean? Does it mean that you never make up your mind and have an opinion about anything? Is someone who takes the position that CAGW is a myth, ‘open-minded’ or has he made up his mind? If someone has come to regard a certain type of evolution as being true and that anybody who believes otherwise is wrong, is that person ‘open-minded’? If someone has examined the evidence and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead does that mean that they are not ‘open-minded’? It seems to me that many people are using the term ‘open-minded’ to mean nothing more than ‘you need to agree with me’.
Let’s take ‘searching for the truth’. Is it possible to arrive at the truth? Many people say that scientists have discovered the truth about certain relationships in the natural world. Do we take these ‘laws’ as being ‘true’ or do we have to keep on searching for the truth?
Is someone who says that the common practice of the Catholic Church was to burn scientist sceptics not all that long ago, searching for the truth?
Common practice? Really?
Is someone who says that the Catholic Church has a poor record in science really searching for the truth? (Well, there’s Galileo and, err, Galileo and, err, Galileo and, err, Galileo…) Try searching on all the Catholics who have made important scientific discoveries if you are really ‘searching for the truth’.
As for ‘creationism’ that tends to be promoted by certain kinds of Protestants. All that the Catholic Church teaches is that God is the ultimate creator of the universe. It does not require any Catholic to hold to any particular theory about how God created the universe. But, then, anybody seriously ‘searching for the truth’ would have discovered that.
The inability of some to believe in a supreme being is many times a rresult of vanity. I am not sure if we have the final answers in particle physics or quantum mechanics or general relativity but I believe that the evidence indicates enough proven observations that I choose to believe in them. I will say, however, that it does not take any huge amount of faith to believe in God, compared to particle and quantum physics, which border upon the mystical. Particularly if one considers the probabilities of everything in the universe being so “finely tuned” as it apparently is for us to be here and observe the universe that we see. There seem to be a great number of Catholic bashers on this site who are looking for agreement with their personal ideas to be expressed by the Pope. Many of whom do not understand today’s Catholic teachings. For instance as an old Catholic, who attended Catholic school, I have never heard any pronouncement that one needs to be a Catholic tto be saved. Not too many other churches take such a position. Even many Christian churches decree that one must be at least a Christian to be saved. Not the Catholic Church and though I am not extremely religious and do not buy all of the minutiae that the Church sells, I have looked at a great many other religions and still find the Catholic path the best one for me very much for their lack of condemnation of other faiths.
As for the Pope, he is a Jesuit. They are always, in modern times, for the poor. Unfortunately they have not yet grasped the historical fact that free enterprise has done more to raise people out of poverty than has socialism, which has, indeed, killed more people than any other philosophy and has generally been a godless philosophy. As an engineer and one time physics major with a great deal of probability and statistics background, I see much more proof for a god in science than argument against one. The church may ultimately screw up on the issue of anthropomorphic global warming, but then like all human organizations it is run by people. I agree with those who think the Pope should stay out of it or at least reference both sides of the issue and keep an open mind.
We shall see.
I was taught by nuns, the Sisters of Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt*. Many times, Sr. Polygrippa* and the others hammered it into us that non-Catholics were all going to Hell, except possibly those lucky enough to die before they were 7. I shall not catalog further the forms of emotional abuse children were subjected to in that school. And, yes, the Church has walked back many of their pronouncements since, but the fundamental teachings of the Church have not changed. Sex is still dirty.
* The names have been changed to protect the innocent. Not all nuns were of this stripe, even back then.
Jorge,
I never heard that from the Sisters of Notre Dame, but for sure they were big on sin and guilt. So I know that of which you speak. And what fun would sex be if it wasn’t dirty? My point was that few churches do not tell folks that their flavor is the only one that will get you into the pearly gates. Don’t know if the Catholic Church has always been so “open minded” but they have for at least the last 60 years. Not including the sisters of perpetual guilt, of course. Great name by the way as the ones I had would also have qualified in that regard! Over the centuries the church, all churches, have done a great deal of harm but also much good. I decided not to throw out the baby with the bath water. My wife’s family was of Mennonite extraction and I can tell you that what we were subjected to was nothing compared to what those folks got. Of course, that church was founded by an excatholic as well I believe. One needs to keep an open mind whether it’s science or religion.
What I meant in using the words “open minded”, was that will the Pope give consideration to the sceptics side of the story by listening objectively to the arguments presented? Being that he himself is not a scientist, he then has to rely on the thoughts of others to make his decision. As he is an educated and principled man who is also the head of an important institution that carries weight in this world, then listening to those who hold a contrary opinion in this debate should be of importance to him.
I stay open to the possibility that he may yet do just that, even though I would not bet on the prospect of him changing his stance. I certainly hope that he would see the light of reason to where he would at least drop his full endorsement of CAGW, and consider altering the stated position of the Church on this matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
Thanks, Gerry. An impressive list, in some ways; in others, not. As has been stated here many times, numbers don’t constitute an argument one way or another. And the primary issue here is not whether there are Catholic scientists, but whether the Church as an institution has been of net benefit to science, or not.
I’d give it the benefit of a doubt, but we should take into account the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, not exactly an institution designed to permit the free exchange of ideas, scientific and otherwise. [I’m likely the only commenter here who actually owns a copy of the Index. It is, Deo gratias, out of print.]
I would be remiss not to point out that the link you included is labelled at the source: “This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information.” Weasel words! Biased or unverifiable information! All having insinuated themselves into the sacrosanct, yea, the infallible, halls of Wankerpedia! I am shocked, shocked, I tell you!
The Index Liborum Prohibitorm was created for a legitimate purpose.
I’ll make a contemporary comparison.
Many ISPs prevent you from accessing certain “malicious” web sites. Google filters your search results. Facebook, twitter, etc wikipedia especially, will prohibit the discussion of, linking to, or otherwise retransmission of a host of ideas that they arbitrarily decide does not meet their criteria, self interests.
I hardly think that your motives for commenting are objective either. Nobody’s are.
Gerry Shuller’s legitimate point is that the Catholic Church has always advanced science, it still does and like always will. The rhetoric to the contrary is largely unfounded. Even the case of Galileo, modernists hype his contributions to science and outright lie about his trail proceeding. (I have a copy of them translated into english) Science’s creation itself is often attributed to Roger Bacon, a catholic monk.
Noteworthy is your need to attempt to rebut Mr Shuller with a book, written by catholics to protect catholics, which they are entitled to do, and then you extrapolate on your insinuated intent of the publication as if it was to suppress science. Well, we all can read. We all know that you weren’t being helpful nor honest. You just wanted, to take a shot at the church.
So take a shot at Google, Facebook, etc. See how long you last on facebook if you erect a page attacking Mark Zuckerberg. David Brandt ran a Google filtering sight called Scroogle and Google put him out of business.
What you fail to understand or acknowledge is the ILP was not written to suppress science. It was written to promote the self-interest of the RC Church. That is something that you do, Obama does, Google does, etc etc.
To conflate a ILP as anti science is a distortion to perpetuate a 5 century old lie. Gerry Shuller correctly pointed out the numerous cleric-scientist, destroying the myth that the church is anti- science. You just had to try and get you digs in. Shame on you. So much for rational objectivity.
Jorge: I graciously accept your surrender.
But, Gerry, I was taught by the Jesuits, so I may be biased! My Astronomy professor at a well-known secular university covered the Galileo affair in full detail, with brief mention of Giordano Bruno, “who said the sun was a star, among other more blasphemous things.” The prof also taught me determination of orbits and astrophysics. He gave me his personal copy of the Index before he died. He was not a Catholic.
Paul, your “contemporary comparison” is a mammoth failure, equating the Index to slimy Google tactics, unless you’re being sarcastic/ironic. The Index was (also, if you insist) aimed at suppressing dissent in every possible area. Science was included. End of story.