Will Pope Francis Change Global Minds On Climate Change?

Cardinal Pell: Be Prudent With Climate Claims


When the Pope talks, people listen. But as Pope Francis wades into the climate-change debate, will he change any minds? Francis will host a summit Tuesday in the Vatican on climate change with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. He is also preparing an encyclical — one of the highest forms of a papal statement — on the subject, expected to be released as early as June. Cardinal Peter Turkson, who has helped draft the encyclical, has said the timing is meant to influence U.N. climate-change talks in Paris at the end of the year. –Jason Plautz, National Journal, 27 April 2015

Noah Toly, a Wheaton University professor who has studied religion and environmental politics, said it is likely that climate beliefs won’t be changed by the encyclical. “What’s more likely to happen is people who already think climate change is real, serious, and anthropogenic will say, This affects how we want to act, and people who don’t are likely to dismiss the teaching or take it piecemeal,” said Toly. “They’ll say, We need to help the poor or care for the planet, but it’s not the cause of man.” –Jason Plautz, National Journal, 27 April 2015

Today we see another set of meetings in Rome. One is that of the Pontifical Academy of Science, and the other the Heartland Institute. Both organisations are hoping to influence the widely heralded encyclical from Pope Francis that will include references to climate change. Given that the text of the encyclical has already been finalised, and is currently being translated, there may not be much that either party can do to affect its content. Despite the emphasis being put on climate change in the press, it’s unlikely that the central part of the document will concern itself with just that subject.  –Cumbrian Lad, Bishop Hill, 28 April 2015

We can only attempt to identify the causes of climate change through science and these causes need to be clearly established after full debates, validated comprehensively, before expensive remedies are imposed on industries and communities. I first became interested in the question in the 1990s when studying the anti-human claims of the “deep greens”. Mine is not an appeal to the authority of any religious truth in the face of contrary scientific evidence. Neither is it even remotely tinged by a postmodernist hostility to rationality. My appeal is to reason and evidence, and in my view the evidence is insufficient to achieve practical certainty on many of these scientific issues. The immense financial costs true believers would impose on economies can be compared with the sacrifices offered traditionally in religion, and the sale of carbon credits with the pre-Reformation practice of selling indulgences. –Cardinal George Pell, 2011 Annual GWPF Lecture, Westminister Cathedral Hall, London 26 October 2011

For years, greens have presented themselves as merely the rational, reasoned defenders of science against gangs of charlatans, when in truth they were all about protecting an ideology: the ideology of no-growth, of anti-development, of anti-progress, of population control, of modern-day misanthropy, fortified with bits of science but really expressing an underlying, elitist, growing contempt for humanity and its achievements. Now, in their assaults on Bjorn Lomborg, their nakedly political censorship, their moral policing, their desire to deflect any criticism of their miserabilist, illiberal moral outlook, has been brilliantly exposed: they want to shut this man down, not because he denies scientific facts, but because he thinks differently to them. It is undiluted intolerance, and at a university too. Proof that the Western academy in the 21st century is giving the old heresy-hunting Church a run for its money in the bigotry-and-dogma stakes. –Brendan O’Neill, Spiked Online, 27 September 2015

184 thoughts on “Will Pope Francis Change Global Minds On Climate Change?

    • If Pope not careful with this, it could be even worse than you say………the Pope may end up breaking the Ten Commandments, the God’s Constitution to man, the very thing the Pope supsed to uphold.
      The line the Pope is trying to walk in this one is a very thin one indeed….could easy land Pope on the wrong side of the fence.

    • The Church is mistaken in becoming involved in questions of Science and Politics. History shows that the Church invariably picks the side that is ultimately found to have been wrong,
      And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him.

      • ferdberple
        I agree with the general approach. I was however wondering if the Pope would see the climate establishment as merely a materialistic form of religion and therefore in need to identification as such, and denouncement as ‘irreligion’. For the Pope to climb on board with groups that are so totally against all forms of religion, save their own, and with the cost penalties for doing so as high as they are mooted to be, can he really say nothing about the misapplication of so much to address a problem so small at the cost of what should have been done instead for so many?
        If he on the other hand accepts the rationalisation that climate things are not really about temperatures, but redistribution of wealth, will he set an example by selling a few billion $ worth of assets and distributing it among the poor, for their economic upliftment and education, for example? Will he instead ask that the governments of the world create an international fund (not the UN) to distribute more fairly access to the world’s resources and opportunities? Obviously its management would have to be democratic and representative of the worlds peoples, not national, one vote each. Such a system could even be financed by voluntary contributions. The hostility of some individual nations to such a level of democratization over resources, even if voluntarily given, will be interesting to see because it would undermine the hegemony of belligerents.
        If he signs over his chair of independent thought and analysis to the CAGW crowd, he would in effect be handing over his authority so I can’t see that happening. If he stands firm that there is not nearly enough evidence to ruin economies and speaks against carbon indulgences, he will be vilified by the extreme greens for not following their firmly held and exclusionary beliefs.
        I prefer the latter because it will demonstrate that he knows how to think and act on principle rather than threats of unpopularity. No private company using resources is ever going to be popular with ‘deep greens’ so, best to give up on appeasement of the unappeasable.

      • I am glad you mentioned the Roman Catholic Church. With popes like this one, they might want to rethink this whole pope thing. When your Church’s really main man is constantly tempted to play a political role, well, need I say more. By contrast, no other church that I know of has a really main man.

  1. I’m coming back to the Limerick: It is not Carbon Pollution. The Global Governance people really means population reduction and resource control. I doubt the Pope is o.k with that.
    What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
    A sinister, evil collusion?
    CO2, it is clean,
    Makes for growth, makes it green,
    A transfer of wealth, a solution.
    Increasing CO2 has the effect. It allows more people, plants and animals to live on a more resilient earth.

    • Lemme see. Last time a Pope waxed rhapsodic on matters of science he had Galileo confined to quarters.

      • JimB. Scapegoating the Church for things it did not do, for things Galileo did not do, is dishonest. Tell me what exactly did Galileo claim, and what was the objection of the Church? Hardly anyone actually knows, yet they carp out Galileo like they know something. Using Galileo like a punch line tells me you did not read the transcripts of the trial, rather you got your understanding from a Doonsbury cartoon. I’ll remind you that the Big Bang was invented by Father Georges Henri Lemaitre, Phd (physics). Genetics was invented by a catholic monk, Gregor Mendel..etc etc.

      • Paul W
        You are quite right. Those opposed to all forms of religion have succeeded in creating a meme that is very different from the legend and the facts. When haters hate, they are not so much concerned with the facts of the case. Very few people have, apparently, investigated what the dispute was about.
        The Church has ruled on all sorts of things that involve science. The problem for the non-believers is that a rational religious person is anathema – can’t stand them. Dawkins has done a lot to promote his self-generated alternate reality about all religions, save his own which he advocates strongly. His ‘logic’ boils down to a set of beliefs. A favourite tactic is to blame the Founder for the behaviour of people who happen to claim to be members, or whose family are members. It is a form of cherry-picking that the skeptics love to point out about CAGW-promoting papers. Skeptics are quite right to point it out, of course, but don’t like it when they are accused of the same thing when it comes to their forms of belief.
        The Church, Galileo and the Inquisition are always presented, in certain quarters, as the very heart and soul of Christianity, which is a patently false accusation. The same is true of Islam, the Hindu fanatics and so on. That a materialist religion like communism or Gaia-ism is totally against ‘all forms of religion’ (save their own) is nothing new, it is just that materialists are unbounded in their enthusiasm for getting rid of opposing ideas and those who hold them. Tolerance is for the ‘uncommitted’.
        Among the enthusiasts was Ghengis Khan who strongly believed that farmers were a terrible waste of perfectly good grazing land so he slaughtered more than 20 million of them. Extremists, once in power, all behave in pretty much the same way.

      • Crispin in Waterloo,
        Agreed. Ignorance of actual history, and the unwillingness to remedy one’s ignorance creates a deep invincible intellectual poverty. We, who have read the trials of Galileo, who know what the Protestant reformation was doing at the time in view of the Copernican book, recognize an empty headed carping box when we see one. You always know you are encountering an ignoramus when the one and only criticism they have is Galileo. LOL. Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them then turn on you and tear you apart.

      • In support of JimB’s post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

        Galileo’s initial discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.[3]


        the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him “gravely suspect of heresy”, sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.

      • What Galileo didn’t do. Well, he didn’t make the first telescope, THATS for sure! That goes to the Dutch, they were just a little too late.

        • Patrick

          What Galileo didn’t do. Well, he didn’t make the first telescope, THATS for sure! That goes to the Dutch, they were just a little too late.

          No, again, you spew the words you have been told, but not the truth. The Dutch glass industrials “invented” and improved the glass lens. Gallileo used their lens to develope a working, useable “telescope” system: mounts for the TWO lens at an adjustable focus distance, the envelope (scope body) and focusing system, the functional double lense system (if the two are the wrong “shape” or are at incompatible curves, you get a bigger blur, not a visible image))

      • I finished watching Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man recently. In the episode on Copernicus and Galileo, Bronowski was able to film some of the documents kept in a safe in the Vatican’s archives. The trial records for the Galileo hearings were included. One of the central documents of the second trial appears to have been fabricated or a draft from the first trial and stated that Galileo had been told not to teach about the Copernican Theory. (06 The Starry Messenger — Galileo’s universe—and the implications of his trial on the shift to “northern” science.)
        Well worth watching for that scene alone, though there are more informative sources easily found on the Web.
        Bronowski does point out that Galileo’s timing was awful and naive – Luther and the reformation was posing the biggest challenge ever to the church and they were not about to let this twit from Venice start another rift.
        In Bronowski’s episode on evolution (12 Generation upon Generation — The joys of life, sex, and genetics—and the dark side of cloning), Bronowski spends a lot of time on Mendel’s lack of support from the church, (though http://www.scientus.org/Mendel-Darwin.html suggests otherwise), and noted that after Mendel’s death, the new abbot burned all of Mendel’s papers.
        The problem as I see it is that the Catholic Church, like most large bureaucracies, is slow to adapt to change. A pity, as the Vatican Observatory does have some good people.

      • JimB and Paul Westhaver – The church was determined to stop Galileo promoting heliocentrism, but they actually convicted him of suspicion of heresy. A bit like the case of Al Capone, who was never convicted of being a gangster, but was put away for tax evasion. The authorities were determined to put Al Capone away because he was a gangster, but couldn’t build a case, so they found something else that they could put him away for. The fact that Al Capone was a known gangster swayed the judges against him, and effectively prevented his lawyers’ tax-related arguments from being given proper weight. So it was in Galileo’s case. What JimB said was “Last time a pope waxed rhapsodic on matters of science he had Galileo confined to quarters”. So JimB’s statement is correct. Note that JimB does not say that Galileo was convicted on a matter of science. [Note: I am not certain that “the last time” is correct. ie, I haven’t checked that no subsequent pope got into scientific matters.]

      • Ric Werne. I don’t know how you can take the Bronowski work seriously having that conflicting information.
        “The monks who worked and prayed daily with Gregor Mendel would have disagreed. Two years after the publication of Mendel’s work the monks of Brno held an election for a new abbot. The unanimous choice was Gregor Mendel.”
        It goes on to say how the previous abbot started the project and how large it was. it was obviously work that was important to the RC Church rather than just Mendel.

      • I think people should be careful about using too much of what they’ve been taught about Galileo. There’s a lot of myths mixed with verifiable facts. For instance, the quarters referred to above were larger than the average American house, had a room for Galileo’s personal valet, and was being supplied daily with gourmet food from the Tuscan embassy. There is no credible proof that Galileo had anything to do with the tower of Pisa experiment. His only involvement was probably receiving a letter describing the experiment from the Catholic priest who actually performed it, Renieri. There are many other widely accepted ‘facts’ that are actually myths.

    • I will add that modern science is largely the product of Judeo-Christian culture. So many of the great names of science – from Newton to Einstein to Feynman – were from that culture, though I know that many were not religious. Unlike some other religious texts and traditions, the Bible raised expectations that there is an underlying design to the world, and thus valorized the scientific quest for deeper understanding of the natural world.

  2. …And so we return to an age of witchcraft and magic – and rainbows and unicorns. A world where ‘scientific truth’ must bend the knee in service an intolerant, dominant narrative, an agreed agenda, or risk exile or perhaps even charges of heresy. I think we know how that kind of thing usually plays out.
    Is God a ‘warmist’? My money says His representative on Earth is pretty sure he is.

  3. Will the science facts of model prediction error on which the policy crusade is based rule for ever and ever? Or will the satellites and ARGO buoy system be turned off for fear of what they say?

  4. It’s about politics. Control, control, control. “Religious” leaders who push to control their followers are looking out only for themselves.

  5. I think this encyclical is coming out to early to impact the Paris COP. It will come out, make headlines, be punditted by the pundits, talked about by the talking heads, and distant memory by the Paris Party.

  6. The quest for societal relevancy can also lead to a quagmire, unless they too see it as a no-lose bet like all the others. No-lose in this case means you either win the wealth redistribution jackpot or you say you are sorry years later. It also shows just how low science process and model checking are on the totem pole.

  7. The relevant passage here is that “the text has already been written.” So Lord Monckton and his crew can talk until they are blue in the face, it won’t alter a letter of the encyclical. And so it goes with the rest of the CAGW true believers. The science is settled, the solutions proscribed, the script is written and we must all play our parts. They are not open to reason or debate, while we poor skeptics keep trying to talk about the matter. We might as well shout down a well for all they’re listening.

    • They use MS Word too. It can be changed up to the last second. Sometimes a word or two makes all the difference.

    • Dear Mods. Why is Mumbles freely permitted to draw the Villagers attention to Muncktons links to Catholicism and Heartland, but when the Village Idiot does, he is threatened with being burned at the stake for treason and heresy (opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine)??
      [?? .mod]

  8. All Pell is doing, I will not grace him with the title “Cardinal”, is diverting attention from the problem of prolific child and sexual abuse at the hands of those the Catholic church hold so high. My brother and I have been exposed to, and *ALMOST*, was subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of the “Christian Brothers” (CB) in Ireland in the late 70’s, where my direct family members actively supported CB and not the victims. I jumped with joy when I learned “Brother Kelly” was convicted for child sex abuse and sent to jail for life. Sadly, that’s just the life of one. The lives of the people he affected may never be counted.

    • If you keep in touch with the reports of child sex abuse inside the newspaper or buried in a web page the problem is widespread- youth groups, schools(especially), psychologists, psychoanalysts, doctors, etc. It’s even more appalling when the coverage implies that a teacher seducing a student is really not that bad. C’mon, the victim is a sexy young man or woman. What difference does it make if they’re 17 or 18? Indeed, what difference does it make.
      Agreed, the church(of all denominations) has had problems with child sex abuse and have finally come clean and taken, or were taken on, steps to correct it. The other 90% of the population, not really.

      • Clearly, you have never been exposed to such abuse beyond media coverage and then to have such abuse directly supressed by YOUR FAMILY. You seem to imply a “turn a blind eye” approach.

  9. I must say I’ve always argued that being ‘Green’ does not limit you to being right-wing or left-wing, it merely requires you to respect the need to promote a healthy environment.
    I’ve yet to meet a politician who doesn’t think that sustainable production of adequate levels of nutritious food isn’t a vote winner in principle. However, all too often that may cause some to have to forgo something which can lead unscrupulous media titles and politicians to inflame emotions for narrow gain.
    I’ve also yet to meet a single human being who doesn’t think that building houses to be energy efficient isn’t the single biggest contribution to societal health at latitudes higher than 45. It’s just that the extra cost on the house build is known and current, whereas the illnesses down the line due to poor construction practices may come to haunt political successors not the actual decision maker.
    I’ve yet to meet people who think that polluting our rivers, our water tables etc is a good thing. It’s just that there are short-term implications to not doing that, particularly if jobs have been created which rely on doing that.
    My view is pretty simple: it’s very easy to promote ‘green policies’ as a fiscal conservative. You equate upfront investment in proper housing standards with decreased costs in (in the British case) the National Health service, particularly amongst the old and the young. You equate it with higher pupil performance in school and higher productivity in work. You see the same, more dramatically, with healthy food policies.
    So as a fiscal conservative, I’d provide tax breaks to farmers who farmed biodynamically, so long as appropriate audits showed that the tax breaks improved the quality of produce to the UK public with attendant public finance benefits as a result. I wouldn’t provide it until pilot studies proved that a multiplier effect existed thereby reducing net medium-term government expenditure as a result.
    As a fiscal conservative, I’d like all new build houses to be energy neutral, since that will reduce winter fuel poverty in the longer-term due to improved constructional practice.
    I’d promote city cycling lanes, since a population which cycles to and from work is most likely a more healthy one. Yes it cuts car usage, but quite frankly, I”m more interested in healthy hearts than self-righteous starvation of plants through elimination of carbon dioxide.
    I’d promote generational expertise in growing food and preparing meals, since that again is likely to lead to much healthier populations. Less to do with self-sufficiency in the short term, more to do with human health. Human health is a huge public sector cost in the UK and ways to reduce that cost should always be embraced.
    I believe in the restoration of ancient upland forests, for the simple reason that river quality increases that way and so does the quality of stored water for drinking. Run-off is reduced and flooding becomes less likely. That reduces insurance premiums long-term and hence provides greater levels of disposable income for consumption, saving and investment. Economic self-interest, not self-righteous religion.
    I’m all for cost-effective development of renewable energies, as the oil will run out sometime or other. I remain to be convinced it will happen before 2100 and I’m against willy-nilly subsidies for immature technologies unready to compete in free energy markets without Moore’s law improvements in performance. I’m also against applying this technology or that technology per se without subjecting it to the vagaries of regional climate (solar power generation will be massively more efficient in the Arabian desert than at 55N in the UK, at least in the winter months, whereas the UK tidal swell is large and reliable in parts of the country and may, long-term, be a unique cost-effective resource once technology is developed sufficiently to harness it).
    What people need to dissociate are the cogent and logical reasons for applying environmental sensibilities in certain areas of life (construction, energy supply and transportation, to name but three) and ‘climate change’, which is a whole different ball game. Unfortunately, the reinforcement of causative messages is very strong currently, but it’s neither cogent nor logical.
    I’m of the clear opinion that if you can’t make a cogent economic case for some aspect of environmental policy then there probably isn’t one capable of being made right now.
    In which case, the case for ‘doing nothing’ in that sphere of engagement is cogent and logical……

    • Well made points, pollution has bad effects and it is logical to minimize it. CO2 has no discernible effects and its pointless to try and control the climate when we have no effective understanding of it.
      …..”as the oil will run out sometime or other”…..Oil, coal, natural gas and any resource of similar ilk will never “run out”. At some point the worth of oil etc. as a fuel will likely become less than its value as a chemical resource for plastics, chemicals, drugs and other medicines, lubricants, etc. etc. At some price point it becomes economically silly to burn it instead of use it or something else. There’s not much of a market for flint arrowheads these days, is there?

      • Right, and any real evidence that fossil fuels are running low will inspire other kinds of response first — like the development of ‘fraccing” or future enhanced recovery (beyond the current 15% or so) which rewrite the equations.
        For kicks, keep a tracking watch on the LPPhysics.com site, where a container-size rig using micro fusion is outperforming every other fusion research approach on the planet (with trivial (~$3 million) private funding to date, total). It would make 0.3¢/kWh power universally available for eons, and rewrite the meta-equations!

    • I hope the Pope focuses on helping the poor- giving them a fishing pole instead of a fish- and on adopting policies improve the future of developing countries that will help the poorest. He’s likely to use warmist words and phrases, but policies are likely to emphasize things that more directly improve the futures of poor people- not government handouts, but charity person to person and through churches and religious groups.

  10. On Sunday I listened to a congregation member give a green sermon and how it is the Christian thing to do (our Pastor was out of town).
    Sorry but I can’t see raising energy prices that affect the poor the most,and keeping undeveloped countries cooking over sooty open fires “the Christian thing to do.”

    • Green ideology is inherently anti human progress: anti-fossil fuels, pro-CAGW. In essence, it’s a doctrine that insists we ‘leave in the ground’ the most bountiful, reliable and cheapest forms of natural energy in favour of scarce, unreliable and expensive ‘renewables’. Worse, they insist that these rules apply to poorer nations, too, and in so doing they doom millions to energy poverty and stagnation.
      Anti-fossil fuel/pro-CAGW Green ideology must be fought and a resisted by all who wish to see human progress for all. And fossil fuel producers must grow a spine and speak out against the bullying tactics of the Green lobby; they must promote and evangelise the countless benefits of fossil fuels to all of humanity.

      • There is a lot of energy in the universe. I’ve long predicted that man will not ultimately use all of it.

      • Renewables are scarce? How exactly is that? Sure, they are not practical in some places – for example, you’re not going to do much hydro in Kansas, but you can do wind and solar.
        “the countless benefits of fossil fuels to all of humanity” – do you include in that the terrible toll that the burning of fossil fuels has on health and life expectancy in places such as China and India? When externalized costs are included, the real cost of coal fired power is about 3X as high as the tariff rate, which makes it more expensive than wind or solar: http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf

        • Chris

          “the countless benefits of fossil fuels to all of humanity” – do you include in that the terrible toll that the burning of fossil fuels has on health and life expectancy in places such as China and India? When externalized costs are included, the real cost of coal fired power is about 3X as high as the tariff rate, which makes it more expensive than wind or solar:

          Straight political propaganda. That “Study” is nothing more than a political advertisement: No “credit” for the 12% to 27% increase in food production due to added CO2 – now feeding some 1/6 of the world better than ever before. No “Credit” for the 2x to 3x lifetime increase between the 1815 – 1850 decades worldwide to today’s fossil-fueled 70-75+ lifetime. No “credit” for the improved lifestyle of the industrial world, compared to the dung-burning unlit poverty of squalor found worldwide prior to 1815-1835’s no-fossil-fuel world – and that dung-burning/wood-burning/hand-fed coal fireplaces is still the maximum available in today’s fuel-starved poverty. No “credit” for any “secondary” inventions and improvements: medical, light, heat, processing, food storage, food transportation, water and sewage treatment, water cleanup and worldwide transporattion only available via fossil fuels.
          So, Chris, are you going to condemn to t=world to a 1750’s lifestyle and 1750’s health? Condemn fossil fuel.

      • Chris: For some reason, coal burning in the West doesn’t have the same consequences as it does in China.
        Perhaps it isn’t the coal that is to blame but how China is burning it.
        Renewables aren’t scarce, but renewables that are economically viable are nearly non-existent.
        In the west, the externalities have been all but eliminated, yet coal is still way cheaper than your renewables.
        Why don’t you try understanding the subject instead of going of on your little religious tirade.

      • “externalized costs” is what green voodoo economics invokes when the real accountants disagree. The schemes are expensive and impracticable, so proponents have to appeal to something that cannot be counted or is easy to wildly inflate.

      • Yeah, Chinese coal plants are largely unscrubbed. They have scrubbers on some, but because of their desperate urge for cheap energy these are commonly not used because they diminish the efficiency. This will change as the people get richer and demand that their environment be better cared for.
        Chris doesn’t know about dung burning. Let ’em eat pattycakes.

      • ” 12% to 27% increase in food production due to added CO2 ”
        Yes, that claim is propaganda

      • “When externalized costs are included, the real cost of coal…”
        “Externalized costs” can include just about anything remotely or tangentially associated with the cost of the technology you are trying to artificially inflate.

      • olliebourque says:
        Yes, that claim is propaganda
        No, it isn’t. The AGU reported:
        The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,”… [source]
        There is so much evidence that the rise in CO2 has caused increased agricultural output that the question is settled among scientists, biologists, and farmers. The only question is how much food production has increased as a result of more CO2.
        More CO2 is measurably beneficial to the biosphere. And so far there is no evidence showing any harm to the planet from the rise in CO2. With greater ag production, more food is available. More supply means lower prices. Therefore, more CO2 is ipso facto keeping many very poor people from starvation.
        The reverse is also true. Lowering atmospheric CO2 would cause starvation. But that is exactly what the UN/IPCC advocates.

      • RACookPE1978 said: ” the 12% to 27% increase in food production ”
        Dbstealey said: “showing an 11 percent increase in foliage ”
        You are 1% short. and your data says nothing about FOOD
        All that extra CO2 isn’t helping out in California’s Central Valley.

        • All that extra CO2 isn’t helping out in California’s Central Valley.

          The loss of the Central Valley is BECAUSE the enviro’s are using the political authority of a single judge (appoined with the approval and enthusiasm of the enviro movement) to destroy the practical and planned water supply of the valley to protect an artificially-introduced fish assumed threatened by the loss of fresh water that would not have been available to the delta without the dams and water diversion already built. The “drought” is a direct result of excess illegal aliens and excess people into a desert down south that cannot survive without artificially-introduced water and energy sources from elsewhere. For example, the basic Colorado water rights from Hoover Dam were never sustainable because they were based on water flows measured during “wet” years of 1916-1918. Not the true water flow at all. But democrat politicians do not want to admit their voters cannot live as they want.
          Get rid of the liberal politicians and the voters they need, and the drought can be solved.

      • ollieborque,
        The question is settled science. You may not agree, but readers have been over this issue numerous times here. Do a search using keywords: “CO2, agriculture” and you will get plenty of information.
        • The rise in CO2 is harmless.
        • The rise in CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere.
        • More CO2 has resulted in more food production.
        • There is no global harm due to the rise in CO2.
        Those are all verified facts. For corroboration, facts and a mountain of evidence, visit:

      • Dbstealey…
        When someone takes “an 11 percent increase” and turns it into ” the 12% to 27% increase” it is called exaggeration.

        Exaggeration is a propaganda technique.
        So, I repeat my claim regarding RACookPE1978’s propaganda

      • ollieb,
        I was replying to your statement that the rise in CO2 causing increased plant growth is “propaganda”. The numbers were not mine, but they are in the ballpark.
        Even a 10% increase in food production means a lot to poor folks. And since CO2 is harmless at current concentrations, and there is no evidence that it is harmful at projected concentrations… it’s all good!

      • Dbstealey: “that the rise in CO2 causing increased plant growth is “propaganda”.

        You misread my post.
        I did not say that.
        I said that RACookPE1978’s statement, ” 12% to 27% increase in food production due to added CO2 ” is propaganda. It is propaganda because it is grossly exaggerated. Please learn to read, and don’t make false statements about what I said.
        Secondly, I made no value judgement as to it being good nor bad. That’s two errors you’ve made.

        • Welllllll, I don’t know where you think you’re getting your information from, but the http://www.co2science.org has several hundred different ‘peer-reviewed” published papers showing the different increases in plant growth and productivity across different plant groups that show your claim is …. dead wrong.
          So. Show me your sources. Why does your religion of CAGW teach that statement was wrong?

      • Additionally Dbstealey, note that RACookPE1978 said that the “increase in food production”
        Your citation mentions an 11% “increase in foliage”
        There is a difference between food and foliage, and you cannot attribute any increase in food production to CO2 because of the confounding variable of H2O (irrigation) , nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorous fertilizers, pesticides, genetic selection, land use and cultivation technique.

        • No. Getting petty about minute differences is … well irrelevant.
          Some group of plants increase foliage. Some fodder. Some food. Some fuel. Some increases in temperature only increase farmland (greater warmth = more millions of square kilometers better able to grow crops over a longer growing season.) Some? Well, some merely have more leaves and longer branches and more leaves. Some, more drought resistance.
          You want to starve people? Kill innocents by the millions? Reduce CO2 by artificially and deliberately increasing energy prices to prevent a “problem” that does not exist and that reducing CO2 levels by human emissions did not cause and will not prevent.

        • olliebourque@me.com (trying to chastise dbstealy)

          Additionally Dbstealey, note that RACookPE1978 said that the “increase in food production”
          Your citation mentions an 11% “increase in foliage”

          Am I to be somehow feel intimidated or threatened technically by your claim (from a single source) of a 11% (compared to my general 12% – 28% increase in all plant across all lands, seas, and continents) increase in “foliage” compared to “food” production? I will remind you that ALL LIFE on the planet requires “food” and “food” is indeed insects, animal, and mammal nutrients….
          Will you deny the insects and pests who destroy so many billion tons of food every day their “right to life”?

      • ” Getting petty about minute differences is…”
        Pretty serious when 11% magically transforms to 12 to 27%
        And it would be good if you could provide a citation for that claim.

      • RACookPE1978: ” The “drought” is a direct result of excess illegal aliens and excess people into a desert down south ”

        No, the drought is a direct result of a lack of rainfall.

        PS….the only way the “drought can be solved” is with rain.

      • RACookPE1978: “Will you deny the insects and pests who destroy so many billion tons of food every day”
        Please post your citation that shows a 12% to 27% increase in food production attributable to increased CO2

  11. The Vatican does not want to be left out of the redistribution of wealth formulas. Everyone is a winner for most of the time, as seen in the case of Greek public finance and social benefit pledges.

  12. The answer is yes some minds. How many? Not many. In fact in my judgment the pope will make a mistake which will not help the already beleaguered church. But than he is such a deep thinker.

  13. Maybe he’ll leverage the Kalam Cosmological Argument to provide his proof of catastrophic human induced climate change. If not, he can always fall back on Revelations.

  14. Is it right that as a people we should care for the planet?
    Is it right that we should look after the poor?
    Is it right that we should advance the understanding of our science in general?
    Is it right that we should use our science to do good and work to the greater goals?
    Ok then what is the big deal?
    Despite the rhetoric that the Pope is an ignoramus and religion is folly, this pope is a chemist by training and cares for our earth.
    The trouble I see is that the Pope may take advice from people who have an ulterior agenda and lie to the pontiff.
    Objectively, should the Pope listen to:
    The best scientists in the world?
    The Royal Society?
    The American Physical Society?
    The Pontifical Academy for Science (several Nobel Laureates are councilors)?
    If not than who? Who should the Pope listen to? A cranky anti-catholic bigot? That is unlikely.
    I say that in a proper world I would be happy that the Pope would take the advice of such institutions. The world in NOT proper. It is filled with politics. Consider the POPE’S dilemma.
    I would like the Pope, with the list above to also listen to the contingent of skeptics making their way to Rome. I would like him to place the scientific answer in the hands of scientists (some of whom are catholic) , and let us fight it out.
    I suspect that is what he will say. He will likely state the obvious that we should look after our planet and care for the poor etc. Of course! I am sure Anthony Watts agrees with that. I suspect that he should veer away from specific remedies like CO2 reduction. This is my only area of concern. He may actually listen to the scientific bodies and their monolithic political UN-esque agenda concealed with scientific babble.
    To say that caring for our planet is wrong is itself wrong.
    I support an encyclical that advocates proper stewardship of our planet and does not define what the “settled science” is. I fear that his penchant for libertarian theology may permit his attack on capitalism & industry and enable a recommendation to reduce carbon. I hope not.
    I hope Roy Spencer, Monckton, Singer, Watts, Marono etc can get through the wave of green fake science and be heard.

    • “Paul Westhaver
      April 28, 2015 at 7:02 am
      Is it right that as a people we should care for the planet?
      As a planet did it reciprocate and “care” for those in Nepal? NOPE! Case closed!
      Lets look after PEOPLE and manage the best we can whatever the planet may send our way!

      • Partick… the plant is a non- sentient mass of rock and water with a bit of organic matter, incapable of comprehension, and “care” I simply do not understand the reply you made, wrt Nepal. It seemed a non-sequitur.

      • Many people will disagree with you. So if this rock we live on is non-sentient, why do we need to protect it? There are plenty of rocks on a nearby beach (In fact you can get a rather nice “ornament” made from different rocks in the form of layered sand). They are non-sentient. Do they need protecting?

      • It’s a little unreasonable to expect care from an inanimate object.
        That doesn’t mean we should not care for the object.
        Does a work of art care about looking good? No, of course not.
        But only a crazy Batman villain would deface an art gallery.

      • Patrick: A Rembrandt is also non-sentient. Does this prove that it doesn’t need to be cared for?

      • A Rembrandt over a person? Can you eat a painting? It may keep you warm for a few minutes on a fire, and given a choice, that’s where I would put it. I’ll take care of a person over a painting ANYDAY!
        And no Paul, you say, this rock should be “cared” for. Why? We do that now! But it “cares” not for us. Can you advise the sun, when it uses up all it’s fuel and then consumes all the inner planets, that it should “care” for this rock?

      • BTW, I never stated the planet was sentient. I stated that why sould we care about a rock, albeit a large one, that we live on, when it cares not for us in response to Paul sttaing that we should care for this rock?

        • Patrick

          BTW, I never stated the planet was sentient. I stated that why sould (sic) we care about a rock, albeit a large one, that we live on, when it cares not for us in response to Paul sttaing (sic) that we should care for this rock?

          Well, fortunately, there are many millions of us believers amongst the public at large who DO believe we MUST care for this rock
          BECAUSE – not only is it the right thing to do – but because we have been explicity instructed to take care of it. But we are told to take care of our fellow human souls as a priority of being “”good shepherds” – NOT to destroy lives in the goal of “saving the planet” or “saving sheep” …

      • Patrick, where did I say that we should care for a Rembrandt over a person.
        You really should let go of your hatred of Catholics, it’s making you say really stupid things.

      • It’s implied. No? A Rembrandt or a person? A rock or a person? Well, “hatred of catholics” where did you get that from? I am christened and confirmed Catholic, sheesh! Unless you’ve been there (That trust, that abuse) I suggest you try it!

      • “RACookPE1978
        April 28, 2015 at 11:28 am”
        Can you pass that message on to “Old Sol”…I am convinced he’s not to that memo, yet!

      • BobW…. I read it….still the way an encyclical gets authorized places a great amount of doubt on anything the media says about it.

    • Where can I find the actual global temps vs IPCC predictions chart(s)? I looked and search Dr. Spencer’s site. This should be a more prominent running chart for all to see on a regular basis and not just a pasted item in comments or selected posts once in a while.

  15. When the Warmists accept all that the pope has to say on important public issues as policies that should be accepted, then I will accept them as sincere.
    Do they accept that Abortion is a crime against man & God? Pope Francis says so.
    Do they accept that homosexual marriage is a sin? Pope Francis says so.
    If they don’t accept those positions, why not? Weren’t they just saying that the Pope is a moral authority whose opinion must be accepted?

  16. Lets see…
    Religion is a matter of dogma and faith without proof of existence.
    CAGW is a matter of dogma and faith without proof of existence.
    No inconsistencies here!

    • If you try True Christianity, you will get the Lord’s proof. Every Christian can “Speak with new Tongues” (a Language never learned) as the Bible says in Mark ch.16vs17. That is the Proof the Lord says is on offer. Not many so-called Religions believe that set of verses (vs.15-20) for various excuses because it Identifies them as Frauds. Futhermore, approximately a week after those words were spoken, the Signs outlined happened (if you believe the Bible).
      The True Christians laugh when CAGW is compared to a “Religion” because it cannot Save your Soul from Death. Only the Spirit of the Lord and adherence to what it says can save anyone from Death (eternal separation from the Lord). Sorry to preach on an Environmental Blog. If anyone is interested, google Revival Fellowship for your nearest assembly. My name is Craig and I go to the Morley, Western Australia Assembly. Happy Trails.

      • To make it clear. I like the comment by wallensworth.
        (I disregard religious comments like the one from missionary Crabby.)

  17. A second thought…It may be the case that the Catholic Church will be the only body that has the guts to declare that the science is not yet settled and that time will avail what measures we, a human must take, if any. What a surprise that would be. The church would basically co-opt the authority of the UN. I think that is part of the plan. I believe that the Vatican wants to be the judge and arbiter of the entire moral/science field of planetary environmentalism and morph it into Christian thought, and steal it away from the UN.
    It will then be where it belongs, in the religious realm and out of pure science. So look at the bright side.

    • That’s devoutly to be hoped. I wish I could share your optimism.
      Me, I’ll be happy if we just get an anodyne statement about being good stewards of creation, because I fear something worse.

  18. The only minds that are likely to be changed will be people’s opinions of the Catholic Church.
    This pope has been a disaster.

  19. There was a program on TV this morning about little towns getting electricity for the first time, and homes without utilities where they cooked on open fires. They said many millions of deaths could be attributed to open fires and gas lamps in homes. Artificial increases of the cost of energy, as proposed and practiced by the CAGW believers, is just an continuing death sentence to many more millions of human beings. I consider that to be un-Christian.

  20. FOR EMPHASIS as Anthony has written:
    My appeal is to reason and evidence, and in my view the evidence is insufficient to achieve practical certainty on many of these scientific issues. The immense financial costs true believers would impose on economies can be compared with the sacrifices offered traditionally in religion, and the sale of carbon credits with the pre-Reformation practice of selling indulgences. –Cardinal George Pell
    Don’t anticipate that the Church is jumping on the Green Bandwagon.

  21. Frankly, between the disturbing similarities between climate fanatacism and religious fanaticism, and the Pope’s transparently secular leftist agenda I find my religious faith under critical scrutiny. The Pope has no business pontificating for one side on politicized issues dressed up as science. Eugenics is disturbingly similar to the climate movement- the same self-appointed elites and academics pushed hard for eugenics. People who are anything but Christian in world view push hard for climate obsessed policies as their intellectual ancestors did for eugenics. The difference is that in the age of the eugenics popular madness the Church wisely stayed out and Catholic intellectuals like GK Chesterton pointed out the inhumane and Unchrsitian aspects of eugenics. Today the climate obsessed have co-opted nearly all aspects of society, much to our common loss.

    • He does but in way recommended by Cardinal Pell.
      Its blasphemous to worship another God so the RC Church has role in denouncing anything that has strayed from the scientific method and is lauded as The Science.

  22. Can’t resist: How many GCM supercomputers does the Pope have?
    Seriously, the Church is growing in the poor areas of the world. I think there is a chance that this Pope will understand the war on the poor that catastrophic alarmism is. If not, he’ll get it someday, and then encyclical again. Hope springs eternal in the human beast.

    • kim, I am pretty sure that the Pope gets his climate info from the same place as everyone else, The IPCC, NOAA, HAD CRU. So in effect he has the same number as Al Gore, Fred Singer, Tim Ball, James Hanson.

  23. CAGW though pretends to be based on science, but is based on a Big Lie instead. As such, it is inherently evil. Religions are openly about faith, not proof. Where religious institutions run into trouble is when they attempt to cross over into those realms such as science and politics they have no business meddling with., which is what the pope is doing.

    • Will he recognize evil when it stares him straight in the face? We’ll see, won’t we?

  24. Alternatively, this is an unsettled science. I pray he has the wisdom to realize that he can’t settle it with pronouncements from on high. If he hasn’t that wisdom, the more is the pity.

    • Not yet….hold your fire on that….the media puts a lot of words in his mouth… wait till he issues the encyclical.

      • Lots of bishops in Africa and South America. Not so many in Russia, India or China but surely he’ll listen to the poor there, too. Now please, listen up, and good.

      • Kim read the article… read Cardinal Pell’s remarks. Big Green is perceived as an enemy of the poor to many.

  25. Any dissention from orthodoxy of AGW presentation to the Pope is apparently being, uh, “gently dissuaded.” Galileo all over again? If this persists, expect the church to take one more step away from preaching truth and the Gospel.
    Came across this article today: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/28/vatican-heavies-silence-climate-heretics-at-un-papal-summit/
    Excerpt: “Marc Morano, covering the Vatican climate conference for Climate Depot, asked Ban Ki-Moon whether he had a message for the Heartland Institute delegation of scientists who have flown to Rome to urge the Pope to reconsider his ill-advised position climate change.
    “But before he could finish the conference hosts interrupted to ask which organisation he worked for, then directed the microphone to a more tame questioner, while a security guard came over to mutter in Morano’s ear “You have to control yourself or you will be escorted out of here.”

    • Monckton, Morano, and Delingpole are well-received by many within the Church. So don’t write off their influence. ie Cardinal Pell, as indicated by Anthony above in the article.

      • Believe me, Paul, I hope and pray that you are correct. I look forward to a thorough and objective analysis of the upcoming Encyclical. I do not for a moment expect such treatment from the media, whose selective “cherry-picking” is so well known and entrenched.

      • Yep, poor devil, he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Any encyclical with teeth is going to get chewed on by pit bulls from either side.

  26. He’s either going to get that cheap energy is a boon to all and that warming to the extent man can effect it is a net benefit, or he won’t. It’s his loss if he doesn’t.

  27. It’s too late the BBC are already spinning it in the favour of the ‘greens’ and dismissing Christopher Monckton et al as “a small group funded by a US climate contrarian body in Chicago” … “rallying against the Vatican’s climate drive.”
    If you can access it this is their full story is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32487874

  28. Thanks, Anthony. Good post.
    I still hope for the best to have come out of the consultations, but I’m not optimistic.
    I think this encyclical will be a loose-loose proposition for the Catholic Church.

    • All he has to do is snap to the fact that the BRIC resistance to restrictions on energy is the voice of the poor. If he chooses to let the Vatican drown those voices, it’s on him and his conscience.

  29. Having pondered my considered response I have this insight.
    Let’s wait until the encyclical is actually published before guessing what it means.

  30. When the CAGW hypothesis crashes and burns in about 5~7 years, Pope Francis’ coming CAGW encyclical will bring much deserved ridicule and contempt upon the Catholic Church and the office of the Pope.
    The Left gets a twofer out of the Papal encyclical: 1) they get an element of CAGW legitimacy from the Catholic Church prior to the Paris CAGW summit, which will provide some added leverage to negotiations, 2) after the CAGW hypothesis is eventually disconfirmed, the Church will be open to ridicule and distrust which is another long-term objective of the Left…

    • AGW lives and is a net benefit. Catastrophism has already crashed and burned. Will he sense that catastrophism was an appeal to fear and guilt and one that was a Hell of a lot less based on reality than man’s original and built in capacity for error? We can hope.

  31. The increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is the best thing that has happened to life on this planet in the last 150 years.
    The modest increase in temperature of ~1 degree only adds to that benefit.
    Can anybody name something that would have been better?
    What if CO2 had, instead dropped lower from 280 ppm and the temperature had instead, dropped ~ 1 degree C during that same period? Widespread starvation, plants shutting down,(since 280 ppm CO2 is severely deficient) many animals suffering.
    There should be universal agreement(by authentic, objective scientists) that what has actually happened is much better…………even compared to no change from 150 years ago.
    The case being made by one group, is that 150 years ago, the planet was exactly at the perfect temperature and CO2 level and humans need to keep it there………..despite millions of years of natural cycles that dominated and caused extreme fluctuations.

    • Always keep in mind, too, that the irony (?) of the whole CAGW mess is that human activity only contributes a negligible amount of CO2 to CO2 emissions each year…something on the order of 3% to 5%.

    • The sun and the biome conspire to almost irreversibly sequester carbon. If man did not exist it would be useful to invent him.

    • Yes, Mike. But even without the atmospheric CO2 drop, a 1°C global temperature drop would be very detrimental. And some geologists think an even bigger temperature drop is already overdue. Then the CO2 would drop.
      When? How fast? These are the questions.

  32. I grow weary of this Marxist Pope. Nothing good can come from mixing him with the UN and the warmunistas.

  33. I don’t foresee any hope for changing the Pope’s mind:
    1. The Pope has previously endorsed ‘Climate Change’.
    2. “Given that the text of the encyclical has already been finalised, and is currently being translated, there may not be much that either party can do to affect its content.”
    For the Pope to now come out and change his view would be admitting a grave mistake for his prior adherence. That won’t happen.

    • Kokoda sez:

      For the Pope to now come out and change his view would be admitting a grave mistake for his prior adherence. That won’t happen.

      Spot on.

  34. How does the Catholic Church enter into an alliance with the neo-Malthusians among the Green Movement and the enthusiasm for population control?
    The traditional moral argument is that the wealthy elites need to lead simpler lives so as to not greedily consume such a large fraction of the bounty of Creation, and they need to share their surplus with the poor. But a video on another thread around here offered a graph showing a lock-step relationship between the the upward-trending world population and fossil fuel consumption. No amount of simple living in the Western countries is going to change this.
    Maybe there is nuanced change in the works, hinted at by the Holy Father expressing exasperation at a woman bearing her 8th child and requiring a C-section (not an unusually large family in the world in 20th century history, whether among where the Church guides the faithful and where it does not). Is family planning going to be actively encouraged, of course using means deemed licit rather than means deemed gravely sinful? Traditionally, sanctioned modes were offered to those “who must” among the Western world. Is instruction in NFP going to be actively promoted worldwide?
    I would have thought that the Catholic Church would have stood behind optimism of population growth and technological progress being social goods as the only secular doctrine concordant with Church teaching? Was the late Julian Simon more Catholic than . . .

    • Paul Milenkovic,
      You are in good company with such a question. That is why I expect a “deeper magic” to the climate panel at the Vatican. The Pope may be playing chess when the media is playing Chinese checkers.

    • Yes, it clearly demonstrates a lack of trust doesn’t it.
      I’ve read through the bible several times, and nowhere does it say the earth will end in a runaway greenhouse (or words to that effect). The bible clearly tells us how the earth will end; so what is the Pope basing his beliefs on? Advice from man?

  35. We should all listen to the pope very carefully. It’s a well known fact that the church has always been at the forefront of scientific reasoning and discovery and open to new ideas. Why should it be any different now?

  36. Already we are in trouble, when the Church weighs in on science, because this august body does not and should not compete in that division.
    As Paul W notes above, Galileo is frequently trotted out as an example of the Church’s scientific failures, but a close reading of the CE article on the subject, for example, casts a different light on the story, at least as I recall it. The entire episode was probably as much due to the famed astronomer’s intransigence, as it was to anything else.
    Whatever the case, Galileo is recognized today as one of the towering figures in astronomy and science His discoveries one of the foundations of our knowledge of the Solar System, and beyond, such as it is. Whatever attempts the Church may have made to conceal Galileo’s discoveries, one must acknowledge that they were not successful.
    In fact, I think it can be argued that it is Christian values led by Rome that have formed one of the pillars of Western Civilization.
    Now, there must be a million christian faiths of just about every flavor imaginable, all convinced that their particular interpretation of the Holy Book is the correct one. As I’ve said, it’s a mixed blessing.
    I see it all as the Giant Book of Fairy Tales for Adults, Volumes I & II. My current understanding is that the NT was cobbled together at Nicaea in 325, from a hodgepodge of ancient scriptures and myths, most of which were filtered through the earlier deification of Julius Caesar by the Romans.
    I had an uneasy relationship with Catholicism from the get-go. Without going into the details of my own experiences, let me just say that the hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic clergy was tangible. I also had big problems with the so-called Original Sin, and other issues that arose during the good Father’s daily catechism visits, so that by the 7th grade, I had been dubbed “the astronomer.”
    These days, I continue my spiritual investigations, which are inconclusive, and so I am agnostic, which has the great virtue of accommodating my open mind.
    For a better example of the moral and spiritual failure by the Pope and the Roman Catholic with respect to climate, I direct the attention of the curious to the exploits of Pope Innocent VIII during the Little Ice Age, when thousands upon thousands of innocents were burned alive at the stake, with the Pope playing a leading role in this enormous h o l o c a u s t. whose human cost makes Galileo’s discomforts register as a pittance.

    • You really need to stick to something other than Biblical History. The NT wasn’t “cobbled together”. All of the major books were around for centuries. The only question in the year 325 dealt with which books were considered inspired by God and were part of his revelation to His Church.
      As far as Galileo was concerned, the Church back then didn’t separate theology, philosophy from the “hard sciences” (neither did the Greeks). Whether the Church was right or wrong, it dealt with everything from a theological point of view. Ergo, the Vatican was the umpire in all disputes theological or physical. It was during the debates concerning Galileo’s discoveries that things went wrong. Galileo didn’t follow established protocol and got himself in trouble with the Pope – not because he was wrong, but because of his pride and his rudeness.

      • JP April 30, 2015 at 1:42 pm
        You really need to stick to something other than Biblical History. The NT wasn’t “cobbled together”. All of the major books were around for centuries.
        Ah so. You claim I’m wrong, and then more-or-less repeat what I wrote:
        Steve P April 28, 2015 at 10:10 am

        …the NT was cobbled together at Nicaea in 325, from a hodgepodge of ancient scriptures and myths, most of which were filtered through the earlier deification of Julius Caesar by the Romans.

        I can provide extensive documentation of this fact, but I doubt you’d be interested or convinced. Note please, that I should have said “most many of which were filtered…” , but please read these short excerpts, link below, for a different take on “Biblical History”:

        About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was “held in a hall in Osius’s palace” (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).
        Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods -Apollo and Zeus- but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanized version of the Persian deity Mithra).
        Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as “the Divine Julius”. The word “Savior” was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being “one who sows the seed”, i.e., he was a phallic god.
        Constantine’s intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.
        “As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter… For one year and five months the balloting lasted…”
        (God’s Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire’s translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).
        At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects:
        (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).
        Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Savior-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god.

        (my editing & emphasis)
        At any rate, the oldest extant copy of the NT is the Codex Sinaiticus, or Sinai Bible, dating from about 400, which contains no mention of the resurrection, or many of the other major tenants of Christianity, but it does contain evidence of numerous alterations, amounting to about 14000 such edits, if memory serves.

        It is a fact of Christian history that the earliest Gospels did not record a resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that claim is supported in the oldest known complete Bible available to mankind today. […] The discovery of the Sinai Bible provided biblical scholars with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern-day Gospels, and a comparison identified a staggering 14,800 later editorial alterations in modern Bibles.


  37. The Pope has no business dealing in this lie called Global Warming. He should concentrate on his job, not the lies of what has become a cult of deceit.

  38. Paul,… The time you took to direct me to information regarding the history of Galileo and his struggles is highly appreciated. I get short with people who do not have the discipline to putting in the time that it really takes to do research. A long time ago I learned to take everything for checking, after witnessing a Ph.D. chemist falsify data right in front of my eyes.
    That is why I find the websites like “WUWT” to be such a blessing. People have no idea what kind of work it takes to do the analysis that shows up on this site and are clueless what it takes to practice science as it was meant to be conducted. Then again staying in a state of endless “I wonder what is really going on here?”_
    is not everyone’s cup of tea.
    Realizing that I will never know everything, nor will I ever know for sure that the “reason and explanations”
    I think something happens is actually true. Life has taught me these lessons time and time again, sometimes to my delight and sometimes to my shame and embarrassment. And still paying attention to experimental results or the “fruits of the tree” that I am studying always in the end pays off.
    Thank you

  39. Because the Catholic Church has had such stunning success in the past when it gets involved in science …

    • I take it that you are referring to Gregor Mendel (www.scientus.org/Mendel-Darwin.html) but it had its successes even during Galileo’s day (www.scientus.org/Galileo-Contemporaries.html).

  40. This is turning into a modern-day declaration by the same church that the Earth is the center of the universe moment – Galileo must be smiling.

  41. “He is also preparing an encyclical — one of the highest forms of a papal statement — on the subject, expected to be released as early as June.”
    This “ENCYCLICAL” is not an “INFALLIBLE” Doctrinal Pronouncement, according to Catholic Answers.
    By this means, the Vatican is hedging its bets & watermelons should take heed. This pope may be feted amongst some circles of fawning sycophants, but he is fated to overstep his pay-grade on the subject of warm mongering..

  42. “Pope Attacked by Climate Change Sceptics” -Headline in The Telegraph.
    This is a truly troublesome smear to get reader’s attention. Missing in the article by Nick Squires is any reference of that happening. Somehow, questioning the credibility of the information being presented by Ban Ki-Moon is somehow “attacking” the Pope?

  43. Yiii haaa – thats the way to go. Let´s engage the pope and and make it totally clear for everybody that the science is weak and the arguments by United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is much about beliefs. The pope together with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon – can it get any better? Critical rationalists can afford themselves a little rest. The pope and Ban Ki-Moon will make our case stronger and make it totally clear for everybody that the arguments are weak. This really made my day.

  44. I thought his instruction manual said the Earth was created about 5k years ago. So scientific arguments based on unprecidentedness based on comparisons from the last glacial period 12k years ago and earlier wouldn’t hold much sway I wouldn’t have thought…
    Or is the pope confirming the churches position on creation date? Slippery slope, pope. slippery slope…

Comments are closed.