Where Pope Francis Got His Advice on Global Warming

clip_image002

Guest essay by Martin Fricke. Ph.D. (nuclear physics)

On behalf of legitimate scientists everywhere, I apologize for the bad advice Pope Francis has received about global warming and CO2.  I contacted our Papal Nuncio in New York and the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy expressing my concerns, and a delegation of the world’s most esteemed specialists in climate science went to Rome for a scheduled meeting which, according to the press, was blocked by Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga of Honduras (who has been said to be Pope Francis’s closest friend and is commonly referred to as the “Vice Pope”).  He recently proclaimed at a news conference in Rome, “The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits.”

The Holy Father’s encyclical will do greatest harm to the very people dearest to him, the poor.  It appears that radical environmentalist political ideology has trumped science in this field and given all of science a bad name in the process.  This all started from global warming theoretical predictions made by the highly politicized (and now discredited) United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC), predictions that have been thoroughly disproven by experimental data yet have been widely used as a benchmark by alarmist environmental groups.  In some circles this brouhaha is also giving the papacy a bad name by associating it with Pope Francis’ and Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga’s Marxist controlled home countries of Argentina and Honduras, since environmental extremism and liberalism/socialism are closely linked.

The above mentioned approaches to the pope have been turned away, and a “Galileo-like train wreck” now seems inevitable.

The real substance of the matter boils down to the pope promulgating the elimination of fossil fuel power plants based of the amount of the atmospheric gas CO2 they produce. In this, he is shooting his beloved poor in the foot. CO2 has been conclusively, experimentally, shown to have little if any effect on global warming, and there has no warming for the past 18 years. Further, CO2 has a huge effect on enhancing agriculture, so important to the poor. Lastly, the fossil fuel plants are the only inexpensive way to provide the poor with their immediate and essential energy needs (for heating, electricity, gasoline, and so forth).

I know that Pope Francis had been planning his Eco-Encyclical for a long time and surmise he had no desire to lose any steam by taking the time to work with real climate scientists instead of his people at his Pontifical Academy of Sciences, where there are none.  Had he done so, strong environmental statements could still have been made but for the right reasons, not those he adopted (scientists want a good environment too).  His social and economic arguments now revolve around a false scientific core, solidly shown to be false by every measurement made.

The main problem is that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has chosen advisors based on their prestige without regard to their fields.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Pontifical Academy of Science was the lead climate scientist Pope Francis consulted. Schellnhuber was present on the panel that presented the encyclical to the world’s press.

While I hadn’t seen his name before, I’m a nuclear physicist not a climate scientist, so I asked two of the most widely recognized top climate scientists in the world about him.  I haven’t sought permission to forward their opinions elsewhere, so I must refrain from impressing you with their names. I’ll call them Expert 1 Expert 2.

Expert 1:

“Schellnhuber is a well-known global warming fanatic, a sort of mirror image of our own Jim Hansen.  He runs the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.  I don’t think he knows very much climate science but he knows how to scare people with lurid “impacts.”  I am sending a copy of this note to [Substitution: “Expert 2”] who can tell you much more if he has time.”

Expert 2:

“Schellnhuber is actually closer to our John Holdren.  He is a fanatical Malthusian who believes the carrying capacity of the earth is 1 billion people.  He is also very close to Merkel.  In my personal experience he is even more dishonest than Holdren – if that be possible.  He manages to get into everything.  He is a foreign member of the NAS and was immediately placed on the editorial board of the PNAS.  He apparently boasted that he was responsible for preventing anyone questioning warming alarms from getting access to the pope.  He is (or at least was) on the board of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia [home of the well known email scandal that was instrumental in discrediting the IPCC]. They have a cooperative arrangement with the Potsdam Institute.”

And from reputable web sources I found,:

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is the founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).  PIK scientists send their reports to the discredited U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Coordination with the [corrupt] IPCC working group on Climate Change Mitigation is managed by Schelllnhuber’s institute’s deputy director.

The Chair of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences who appointed Schellnhuber is Wener Arber. He is a geneticist who received the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.  In the physical sciences, however, a Nobel Prize in one field rarely carries weight in a different one, as the specialization is so great.  For example, a Nobel Prize even in the same field of nuclear or particle physics in one energy region would rarely imply competence in another; ditto for different theoretical approaches at the same energies.

So, the Pontifical Academy of Science is obviously puzzled by the physical sciences, thinking that a big name in one field, say biology, knows the best scientists in another field, say meteorology. But, even within meteorology, there are few who know much about the sub-specialty of climate science.

Advertisements

241 thoughts on “Where Pope Francis Got His Advice on Global Warming

  1. The theoretical carrying capacity of the Earth for humans, @ 100W/human, if all of the Sun’s energy hitting Earth were dedicated to supporting human life is in the low quadrillions. That’s approximately a million times more human souls than are presently sustained.

    Now, of course that is theoretical and is a figure impossible to practically reach. However, it illustrates that only a tiny increase in the efficiency of our use of that energy, a la Norman Borlaug, would suffice to sustain many times the present population of the Earth, and in a style to which we would all like to become accustomed.

    What these sad, discouraged, deluded, doomsaying Malthusians primarily lack is imagination, also hope. And we know both spring eternal in the human beast.
    ==================

      • There is a lot of energy in the universe, and my long time prediction is that man will not ultimately use all of it.
        ================

      • Such a witty tasteful comment Joel D. Jackson.
        A sterling example of your intelligence and consideration for others.

        Sewage plants tend to be among the most green projects mankind runs. The methane released is quite useful along with the solids.

        I am quite sure that your commentary would improve immensely if you had the maturity to actually work in sewage services, or any of the many fields where honest labor is required.

      • Sort of off topic, but not.

        A young fellow at work today proclaimed “We gotta burn it down !!! We have to destroy the ‘system’ !!!
        We need anarchy to [cleanse] the human race !!! Purge the governments !! Burn it all !!!”
        He is not the only young person I have heard this from in recent years.

        I asked him if he had children. He said he did. I suggested that he really hadn’t thought that whole “anarchy” thing through. I gave no other argument. Said nothing else to him the rest of the day, but was always polite and smiled in a friendly manner when we passed throughout the day.
        I could see in his eyes my contention rattling around in his noggin.
        I could see him begin to understand what he was wishing into [existence] (memes can be dangerous). What a world without some kind of societal structure would be like.
        Fortunately for me, he had seen enough movies that are set “in a post-apocalyptic future”, as 97% of today’s movies are, to begin to understand what that would be like, even for a “fit” adult, never mind the young or infirm. Burning it down is not the best of ideas. Unfortunately, this type of thinking is becoming a meme.

        He came up and shook my hand and smiled at the end of the day, and we both suggested the other have a good weekend.

      • Of course it is cleanse instead of cleans. Much obliged if you have the time, moderators. :)

      • Dirty, dirty, evil, wasteful human beings.
        There are just too many of us in the world.
        We’re like an infestation…a plague…..

        (That glimpse inside Joel D. Jackson’s mind was brought to you by Greenpeace and sponsored by the WWF)

      • Joel, whenever anyone suggests there are too many people, I ask, “Why don’t you lead by example?”
        People such as believe there are too many people are always too precious themselves to lead by example. They want other people to die or not be born. How could anyone ever trust someone who proposes fewer people but fights to preserve himself?

      • Efficient modern day treatment plants can return raw human sewage into potable water and effective fertilizer (amongst other useful by-products) within 24 hours, Strongly suggest you leave your inane comments for the lavatory comedy channel.

      • It never will. Development brings a lowering of child mortality rates which in turn a lowering of birth rates. Cheap power will enable rapid development and eventually a lowering of global population to the low billions, easily fed, clothed and supplied with modern goodies.

      • Joel I see that your eagerness to show your ignorance knows no bounds?
        What’s wrong with working in sewage treatment plants? Are you of the opinion that those who work their physically manipulate the sewage with their bare hands or something?

      • While I suspect that the tone of many replies is more on point, there may be something to what Joel Jackson says, if only because few will be willing to invest in the required sewage infrastructure.

        Fun, related cross-functional engineering story: As the A380 launched, many of the bigger airports had to decide if they would support that aircraft. Due to the nature of it, there are many things to consider: is your runway strong enough to support it landing, do you have sufficient space between spaces for it, can you deal with the fuel load, can you do double-decker jetways, etc? Most airports, enthusiastic to have the novelty of another latest-and-greatest, were willing to quickly say yes.

        Then came Denver. Denver announced that it would not be accepting the A380. Airbus was aghast; they’d designed the plane to operate under Denver’s rather difficult aerodynamic and space requirements (it’s actually a very important airport for designers to consider). Denver replied that they’d considered more than that: What is it everyone wants to do when they get off a plane? Go to the restroom. Denver felt their sewage system could not support that many people needed to go to the restroom within such a short window.

        Amusingly, this reply led to lots of other airports that had already committed to the A380 reviewing their own sewage systems. At least two had to upgrade their systems and ended up limiting the A380 to particular concourses.

      • johnmarshall: “Cheap power will enable rapid development and eventually a lowering of global population to the low billions, easily fed, clothed and supplied with modern goodies.”

        With that vision in mind many would say, “What is the point of living?”. Overcoming strife is the spice of life. Bonding with brothers in a gritty fight for survival gives one purpose. Without it life becomes bland as water where there is no happiness.

        On another note, you and Bill Gates can drink human poo water if you like, as for me the day I drink poo water is the day they pry my cold dead mouth open and dump it in (after they have pried my rifle from my cold dead fingers).

      • @MarkW: “What’s wrong with working in sewage treatment plants?”

        What’s wrong is the smell of human poo. If you don’t mind the smell of human poo good for you. As for me, give me bathroom vent fans, or give me death!

      • Mark, you are right I have not. But there is one couple miles from my work. Every now and then when the wind is just right I get treated to a foul odor of poo when I walk outside, at which point I immediately go back inside.

    • Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga? I mean, like, do a google-image search for the good prelate–see what I mean?

      Let me offer you “Hive Bozos” a thought. Let’s face facts–your “big-plans” to foist on humanity another round of gulags and killing fields, and bring-back Lysenkoism and Soviet-psychiatry are a tough sell, especially since the useless-eater, coolie-trash nobodies you’re tryin’ to hustle are the very same expendable peons who will be the first-draft picks for your much anticipated, next mass-cull, right? So, let me respectfully suggest that you commissar-wannabes might just want to choose, as the public “face” of your flim-flam, agit-prop hype, a type that will attract the least possible attention to the grinning, death’s-head HORROR!!!, beneath the mask. Am I right, or am I right?

      So, in other words, what I’m getting at, my dear good-comrades, is that your signature-shill needs to be a more-or-less, high-end, bespoke replicant that is free from even the slightest suggestion of reptilian-origins, and that features…oh say…Fox-News hot-babe good-looks, of a kind that put “shapely” into shape-shifting, complemented by a “hard-wired”, mono-maniac, teenager-in-love “crush” on Pol Pot. Any ideas?

      O. K. I see you hive-morons still haven’t gotten the hint: YOU NEED TO SWAP OUT THE CARDINAL FOR NAOMI KLEIN!!! jeez..

      • David Ball says:

        What a world without some kind of societal structure would be like.
        Fortunately for me, he had seen enough movies that are set “in a post-apocalyptic future”

        What I’d call you on here is the common conflation of anarchy with lack of societal structure. Most all groups of people naturally organize into a societal structure. For the treatise on the subject I’d recommend Hans Hermann Hoppe, Democracy the God that Failed. I can’t do more justice to the topic than Hoppe but to say statistically you are way more likely to be killed by your government than other governments or groups and generally have no right to self defense.

        It almost sounds like a counter example but one of my favorite movies Mad Max beyond Thunderdome. You voluntarily subjected to the conditions to enter barter town (I guess the desert was a big incentive) It’s when those in charge (government) wanted to change the balance of power, and I’m guessing an increase in the skim, that the action takes off. (best chase scene ever as far as I’m concerned) The escaping group self organizes and continues. A bit different take than Lord of the Flies. Even the U.S. wild west turned out not to be so wild as popular fiction at the time would have had you believe.

      • @tazetc.

        As “David Ball’s” mouth-piece, snout-orifice, taz-spaz, hive-bot persona, please convey my invitation to the famous “David Ball” to speak for himself and to quit hiding behind, “Mad Max” obscurantism.

        Here’s the deal, David Ball, my “useful tool” ol’ buddy: “Don’t tread on me!”, “Sic semper tyrannis!”, and Long Live the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights and God spread His Blessing on the United States of America!”. Hear that, David, you little, hive-tool bull-shitter?–quit being such a self-evident sell-out!

        Looks like the hive-parasites have been tasked to infest WUWT, whenever the Pope-and/or-Naomi make an appearance. Screw-you!, “Hive-Bozos!”

    • The theoretical carrying capacity of the Earth for humans, @ 100W/human, if all of the Sun’s energy hitting Earth were dedicated to supporting human life is in the low quadrillions.

      Only if you have managed to figure out how to violate the second law of thermodynamics in countless ways.

      Also, the whole (current) issue is whether or not we should be trying to do just that — survive using only the Sun’s energy (currently) hitting the Earth, or if we should use the energy our Sun gave off a few hundred million years ago or the energy stored in metals by suns that exploded over five billion years ago or if we can manage it, the energy store that the Sun itself runs on leftover from the Big Bang 14 billion years ago to supply the needs of the 7 billion we have today.

      It is also worth noting that the ecological capacity of the planet is likely to be far, far less than any sort of 100W/human theoretical limit even if we can magically convert 100% of incoming solar energy directly to food energy and then can equally magically radiate away the LWIR from the human metabolisms involved, all while providing them with water, air, and some way of reprocessing their waste products back into food.

      The point being that it is not at all silly to worry about what a reasonable carrying capacity is for any given piece of land. You aren’t going to support as many people per square kilometer in the middle of the Negev Desert as you are in the middle of Connecticut, and you aren’t going to sustain any reasonable population per square kilometer in the middle of the ocean at all. It is also a major question as to whether or not we want to completely eliminate the local ecology the way we do in cities and indeed have done in most of the Eastern and Midwestern US along the urban corridors and throughout the farming belts of the entire world, or try to find better patterns of living that preserve ecology. It may well be that these better patterns of living require (or “encourage”) population limits rather than unrestrained growth to avoid Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons.

      Our current patterns of exploitation of natural resources is precisely a tragedy of the commons. We have been able to “afford it” without destroying the commons altogether because their is, or has been, a lot of commons per capita, but this is very much a function of where one lives. In some countries the unexploited, unowned “commons” has shrunk to almost nothing. In others, individual humans have long since claimed “ownership” of huge chunks of the commons and prevent the overgrazing of the commons by many individual sheep-raisers by the simple expedient of raising all of the sheep themselves and reaping all of the profit for themselves as a consequence. And the pope is quite right — in many countries this is what passes for “capitalism”, even though it is really the (re)establishment of a thinly disguised feudalism.

      While I (as many of you know) think religion in general and Catholicism in particular (which doesn’t even pretend to disguise its own patriarchal feudal roots in its international implementation of governance) is pure nonsense and a substantial impediment to rational thought and rational decision making on multiple issues, the Pope isn’t wrong to concern himself with these things. Nor is he wrong to be suspicious of large (feudal) corporate cultures defending their demesne where the sustenance of that demesne and their personal power and wealth requires the production of CO_2 as a side effect. It is even perfectly reasonable to wonder whether or not increasing CO_2 is likely to be more blessing or curse in the short, medium and long run.

      The problem comes when he makes ex cathedra — literally — pronouncements on these matters, transforming them from scientific questions or even political questions into religious dogma no longer to be questioned, without any sort of guarded or conditional language. This is precisely the abuse of power that religion is justly (in)famous for. CO_2 induced catastrophic is real, so mote it be. There is no God but Allah, so mote it be. A lost tribe of Israel conquered upstate New York with their steel swords and compasses and old world plants long before either one was invented and with no trace of the survival of the latter, so mote it be. It is moral and just to commit genocide, as long as the victims are Midianites, so mote it be. We are all part of Krishna/Vishnu’s vishvarupa, so mote it be. No room for doubt, no room to disagree, and sadly, the usual rule is that if you try to disagree, we’ll sooner or later tie you to a stake and burn you alive — if you are lucky.

      rgb

      • “think religion in general and Catholicism in particular … is pure nonsense”
        I love the way people feel it necessary to insert their own ignorance into conversations where it really doesn’t matter.
        Regardless, there is no evidence that we are doing any damage to the planet at current population levels. Nor is there any evidence that we will be straining the system at 10 times our current population.

      • Indeed.

        The Easter Islanders did not care about the carrying capacity of their island, or the rape of its resources. The result was no trees = no wood = no ships = no food = starvation = civil war = population decimation. Actually decimation is an understatement – the population crashed.

        Ralph

      • Thanks, rgb, for putting meat on the bare bones of my contention. Very humane, and thanks.
        ==============

      • RGB says quite a lot triggered by a simple statement. I will comment on a couple of statements that I feel worthy of discussion.

        “whether or not we should be trying to do just that — survive using only the Sun’s energy (currently) hitting the Earth”

        Problem number one: There is no “we”. You will try to survive by making choices, I will try to survive also making choices but not perhaps the same choices. It is the group-thinkers, the hive-mind, the Borg Collective, that assumes everyone must and will make the same choice, hence making a “we”.

        “It is also worth noting that the ecological capacity of the planet is likely to be far, far less than any sort of 100W/human theoretical limit”

        Indeed, that is why the writer to whom you respond wrote something of the same. He put it more simply of course: “Now, of course that is theoretical and is a figure impossible to practically reach.”

        I recognize this figure as the basal metabolism heat energy produced by a typical human. If that is the heat a human produces it represents the energy the human needs.

        “even if we can magically convert 100% of incoming solar energy directly to food energy”

        Food is inefficient. Humans would have to accept solar energy directly and with 100 percent efficiency.

        “and then can equally magically radiate away the LWIR from the human metabolisms involved”

        There is no magic and no way to prevent thermal radiation. An atmosphere would not be required in this scenario, each human would radiate thermal energy directly into space.

        “all while providing them with water, air, and some way of reprocessing their waste products back into food.”

        Air and water will not be necessary, neither strictly speaking will metabolism exist. All of that is inefficient.

        “The point being that it is not at all silly to worry about what a reasonable carrying capacity is for any given piece of land.”

        I disagree with the “worry” part. You can choose to do so while I merely ponder it. The carrying capacity reveals itself. Figuring it out before a population crash helps avoid the population crash, but that is relevant only in the case that somehow you have taken it upon yourself that it is your duty to prevent that population crash.

        “You aren’t going to support as many people per square kilometer in the middle of the Negev Desert as you are in the middle of Connecticut”

        *I* have no intention of supporting people in either place. They can support themselves, or not, and live in either place, or some other place. As it happens this problem seems to have sorted itself out without a government agency specifying the density of humans in the Negev desert. As to Connecticut, well yes, government agencies DO specify human density; but it is in New England where liberty sort of started but was abandoned long ago.

        “you aren’t going to sustain any reasonable population per square kilometer in the middle of the ocean at all”

        The movie “Waterworld” explores that possibility.

        “Our current patterns of exploitation of natural resources is precisely a tragedy of the commons.”

        Our? Write for yourself. My existence, and yours, depends upon exploitation of natural resources. Whether any of it is a “commons” is an argument without solution as various methods exist to make the commons uncommon.

        “In some countries the unexploited, unowned commons has shrunk to almost nothing.”

        Yes; you mentioned Connecticut. That would be a good example. Obviously there can be no tragedy of the commons if no commons exists.

        “individual humans have long since claimed ownership of huge chunks of the commons”

        Whereupon it ceases to be a commons and the tragedy vanishes.

        “and prevent the overgrazing of the commons by many individual sheep-raisers by the simple expedient of raising all of the sheep themselves and reaping all of the profit for themselves as a consequence.”

        This is one way to deal with the tragedy of the commons. As you point out, it works. The weakness of your analysis is that “profit” requires willing customers. If people did not want to buy his sheep, he would have no profit. It is on the expectation of that profit that he gets up at 0400 every day to tend the sheep so that you have wool to wear and mutton to eat and you get to sleep in until 0800 and go to your day job.

        “And the pope is quite right — in many countries this is what passes for capitalism, even though it is really the (re)establishment of a thinly disguised feudalism.”

        Your assumption is faulty. Capitalism is a means of production and easily coexists with feudalism, socialism, libertarianism, even communism — the difference being who exactly owns the means of production and therefore who gets the profit. If capital is used to build a machine to make things, and having done so improve the economic efficiency of society, that is capitalism. It is everywhere on Earth co-existing with whatever political system is prevalent.

        “the Pope isn’t wrong to concern himself with these things.”

        Right and wrong have no meaning without an Authority of such things. Consequently the Pope is neither right nor wrong to do anything, or fail to do anything.

        “The problem comes when he makes ex cathedra — literally — pronouncements on these matters, transforming them from scientific questions or even political questions into religious dogma no longer to be questioned, without any sort of guarded or conditional language.”

        There is no “the problem” as if it were global or universal. A thing is not a problem until a person feels that it is a problem, and then it is so only for such persons that feel the same way.

        The pope declares for Catholicism. It is not useful or necessary to be “guarded”.

        “This is precisely the abuse of power that religion is justly (in)famous for.”

        But your own proposed abuses of power will be more righteous I suppose.

        “A lost tribe of Israel conquered upstate New York with their steel swords and compasses and old world plants long before either one was invented and with no trace of the survival of the latter”

        It is difficult to argue that point, but I did visit Alexandria and see the Kensington Runestone!

      • And thank you, Michael, too. Years ago I realized that Doomsaying Malthusians Vs. Techno-Optimists is not even a sporting contest.
        ==============

      • Well the average human presumably having a normal body Temperature is likely to be radiating something north of 400 Wm^-2 and I suspect that an average human has something close to one square meter of skin; maybe double that for the average American surface area.

        So I don’t think 100 W per human is going to even sustain normal body Temperature, let alone permit that person to actually do anything.

        g

      • george e. smith says “the average human…likely to be radiating something north of 400 Wm^-2 …
        So I don’t think 100 W per human is going to even sustain normal body Temperature”

        Everything in the vicinity of the human is also radiating right back at the human. That 100 watts of metabolic heat is the extra energy required for metabolism at rest and at typical room temperature.

        The principle of the “space blanket” is to reflect that 400 watts per square meter back atcha in an environment much colder than your body.

      • Silver Ralph

        Small correction: the Easter Islanders were doing just fine until Europeans stole about 1600 slaves in one go from the male population. Their management of the water and soil was amazing, far better than other less cramped places like Java which is more famous for terracing.

        The meme that Easter Islanders ruined their environment is and was bunk. They lost their tree cover centuries before their ‘problems’. They learned to manage without many trees. Their society fell into ruin because of attacks, new disease and slavery by outsiders. We can still learn a lot from their agricultural constructions about how to manage water, humidity and land.

      • kim,

        unguarded reasoning in the presence of rgb and Joel D. Jackson.

        makes me smile. Hans

    • Joel D. Jackson

      I took your comment to be nothing but a fast throwaway comic line with no deeper intention than to raise a short chuckle. Just a quick bit of “potty” humor – so to speak.

      Some comments about it seem a little over the top.

      Eugene WR Gallun .

    • 100W/human strikes me as a much too low estimate, especially if we are to allow for a 21st century standard of living. But even increasing that estimate by a few orders of magnitude we come to a carrying capacity for Earth far in excess of the current population.

  2. 17 July: CarbonBrief: Leo Hickman: The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Ottmar Edenhofer (deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research )
    On whether we need the UNFCCC: “I would be, from my point of view, not wise to abolish the UNFCCC, but it would be also, on the other hand, overly optimistic to rely exclusively on the UN process.”
    On the papal encyclical: “I am not in agreement with the encyclical when the encyclical says that in some parts of the world degrowth might be a option for climate policy.”
    On climate sceptics: “We might have a rational debate, and I hope we can facilitate this debate. As long as these people want to listen, and these people also want to have a dialogue, instead of just trying to fight for the vested interests.”…
    On talking about climate change with his children: “My daughter understands very well that if you try to change the system in such an unprecedented scale, you have to take into account some unknown things. And she is concerned about this, but she has no strong interest in the underlying scientific debate. My son has a strong interest in that, and he understands this very well.”…
    The second important insight is that we see a renaissance of coal in Africa. Incredible, large-scale coal renaissance, in particular, in countries which are economically successful. So, up to now, the increase of emissions in Africa is basically driven by oil and gas, but now coal becomes more and more important. Africa could become the future China…
    We are not obsessed by carbon pricing. We have done an analysis and we have shown that the low relative price of coal was the incredibly important main driver of the carbonisation pathway in the world. This is an empirical fact…
    So definitely we should not say that Africa is not allowed to use any coal. They can use coal to a certain extent, but then other countries, in particular, the Annex-I countries have to use less coal. And this is something which has to be reflected in a kind of a price signal. And it seems to me that when Africa is planning now, their cities, they have to take into account that the carbon price in the future will have, let’s say, 50 euros per tonne of CO2. So what will not work is that Africa will build up a carbon-intensive infrastructure – cities, roads, power-plants – and then in ten years or 20 years from now they will be asked by the negotiators please reduce their emissions…
    The 1.5C target is incredibly challenging…
    So the first one is so that we almost half the emittable budget from 1000 down to 500 gigatonnes, which is enormous…
    I would say the UN process has one major advantage. And the major advantage is it allows, produces, facilitates legitimacy. It’s not efficient at all. But it creates legitimacy. And this is a huge asset to have processes and bodies which are able to create legitimacy…
    From my point of view, I have real problems with this notion of climate sceptics, because, as a scientist, you have to be always sceptical, right? There is no science without scepticism, so that’s good to evaluate again and again things, and challenge things and raise questions. But …
    The there’s another group where arguing that, OK, we might increase the global mean temperature by burning fossil fuels and deforestation, and the increasing mean temperature might have impacts, but the impacts are not so severe as some people might anticipate. And I would say this group of climate sceptics is a group which is challenging, but there is a lot of uncertainty around the climate impacts. The crucial question is: is this uncertainty around the impacts a reason for acting, or a reason for waiting? And, from my point of view, it is a reason for acting…
    So my feeling is that with these two second groups we might have a rational debate, and I hope we can facilitate this debate. As long as these people want to listen, and these people also want to have a dialogue, instead of just trying to fight for the vested interests. As long as scepticism should help and will help to agree on scientific facts and to achieve, so to say, truth, ***in this old European sense, that is fine…READ ON
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/07/the-carbon-brief-interview-prof-ottmar-edenhofer/

    • Too bad he doesn’t understand the mild net benefit we get from anthro warming, nor the great green benefit. It will take another generation unexposed to catastrophic propaganda, and/or an impressive cooling event to change the sclerosed opinionates of the alarmists.

      On good days I reflect that ‘they’ll learn’. On bad days I despair my lack of patience.
      ===============

    • Next Big Future (http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/07/despite-progress-of-solar-and-wind.html) carried a comment referring to Edenhofer’s recent views reported at New Scienist that included a graph purporting to show an acceleration of CO2 emissions since 2000.

      This moved me to comment at NBF (if I can be forgiven repeating it):

      “I can’t quickly see the source of that graph but it is I fear a case of lies, damn lies and statistics. The problem is the selection of the break point which has been chosen as the recent greatest negative deviation from the overall trend line (2000). Move back a few years to the peak deviation in the other direction and one’s conclusion would be reversed. In fact I think you’d be hard pressed to argue on the basis of this data that there has been any significant break point in the trend one way or the other.

      “The worrying thing is that one has to assume Edenhofer knows this but persists in using it.”

    • Pat, we have no business telling Africa they can’t use coal. Attempting to enforce such a demand would be despicable. You would beg your country of origin to abolish coal first, and you would be a fool for doing so, but at least you would not be a hypocrite. Where do people square up the hubris to imagine so much grief on another nation.

    • pat:
      So what you are saying is if other people will “listen to you”, then a dialog is possible. Has it ever occurred to you to listen, and after you hear the other side, then perhaps have a dialog?
      And, again you say,”As long as these people want to listen, and these people also want to have a dialogue, instead of just trying to fight for the vested interests.”…
      There is no bigger self interest, or vested interest, than people who live from other peoples taxes.
      Who has the biggest “self interest”, someone who works for a living and pays taxes to support those in the UN, big governments, academics, and climate change alarmists; or someone who lives from others’ work and taxes? I say the person who rides the back of taxpayers has a larger “vested interest” because if it were not for climate change alarmist ( parasites) might not have a host and then they might have to do honest work and pay taxes.

    • I find it fascinating the way these guys assume that anyone who disagrees with them is doing so out of “vested interests”, yet nobody on their side has an “vested interests”.

    • “There is no science without scepticism…”

      Perhaps the commanding exception being Climate Science.
      Refusing FOI requests for data, avoiding reasoned debate with peers, destroying the careers of qualified and eminent sceptics, refusing publication of relevant sceptical papers and quarantining information- release from employees of Government establishments, plus a global PR machine that should not ever be necessary for a self-evident scientific theory.

    • Pat is quoting an interview with a Prof. Edenhofer, so presumably these are not Pat’s own views.

      Pat, a little paragraph spacing and the use of the block-quote tags will make your contributions much easier to read and comprehend.

      /Mr Lynn

  3. The insane left wing socialists have co-opted the Catholic Church for their political power game… Nothing good will come of this. I wonder if the Pope agrees that the earth must only hold 1 million people and that all the rest should be removed?

    • @ Bill H, Many years ago I left because they have been manipulating politics and economies for centuries!

    • Is co-opted really the term?
      To be elected, two-thirds ( 2/3 ) of the Cardinal Conclave must vote for the new Pope. This group knew Francis well, most for years and years.
      A super-majority is an an awful lot of “co-opt”.

      They could written the rationale in a completely incomprehensible cipher and not cared a bit about “science”.

      • Its a sad admission that the Catholic Church is nothing more than an extension of left wing radical socialism. Scary as well if you believe what Revelations has to say about where the anti-christ will come from.

    • The insane left wing socialists haven’t co-opted the Catholic Church, they are returning to the fold. In the past the Holy See controlled everything, the insane left wing socialists want to control everything, it’s just a return to the Dark Ages that they’re working for.

  4. It appears there may have been difficulty picking a more biased advisor but there were plenty of alternatives like the hockey stick Mann and the possum fella (Flim Flam Flannery) are two that come to mind!

  5. Any physical scientist understands physical error analysis. Application of error analysis to any branch of consensus climate science, especially climate modeling, shows conclusively that not one of them is able to resolve the effect on climate (if any) of human GHG emissions. See here.

    Schellnhuber’s attitude therefore reveals him as an incompetent scientist either by reason of skill or by reason of ethics.

    Wener Arber, as a geneticist, probably doesn’t understand physical error analysis at all. That lack of skill qualifies him as a climate modeler, however, which may be why the Pontifical Academy listens to him.

    The business about inducting Schellnhuber into the NAS, and Ralph Ciccerone recruiting him immediately as an editor of PNAS reveals that Cicerone himself is, as we all suspected, corrupt. Cicerone, too, is incompetent by reason of ethics.

    • Fortunately, Ciccerone’s disgraceful behaviour around the Congressional investigation of Mann’s Crook’t Stick is well documented.
      ======================

    • Any physical scientists would have looked at the claim that the oceans have warmed up by a couple thousandths of a degree and rejected that paper. Telling them to come back when they had a statistically significant result. (Especially considering they were trying to measure the oceans with just a couple of thousand probes that hadn’t been recalibrated in years.)

    • Pat Frank July 17, 2015 at 6:35 pm
      Any physical scientist understands physical error analysis. Application of error analysis to any branch of consensus climate science, especially climate modeling, shows conclusively that not one of them is able to resolve the effect on climate (if any) of human GHG emissions. See here.

      Intriguing use of the word “conclusively.” Unfortunately, the article is behind a pay wall for individuals. Is there a free source?

      /Mr Lynn

  6. It is/was capitalism that builds/built the hospitals, schools, power plants, highways, cars, food supply, and on and on to the horizon. Capitalism made the modern world what it is today. Consider how the popular option worked so well in the FSU & Red China. Capitalism means we no longer have to work in the fields from dawn to dusk to eke out a bare subsistence.

    Without the power and flexibility of fossil fuels Africa and similar countries will continue with poverty, disease, war, famine, etc. for many more decades. Maybe that’s the idea, maintaining a captive, suffering, populace as an excuse for global socialism by the pope, church, government, et al.

    It is capitalism that provides all you whiny wankers so much free time on your hands, “It’s sooooo unfaaaiiiiirrrr!!!! Wah, wah, wah, sob, sob.”

  7. There is no climate science. Only climate fraud. If to become a climate scientist you must acknowledge a Grenhouse Effect, then you can never become a scientist. It is more akin to a qualification in Astrology

    • Let’s see how we go with this one:

      “Anthropocene”? Surely “Credulacene” is a more appropriate term for an age in which gullibility and compliance with a religious belief were promoted. Indeed insisted upon by institutions to be inculcated to the population of all ages.

      Meanwhile the infidels and heretics are belittled, lampooned and openly defamed with only reluctant support from the rule of law as their defence.

      The author appears mistaken in the statement: “Geophysicists have given this moment a name; it is called the Anthropocene.” Neither Crutzen nor Stoermer appears to be a geophysicist. That error gives the wrong impression to the reader.

      • “support from the rule of law”???
        That’s so last year.
        Even that institute has been corrupted by those who desire power above all else.

      • But it makes debates so much easier to win, if the other side doesn’t get to present its views. Another good trick is to present a “public” debate but make sure that the person who argues “against” your side is a shill so that they always make easily defeatable pounts and end up being converted to your side in a show of public embarrassment and are publicly forgiven. Or one can simply shout down any opposition — this happens pretty routinely in online “debates” on both sides. “You’re a denier.” “You’re a warmist.” “You don’t accept Settled Science ™.” “You ignore The Pause ™.” “You want to destroy the world and hurt old ladies and poor people. You suck!” “No, you want to destroy the world and hurt old ladies and poor people. You suck!”

        There is no climate “debate”. There are just large numbers of people (whose cognitive abilities peaked in fourth grade) who choose one side or the other and then ignore anything that doesn’t agree with their choice.

        There is only climate religion.

        rgb

    • At my former employer I mentioned WUWT as a source for information. The so called scientists that I was debating rejected this out of hand because the site was run by an amateur, on the other hand SkepticalScience was totally reliable because it was run by a real scientist.
      They also declared that anything from Heartland was to be ignored because Heartland is run by a bunch of lawyers.

      • Anthony is hardly an amateur. I own a copy of his book on the weather. It’s pretty good stuff. There are also a fair number of “real scientists” who post here. They just don’t make a living from grants funded by the illusion of emergency surrounding global warming.

        But when debating “real scientists” the right thing to do is not to invoke secondary information sources. Just present the real information. A scientific argument should always stand on its own feet, not be supported by any of the various ways of arguing from Authority (or poisoning of wells, etc), because they are named, well understood logical fallacies.

        It’s really pretty simple.

        * Increased CO_2 (from 280 ppm to 400 ppom) is feeding roughly 1 billion people out of the world’s 7 billion people. A simple fact, validated by numerous greenhouse experiments. Real greenhouses usually run at high, artificially maintained CO_2 levels because their increased production is totally worth the hassle of buying the gas and installing regulators to monitor and maintain it. This single benefit ought to eliminate the debate once and for all, on the spot. So far the marginal benefit of increased CO_2 — quite aside from the fact that our entire civilization has been built using the energy obtained from creating it — has been overwhelmingly positive. Positive at a level so profound that it would take negative benefits decades of actual disaster to even pretend to compete.

        * There have been zero — and I do mean zero — resolvable negative effects from increasing atmospheric CO_2 to 400 ppm. There has been no statistically resolvable increase in frequency or violence of storms, or droughts, or floods. There has been no “catastrophic” rate of sea level rise observed, although land uplift and subsidence creates problems for truly negligible human populations in some specific locations. It is not causing mass extinction in the oceans. It is not causing mass extinctions on the land. The work that attempts to discover the latter and attribute it to the former is dishonest in the extreme, and would not even exist if not for the extravagant targeted funding available for looking any disaster that could conceivably be attributed to CO_2 to support the political cause associated with its control.

        * Climate models fail to predict climate. They fail to hindcast climate. There is no good reason to think that they should succeed in either one. There are excellent reasons to think that they should be expected to fail — methods like those used in climate science routinely fail in all other chaotic systems one can study numerically. Our only current “scientific” basis for predicting CO_2-based disaster is the failing set of climate models. Consequently we have no reliable scientific evidence that we are en route to a catastrophe.

        * What there is in support of a CO_2-climate connection is a general agreement between observed warming over the thermometric era and the simplest physical model of radiative warming — pure CO_2-induced warming via the greenhouse effect that is logarithmic in the CO_2 concentration (and hence very slow/weak) with no resolvable feedback either way. Depending on how seriously you want to take the computations of a global temperature anomaly over the thermometric era that have been repeatedly adjusted version to version to produce a total correction in near-perfect agreement with, and adding to, the supposed effect (as clear a signal of bias in the adjustments as it is possible to obtain) a good-faith fit of the log model to temperatures yields a total climate sensitivity somewhere between 1 and 2 C per doubling. If one subtracts the 0.2 to 0.3 C in observed warming that is arguably attributable to biased adjustments, that would drop to 0.5 to 1.5 C, where the theoretically predicted, zero feedback warming expected is round 1 C per doubling.

        That is quite literally what the data show. Here is a picture of it. It is a picture of the data, not a quotation of somebody else’s work. I made the graph myself, and you or anybody else in the world can recreate it with the same or different assumptions (one has to assume/fit a function connecting atmospheric CO_2 to time to be able to fit the temperature as a function of time). The extrapolations are pure assumption. The TCS of the best fit is 1.8 C/doubling, and is probably — in my opinion — an overestimate because I think HadCRUT4 has overcorrected the anomaly in the direction of warming and has failed to correct it at all for UHI. In my opinion, at the moment, TCS is likely to come in somewhere in the 1 to 1.5 C range when all dust settles and fifty more years of data has resolved many questions.

        If you want one more argument, consider this:

        Note well that this is a map of growing zones across North America, as defined by their minimum winter temperature. The “width” of each zone is 5 F, or almost exactly the 2.8 C that is a “central” TCS prediction in AR5 (although it is still dropping post AR5 in spite of the “adjustments” designed to eliminate that pesky “pause”). This map is a picture of the catastrophe predicted by the catastrophists.

        What we are talking about is shifting any given location one growing zone south by 2100 or so, assuming that we fail to perfect fusion or continue to increase our utilization of methane, uranium, thorium, and sunlight for power and just burn coal, coal and more coal, worldwide. If you were zone 10b, you’ll now be zone 11. If you were 4a, you’ll now be 4b. If you live in central Virginia, you will now experience the climate of central North Carolina (it’s also expressible in miles, the general width of the zones is a couple of hundred miles).

        Oh no! Catastrophe!

        Not.

        rgb

      • Attributing increased food production solely to the increase in CO2 is not very bright. There are too many confounding factors in the process to single out a single causative factor. For example, the increase in CO2 has not helped the farmers in California’s Central Valley has it?
        ..
        In fact haven’t scientists shown that nitrogen uptake in grains is inhibited by high CO2 levels?
        ..
        http://phys.org/news/2015-06-carbon-dioxide-air-restrict-ability.html

      • From that link:

        Researchers at the University of Gothenburg have now revealed that the concentration of nitrogen in plants’ tissue is lower in air with high levels of carbon dioxide, regardless of whether or not the plants’ growth is stimulated.

        And they go on many times (in your chosen press release, which was already discussed here back in June) about “nitrogen” and “nitrogen concentration” somehow being lower in plants grown in higher CO2 atmospheres. (It’s nitrate that limit growth once CO2 has increased sufficiently so CO2 is no longer the fertilizer-limiting factor, by the way, not nitrogen.) And “nitrates” are not what is the “food” in wheat, corn, barley, rye, or other grains. The “seed” IS the food of value, and nitrates but a small part of the total food mass of each grain or each kernal. Higher CO2 levels increase the growth of the whole increase in plant mass (dismissed by the one quote as only a part of the issue – it is the most important part of the entire issue.

        So, once again, the so-called, self-selected “scientific” reference your CAGW supplier provided you proves your own argument false.

      • RACookPE1978……you are correct about “nitrates” are not in the food. It’s the nitrogen the plant uses to build amino acids. That’s what limits the growth.

      • haven’t scientists shown that nitrogen uptake in grains is inhibited by high CO2 levels?
        ========
        greenhouse operators have shown that increased CO2 speeds growing and reduces water use. if the plants use less nitrogen as well, that is likely a good thing as it would reduce the need for fertilizers as well as water.

        the problem with scientific studies is that they can show just about any effect you want to show. one only need look at nutrition studies. the problem is that peer review does not test to see if the study can be replicated, or if it simply due to chance, or if there are hidden factors.

        so for example, there was a huge push to get people to eat less saturated fat, under the mistaken belief that fat was causing heart disease. this was largely a result of a faulty study done years ago that was never properly tested. rather the medical community assumed that correlation meant causation.

        and as a result there is an epidemic in diabetes and obesity. now the studies are showing that saturated fat wasn’t the culprit after all, the problem was hydrogenated vegetable oil (artificial trans fats). But, because the medical community relied upon faulty science, the health of millions suffered.

        now we see the same thing with CO2. correlation is assumed to prove causation, ignoring the lessons of history.

        what the precautionary principle really says is that unless there is certain danger, don’t change horses mid-stream. Just because your horse might slip and fall is no reason to change to a different horse.

      • ferdberple,

        what the precautionary principle really says is that unless there is certain danger, don’t change horses mid-stream. Just because your horse might slip and fall is no reason to change to a different horse.

        Would that it did. ;-) You mean, “what the precautionary principle should say. . . .”

        BBC Adam Curtis’ Pt 3 of The Power of Nightmares dismantles the Precautionary Principle.

        Watch from 48 minutes on. You only need to watch six minutes from that point. (But if you haven’t seen this show, the entire hour is great, banned in the US btw.) This link has the best copy on the web.
        http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/power_of_nightmares_politics_of_fear

      • ferdberple –

        Joel is inaccurate in stating:
        “nitrogen uptake in grains is inhibited by high CO2 levels”

        “Effect of Carbon Dioxide Concentration on Growth and Dry Matter Production of Crop Plants (Japan. Jour. Crop Sci, 1978) Imai and Murata showed that after 10 days of treatment with nitrogen at 350ppm and 1000ppm CO2 the dry weight (DW) of rice plants was as follows:

        350ppm CO2, 30 mg nitrogen per plant DW = 835 mg per plant
        350ppm CO2, 120 mg nitrogen per plant DW = 1,081 mg per plant
        1000ppm CO2, 30 mg nitrogen per plant DW = 1,199 mg per plant
        1000ppm CO2, 120 mg nitrogen per plant DW = 1,862 mg per plant

        This demonstrates that at higher levels of atmospheric CO2, food crops have considerably lower requirements for fixed nitrogen for the same growth; alternatively, for the same nitrogen treatment they achieve considerably enhanced growth.

        Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 lead to greater biological nitrogen fixation from the atmosphere, so less is required to be added as fertilizer. This is especially important in legumes, which are also able to improve their uptake and usage of phosphorus with increased CO2. Legume /bacterial symbiosis leading to nitrogen fixation is significantly increased at elevated CO2 levels (Reddy et al, 1989; Reardon et al, 1990). Philips et al (1976) demonstrated increased nitrogen fixation in peas, and Sherwood (1978) found the same in clover. A classic study by Hardy and Havelka (1975) showed that a tripling of atmospheric CO2 results in a six-fold increase in biological nitrogen fixation (from 75 to 425 kg per hectare) by rhizobial bacteria in nodules attached to the roots of soybeans”.

        https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/co2-enrichment-and-plant-nutrition/

      • Bubba Cow…

        The problem with the analysis that you cite is that it is measuring the nitrogen per plant

        Try finding a measure that measures the nitrogen per gram of plant material. Your study isn’t measuring nitrogen concentration in the plant, because plant size varies even within any given sample.

  8. fine…let’s do away with capitalism….the let the old fart figure out where all his money is going to come from

    • It is very difficult to compute the total wealth of the Catholic Church, since its assets are distributed and extremely varied. It owns substantial — by which I means billions of dollars worth — property all over the world, even if much of this property technically belongs to individual diocese and not ‘the church’. In addition, the Church is probably the world’s largest single investor in pretty much all of the world’s stock markets. It enjoys substantial tax protection, so it isn’t clear what, if anything, it pays as taxes on returns on this investment. It also is protected in countless ways from anything like an external audit. So we don’t know exactly how rich it is, and nobody can ever find out because not even the IRS is going to tackle auditing it. There’s a better chance of tracking down and recovering the assets of El Chapo than there is of recovering the assets of the Catholic Church.

      With that said, the best estimates I’ve been able to find (put out there by people who at least tried to sample their visible wealth and extrapolate it) put its total at “really, really enormous”. The last time I tried to work this out in more detail, Vatican City would have come perhaps 19th or 20th on the list of all countries, but that is difficult to do because they don’t really have a proper GDP or population. This may be up some, or down some, since. I don’t know. Nobody does. Probably not even the Church itself knows. How do you count the value of a vast cathedral in the middle of Vienna? How do you count the golden candlesticks, the art, the robes and raiments? How do you count the farms, the office buildings, the houses?

      The point being that the Catholic Church doesn’t have to worry about where his money is going to come from. The church is, literally, richer than Bill Gates, and its wealth is distributed worldwide and is substantially ownership shares of many, many companies as well as substantial real property and hence is immune to anything less than a global financial crisis. On top of that, a substantial portion of its income is donations on an annualized basis that more or less support it on a break even to win a bit basis.

      If the lust for money is the root of all evil, and the collective ownership of global wealth is a reflection of centuries of lust for money… one can draw one’s own conclusions.

      rgb

      • I’m not a Catholic but I think you’ve completely missed the point here.
        Fixed assets (like the Viennese Cathedral) cannot be spent and need money to maintain. Is that wealth?

        They are a large employer comparable to Microsoft, not an individual like Bill Gates. They have to pay pensions and wages and invest in new projects like missionaries, schools, hospitals, etc.) Is investment wealth?

        And “recovering” the Roman Catholic Churches wealth has to be the wrong word. It was their “wealth” since time immemorial. Since long before the Industrial Revolution. Like the great art that they own, they created it.

        It’s easy to be jealous of the rich. But it’s ore useful top look at how you can help the poor.

      • In other words the PAPA is a hypocritical liar, a danger to our way of life and can stick it where the sun don’t shine! I left that church…ran as fast as I could once I grew up and understood what it was all about.

      • Look what happened to all churches in Detroit as a result of economic downturn. Worthless properties. Take an internet tour of the city and see what condition church properties are in there.

    • Easy to say, difficult to prove. How rich can you get by taking money that the poor do not have?

      It is much better to take money from the rich as for example Tom Cruise who gives generously.

  9. Regarding: “CO2 has been conclusively, experimentally, shown to have little if any effect on global warming, and there has no warming for the past 18 years.” If Anthony Watts and Dr. Roy Spencer say CO2 has an effect and the question is how much, I think it’s an overstatement to say or imply that it may have no effect at all. I thought the debate was on how natural feedbacks amplify or mitigate the effect of CO2, and how much or how little climate variation is natural, and how much or how little is manmade. If global temperature holds steady through a decline in solar activity and a cooling phase of the PDO, then this is experimental evidence supporting a contention that CO2 has some effect.

    • Three Legged Stool of CAGW: 1) Anthropogenic 2) Radiative Forcing 3) GCMs
      Leg the 2nd
      Radiative forcing of CO2 warming the atmosphere, oceans, etc.

      If the solar constant is 1,366 +/- 0.5 W/m^2 why is ToA 340 (+10.7/- 11.2)1 W/m^2 as shown on the plethora of popular heat balances/budgets? Collect an assortment of these global energy budgets/balances graphics. The variations between some of these is unsettling. Some use W/m^2, some use calories/m^2, some show simple %s, some a combination. So much for consensus. What they all seem to have in common is some kind of perpetual motion heat loop with back radiation ranging from 333 to 340.3 W/m^2 without a defined source. BTW additional RF due to CO2 1750-2011, about 2 W/m^2 spherical, 0.6%.

      Consider the earth/atmosphere as a disc.
      Radius of earth is 6,371 km, effective height of atmosphere 15.8 km, total radius 6,387 km.
      Area of 6,387 km disc: PI()*r^2 = 1.28E14 m^2
      Solar Constant……………1,366 W/m^2
      Total power delivered: 1,366 W/m^2 * 1.28E14 m^2 = 1.74E17 W

      Consider the earth/atmosphere as a sphere.
      Surface area of 6,387 km sphere: 4*PI()*r^2 = 5.13E14 m^2
      Total power above spread over spherical surface: 1.74E17/5.13E14 = 339.8 W/m^2

      One fourth. How about that! What a coincidence! However, the total power remains the same.
      1,366 * 1.28E14 = 339.8 * 5.13E14 = 1.74E17 W
      Big power flow times small area = lesser power flow over bigger area. Same same.
      (Watt is a power unit, i.e. energy over time. I’m going English units now.)

      In 24 hours the entire globe rotates through the ToA W/m^2 flux. Disc, sphere, same total result. Total power flow over 24 hours at 3.41 Btu/h per W delivers heat load of:
      1.74E17 W * 3.41 Btu/h /W * 24 h = 1.43E19 Btu/day

      Suppose this heat load were absorbed entirely by the air.
      Mass of atmosphere: 1.13E+19 lb
      Sensible heat capacity of air: 0.24 Btu/lb-°F
      Daily temperature rise: 1.43E19 Btu/day/ (0.24*1.13E19) = 5.25 °F / day
      Additional temperature due to RF of CO2: 0.03 °F, 0.6%.

      Obviously the atmospheric temperature is not increasing 5.25 °F per day (1,916 °F per year). There are absorbtions, reflections, upwellers, downwellers, LWIR, SWIR, losses during the night, clouds, clear, yadda, yadda.

      Suppose this heat load were absorbed entirely by the oceans.
      Mass of ocean: 3.09E21 lb
      Sensible heat capacity: 1.0 Btu/lb °F
      Daily temperature rise: 1.43E19 Btu/day / (1.0 * 3.09E21 lb) = 0.00462 °F / day (1.69 °F per year)
      How would anybody notice?

      Suppose this heat load were absorbed entirely by evaporation from the surface of the ocean w/ no temperature change. How much of the ocean’s water would have to evaporate?
      Latent heat capacity: 970 Btu/lb
      Amount of water required: 1.43E19 Btu/day / 970 Btu/lb = 1.47E+16 lb/day
      Portion of ocean evaporated: 1.47E16 lb/day / 3.09E21 lb = 4.76 ppm/day (1,737 ppm, 0.174%, per year)
      More clouds, rain, snow, etc.

      The point of this exercise is to illustrate and compare the enormous difference in heat handling capabilities between the atmosphere and the water vapor cycle. Oceans, clouds and water vapor soak up heat several orders of magnitude greater than GHGs put it out. CO2’s RF of 2 W/m^2 is inconsequential in comparison, completely lost in the natural ebb and flow of atmospheric heat. More clouds, rain, snow, no temperature rise.

      Second leg disrupted.

      Footnote 1: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 83, No C4, 4/20/78, Ellis, Harr, Levitus, Oort

      • Don’t forget my favorite leg, “It’s the feedback”. Every time I head this I’m reminded of “It’s the electrolytes” from the movie Idiocracy.

        Its impossible for feedback to amplify 1 W/m^2 of input into the 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions consequential to the presumed 0.8C temperature increase without a source of power other than the input itself.

      • You can amplify be decreasing the ability of that energy to escape the system.
        It’s not all about incoming power.

      • Mark,
        No. It is definitely all about the input power. You can only arbitrarily amplify input when you have powered gain supplied with an infinite source of power. The climate system has only input power to drive it. The foundation ‘science’ that supports feedback Hansen et.all 1984, Schlesinger (a few years later), etc. all are based on a Bode feedback model that has an implicit source of power other than the input (i.e. an external power supply). This COE limitation sets the maximum effect from 1 W/m^2 if input at 100% feedback to 2 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions and not the infinite emissions the broken science behind CAGW suggests. The bottom line is that the 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions consequential to a 0.8C increase from only 1 W/m^2 of incremental input is absolutely absurd.

      • Sigh, when you decrease heat outflow, the total energy in the system will increase, even if there is no increase in input energy.
        The theory is that the feedbacks essentially increase the earth’s insulation, which will cause it to get warmer.
        Wrong, but still simple enough for most people to understand.

      • Mark,
        Why is it that you think that by explaining the mechanism, that somehow justifies the magnitude of the effect you claim? Are you aware that the controversy is not about whether or not GHG’s and clouds can act to warm the surface or even the nature of the underlying mechanisms, but is about the size of the net effect relative to the 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent forcing said to arise from doubling CO2? The consensus claims 0.8C +/- 50% per W/m^2 leading to 3C +/- 1.5C while the skeptics, physics and satellite data are all clustered near 0.3 C per W/m^2 or about 1.1C and well below the accepted lower bound.

        Why don’t you try and explain how 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback power arises from only 1 W/m^2 of input forcing to replace the 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental emissions arising from an 0.8C increase in temperature?

      • Mark,
        Lets take your hypothetical feedback amplifier that amplifies 1 W/m^2 of input into 4,3 W/m^2 of output and take its output and feed it back to the input. Now the 4.3 W/m^2 is turned into 18.5 W/m^2 and so on and so forth. It sure looks lile consensus climate science verifies the possibility of perpetual motion.

        If you think about why COE says that this kind of perpetual motion will not work, you will discover why the most you can get from 1 W/m^2 of input at 100% positive feedback is 2 W/m^2 at the surface.

    • “If Anthony Watts and Dr. Roy Spencer say CO2 has an effect and the question is how much, I think it’s an overstatement to say or imply that it may have no effect at all.”

      That is an appeal to authority and is an error in logic; a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

      There are scientific theories of climate that do not rely on CO2 and “back-radiation” warming the surface via 33C. It is my wager that someday in the distant future when the CO2 delusion is over and real, honest science can re-start, we will return to the idea of the surface temperature being determined by gravity, mass of the atmosphere, H2O in all its phases, the oceans, conduction, convection, advection, storms, and several other items. But that is just my wager for a future that I probably won’t live to see given my age and health; so I’ll end by saying, “The debate is not over!” :-p

    • Actually, it is far simpler than that; the contention that man’s CO2 is causing warming has not been shown. It is nothing more than conjecture. The null hypothesis, that what we are seeing is merely a natural fluctuation of the sort that has happened many time before stands.

  10. Your state “CO2 has been conclusively, experimentally, shown to have little if any effect on global warming”. Please provide citations.

    • Luke:

      You ask

      Your state “CO2 has been conclusively, experimentally, shown to have little if any effect on global warming”. Please provide citations.

      The following citations and links to pertinent papers should suffice.

      Idso from surface measurements
      http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
      and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
      and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
      http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

      These each show that climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent.

      This is so little an effect that it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected.

      If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

      Richard

      • Richard,

        That was a very good response. I really liked this part, “This is so little an effect that it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected.”

        The fact that no one has ever measured or detected “man-made global warming” needs to be pointed out over and over. That point is also common ground between skeptics and luke-warmers.

      • I have a K-8 grade school downhill from an EPA superfund site. In a trickling stream next to school they say there are still contaminants, but not enough to measure. I asked – “how could you know?”

      • My friends at Sandia declared that since these studies weren’t peer reviewed and printed in “reputable” journals, then they aren’t worth the time to read.

      • Mark,
        Do you really believe that consensus climate science ‘peer review’ is fair and robust? Frankly, when I see ‘peer reviewed’ climate science my first inclination to approach it with extra skepticism.

      • MarkW:

        I linked to peer reviewed papers in reputable journals.
        However, if your friends at Sandia were scientists then they would know that information is assessed on its merits and NOT on the basis of where and/or how it is published.

        Richard

  11. It’s a pity the Vatican — if it really wants to help both the poor and the environment — doesn’t focus on the evils of irredeemable currency, rather than on benign CO2.

  12. Dr. Martin Fricke published papers on nuclear cross sections in the 1960s and 1970s. His total climate science research from 1960 to date: nil.

    Is this the best you can do, Mr. Watts?

    [wow, lectures on content from a anonymous coward who has published NOTHING but snarky complaints – feel free to be as upset as you wish, but when you put your name to something of substance, then you’ll have a right to complain about this – Anthony Watts]

    [Fake email address. ~mod.]

    • Dear Magma,

      You are correct that, when I was quite young and before I received my Ph.D., I published papers on new nuclear reaction mechanisms in The Physical Review, Physical Review Letters, Nuclear Physics, Physics Letters, etc., and gave talks at international conferences. And you are also correct that I have published nothing myself on climate science, although I have learned a good deal about it directly from renowned experts in that field. My contribution here concerns the advice the pope received on the matter. Additionally,as Paul Westhaver so accurately observes below, “This article is not a polemic attack on the religion of the pope, rather a deep criticism of the roots of the advise the pope regarding his climate science POV.”

      I’m afraid I do not understand your reference to “anonymous coward” and “snarky complaints”.

      Martin

  13. Good ol’ (warm) Hans Schellnhuber.

    He does look after his staff though. Just installed a new heating system at PIK. Special motivation is that its output depends on the complexity and number of climate simulations that are run by staff.

    Sort of like the (former) weather stations of the USSR where their heating oil ration was determined by the coldest temperatures reported.

  14. “One Day This Pope Will Die, and With Him His Evils on the World.”
    The lament of the Vatican Bishops during prayers at the end of the day
    .

  15. This critique has told the sad story of the conning of the Pope by climate alarmists.

    The Pope has avoided the issue of democratic governance in the developed world and focused on the developing world where corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies allow continuing degradation of the environment.

    The Pope has swallowed the solid waste of poorly managed garbage dumps and the effluent from untreated sewerage, both rampant in the developing world, and he has choked on the gnat of climate change.

    I am not at all convinced that the writer knows much about either Marxism or Christian social theory. Since Marxism entered on the world stage, the Catholic Church has taken great pains to distinguish its own social policy from Marxist social policy. Earlier encyclicals by the predecessors of the present Pope have made clear the right to private property together with the social obligations of both employers (capitalists) and employees (workers).

    Western developed countries now have in place legislation that takes into account the rights and social obligations of capitalists and workers as well as their joint obligations to protect the environment. Not so in many developing countries, including Latin American and the Philippines.

    Unfortunately the Pope’s perspective is biased by his own experience and those of his advisers from Latin America. In developed Western countries, and probably also in Singapore and Japan, the issue is regulation or over-regulation of the environment, regulation or over-regulation of private property., and regulation or over-regulation of private behavior.

    How far can the state go in imposing regulation without destroying both the economic base and the democratic social organization of their societies?

    Is there evidence that dictatorship of the majority in democratic societies will lead to better care of the environment?

    Consider the net environmental impacts of bio-fuels, solar energy plants, and wind farms. On balance, do these initiatives improve or degrade the environment relative to their effectiveness in mitigating climate change?

    Detailed research indicates that this question is still moot. Nations have spent many billions of dollars to mitigate climate change using technologies that have little impact on CO2 emissions but substantial adverse impacts on the environment.

    • The only obligation anyone has is to do no harm to others unless given permission first. That goes for business owners as well.

      • MarkW says “The only obligation anyone has is to do no harm to others unless given permission first.”

        Oh? How did that obligation come into existence? Who enforces it? Who judges it?

  16. “The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits.”

    A Communist Church. What will they think of next?

  17. Huffpo profile of CREATIVE writer Aiko Stevenson …is a freelance writer from Hong Kong who used to work for BBC World News, Bloomberg, CNBC Europe, CNN and Time magazine. She went to the University of Edinburgh in the UK and recently completed a Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing from the University of Hong Kong.

    17 July: HuffPo: Aiko Stevenson: “If We Destroy Creation, Creation Will Destroy Us”
    Unless the global community strikes an effective deal to rein in its carbon emissions, unchecked climate change could usher in a hellish world of lethal heat, soaring food prices, and the failure of even wealthy states.
    That’s the grim conclusion of a new report commissioned by the British Foreign Office…
    Writer Mark Lynas likens a 6C world to Dante’s sixth realm of hell, replete with fireballs shooting across the sky, setting the planet alight into one never ending burning inferno…
    According to both the World Bank and the Bank of England, fossil fuel companies could lose trillions of dollars once new climate legislation comes into effect…
    ***Indifferent to the sea change that surrounds them, oil giants like Exxon Mobil, BP, and Shell are still spending billions of dollars every year in search for new sources of oil…
    According to professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, an advisor to both Angela Merkel and the Pope:
    “In order to stay below 2C, or even 3C, we need to have something really disruptive, which I would call an induced implosion of the carbon economy over the next 20-30 years. Otherwise we have no chance of avoiding dangerous, perhaps disastrous, climate change.”
    In the words of Pope Francis, “if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us.”…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aiko-stevenson/if-we-destroy-creation-cr_1_b_7779840.html

    ***15 July: Reuters: UPDATE 2-Britain hopes to re-open Iran embassy by year-end -Hammond
    By Estelle Shirbon and William James
    (Foreign Minister Philip) Hammond also said he had spoken to British finance minister George Osborne to ensure that the country was ready to capitalise on the “quite substantial” business opportunities that would arise from the diplomatic agreement.
    “I think Iran will want to use some of the unfrozen assets to address some really very large infrastructure deficits, including in the oil and gas production industry, where the UK is very well placed to play a role,” Hammond said…
    http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/iran-nuclear-britain-idINL5N0ZV2P720150715

  18. That statement might be true about those who dump garbage in the oceans. A shame the papal “science advisors” don’t realize that the “CO2 detour” takes resources away from real pollution remediation, which provides much more measurable and immediate impact on quality of life for the commoners of the world. That is what this Popes legacy is, empowering the poor. Through the con job of “thousands of peer reviewed papers that have settled the science”, he has been tricked into doing the opposite.
    If he really trusted God he would not ask his subjects to fight climate change, he would fight for third-world change knowing God will support His creation and maintain conditions which man can endure.

    • Sorry, forgot the quote:
      “The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits.”

  19. Poor Papa: the fact is, IPCC models are based on creating 40% more energy than reality when energy conservation is mandatory for any mathematical modelling.

    What makes this fraud so beautifully sublime is that they can’t even prove the 40%. It’s based on using Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation, falsely assuming absorptivity of the upper atmosphere to OLR is 1.0 so it must emit the same downwards.

    This came from the Met. Office probably Slingo’s deceased husband. Not only is the 1.0 absorptivity wrong, it is irrelevant because of the real IR physics. And they can’t even do the fraud correctly; as the atmosphere can’t emit IR in the Atmospheric Window, the real extra energy in the models should be ~84% or ~200 W/m^2 mean extra surface IR than reality: professional failure.

  20. “The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits.”

    Yes, let’s blame some amorphous blob called capitalism. Makes it seem like some sinister anonymous entity. The truth is that the economy is just companies that are ultimately organizations made out of people. Just like some people are evil, incompetent or irresponsible, so goes it for companies. But they are the minority. How could it be otherwise? Does the pope suppose that, like him, the captiains of industry have no children? That they are so callous as to destroy the environment, and hence the health and well being of their entire families?

    And if the Pope and his advisers are so invested in this belief system, I would expect them to be protecting their own august personages by acquiring for themselves land and buildings in those far northern reaches expected to still support human life in the post apocalyptic sea CO2 destruction, Yuk Tyuk Tuk and Whitehorse and Anchorage ought to be inundated with climate scientists, green activists, papal entourages and capitalist leaders all trying to acquire land and buildings for them and their immediate families to flee to.

    But they aren’t. Not event uber alarmist we’re all going to die, Al Gore. Or any of the members who have him is Nobel, suggesting they don’t beiieve his crrap either.

  21. From the article: “So, the Pontifical Academy of Science is obviously puzzled by the physical sciences, thinking that a big name in one field, say biology, knows the best scientists in another field, say meteorology. But, even within meteorology, there are few who know much about the sub-specialty of climate science.”
    Kind of sounds like Suzuki up here in Canada!

  22. Whilst I would concur with Expert 1 and Expert 2’s opinion of Dr.S….their opinions are as worthless as mine without their names.
    This is silly and does not belong on WUWT.

    • Of less value, yes. Worthless no.
      Do you trust Dr. Frickle, or are you actually accusing him of lying by making up quotes?
      Why not do a little independent research?

  23. Quoting Martin Fricke Phd.
    ” no warming for 18 years “.
    Ummmmmm. Jeez. How can i say this mate. Please, for your own sake, stop
    talking utter tripe.
    Go out for a walk, find a quiet spot under
    a tree, and just give yourself 5 minutes of
    introspection of what you believe and why in this regard.
    Have a ponder about belief versus fact.
    ( or the nearest approximation of fact
    data collectors can provide.)
    I wish you well sir.

    • Li D

      Nature tripping is your substitute for science.

      I don’t know your age (I hope you are not young) but yours is the magical thinking of an old hippy. What you want to be true is true and what you don’t want to be true is not true. Nature tripping is your substitute for science. You need to throw away your incense and your crystals (or, if you are young, what you adorn your lifestyle with in their stead). All that you say is just so much “smoke”. You need to cut back on that.

      I once knew this guy (I have not seen him in forty years). This dude got heavy into pot and was fascinated by the smoke rings he could blow. That’s right, he fixated on blowing pot smoke rings. He could sit there for hours blowing smoke rings. Eventually he got arrested for robbing a convenience store. He grabbed the money and ten big bags of chips. He was easy for the cops to spot. The munchies did him in.

      Anyway, right now you are a person that no one here can take seriously.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • Asking the guest writer to take time out to think about their own
        beliefs versus their own facts seems several ballparks away from Eugenes strange comment on it.
        It may be some issue with comprehension, personally or culturally. Or it may be a form of
        self delusion on how a healthy mature dialog proceeds. Dunno.

      • Li D

        I quote you twice. In your first post you wrote — “stop talking utter tripe”. Do you think that is ” how healthy, mature dialog proceeds?” which is a quote from your second post.

        You make me laugh. How can anyone take you “cereal” (A famous quote from Al Gore. See The Simpsons.)

        Your post was a snotty little note that said nothing. Its sole purpose was to degrade and insult the author.

        If you knew anything at all about the topic you should have provided it and given people something to which they could respond. You could have made points about things said in the article — but you filled your little ambuscade with nothing but snobbish scorn.

        Dude, you think you are laid back but actually you aggress against people. Underneath is all what you wrote was just a nasty piece of hate mail. Grow up.

        Eugene WR Gallun

  24. The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits.

    Surely Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga of Honduras would not make such a grave accusation without proof, right? For proof we need to know:

    Who are they in capitalism?

  25. Dr. Martin Fricke.

    I liked your perspective and your humility of framing your area of expertise, nuclear physics, in light of your criticism of the PAS.

    This article is not a polemic attack on the religion of the pope, rather a deep criticism of the roots of the advise the pope regarding his climate science POV. I too lay blame with scientific experts who, grind their political axes while abusing the limits of their expertise and their celebrity.

    So the PAS is at fault. However Francis ought to have invited alternative voices to Schellnhuber’s radical perspective. That is on the pope. Strangely, in an effort to be credible on scientific matters, the church has reached out to Nobel Laureates, who have led the church astray.

    This is the great crime of scientific hypocrisy. Objective truth has been sold out for political gain by our scientific leaders.

  26. What are the chances of Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga of Honduras being indifferent to hurricane Mitch or Fifi–Orlene, which ravaged his country of origin? If he is affected by them, would these hurricanes be acts of Gaia or acts of God? Or does act of capitalism simply have a nicer ring to it?

    Irrespectively, difficult to say whether Honduras would or would not be in the INF/World Bank list of Heavily Indebted Poor Countries without them. Honduras has benefited from the debt relief – perhaps thanks to Maradiaga. Now, how far is Maradiaga ready to go on this path?

  27. Id quite like to know where Dr. Fricke gets his advise from on matters of temperature data analysis.

    • You haven’t heard of the Halt in warming, aka the “Pause”? Geez, get with the program.

      • I have read and heard much.
        In clear English, im asking about the guest writers sources for HIS writing about a lack of warming for 18 years.
        My knowledge ( or belief ) are irrellivant to this question.

      • Li D, try the (last) IPCC AR5 report, can’t remember the chapter–ignore the political summary. It addresses the “pause,” only the IPCC calls it “hiatus.” It was also the subject of the Climategate emails, or are you unfamiliar with them, and the fact that climate scientists were trying to figure out how to “hide the decline” in global temperature.

      • Bwahahaha oh mrw you are a
        card. I charge that you have no
        bloody idea what ” hide the decline ” means.
        Not a skerrick. Not a sausage.
        No bloody idea.
        When you do find out, i sincerly hope you go ” hmmm, ive been badly misinformed about this. What else may i have been misinformed about?”

    • Id quite like to know where Dr. Fricke gets his advise from on matters of temperature data analysis.

      The satellite records. You need to do your homework.

    • Li D,

      Here. Read this: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/ Dr. Judith Curry discusses the pause/hiatus you should have informed yourself about three years ago. And don’t start picking at who Dr. Judith Curry is. She is the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, one of the top schools in the world for climate science, and a renowned climatologist.

      To claim this

      My knowledge ( or belief ) are irrellivant to this question

      is tantamount to questioning where an author got his statistics about the number of states in the USA, then claiming that your knowledge or belief is irrelevant to the question when someone queries why you don’t know that.

    • Li D

      The decline hidden was that current tree ring samples showed that temperatures were declining while thermometers were showing that actual temperature were rising. In other words there was no correspondence between what the current tree rings said and actual temperature readings. Since Mann’s hockey stick was created using tree rings the decline had to be hidden because it demonstrated that tree rings are worthless for determining past temperatures. In other words Mann had information that clearly demonstrated that his hockey stick had no validity at all — and he hid it. Is that science? (By the way, the trees used by Mann have recently been sampled again and over the added years are declining, departing more and more from actual temperature readings. Tree rings don’t reflect temperature.)

      Since you have implied that you know what “hide the decline” was about you should have no problem stating publicly here on WUWT that Mann’s hockey stick is total garbage. Right? So why don’t you publicly state that Mann had information that invalidated his work but he hid it. Call him out.

      An honest man like you would have no difficulty saying that clearly would he? Demonstrate your personal honesty by saying that Mann’s hockey stick is a fraud. Of course you will never say that because I don’t think you are honest.

      In one post you say — “I have read and heard much.” Instead of asking us silly questions why don’t you bestow your knowledge upon us so we can actually determine if you know anything at all. I think you have lint for a brain and are scared to death to say something factual out of fear you will demonstrate to all that you are really a “know nothing” The utter emptiness of your posts is laughable. I believe it reflects the emptiness in your head.

      Many years ago I had the experience of talking to a true megalomaniac who had recently been released from the psych ward. He wasn’t cured, he was considered incurable, but he was also considered harmless. He thought he was a genius and he talked just like you — totally scornful and demeaning of others and never willing to say a single thing that demonstrated his own brilliance. So after all these years, are you him? Have we meet again?

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • The hockey stick chart does not remotely fall into the catagory of fraudulant.
        The question is, does Jones work fall into the catagory of fraudulant. Again no.

      • I agree that Jones or Mann’s work is probably not fraudulent. The most rational explanation is that the work of both are cases of poorly executed science whose erroneous results were accepted because they fit expectations. Even smart scientists have a tendency to stop looking for errors once they get the results they expect, especially when contradicting results will cause political and emotional trauma. I’ve found this to be true for the work of many climate scientists.

      • It should be noted that ” fraud ”
        is a term used by the poster eugene, who felt i should ,
        due to my own integrity, castigate
        the hockystick as being a fraud.
        Certainly, my own integrity did not permit this.
        Hows your integrity eugene?
        Do you think the hockey stick is an example of scientific fraud?
        You wish me to state that.
        Its your word mate.
        Lets see how a reply to this matches up with your previous post.
        You can run from an insinuation of fraud or back it.
        Or just carry on with personal abuse , which seems to be your forte in this dialog.

  28. Capitalism is the economics of freedom and liberty, and it results in prosperity and happiness. The Pope’s beloved Communism is the economics of servitude and prohibition, and it results in poverty and misery.

    What is it that makes this man choose poverty and misery? It’s not about pollution because America’s skies are blue, while China’s skies are brown.

    • Under capitalism people have to co-operate in order to get rich.
      Under socialism and communism getting rich depends solely on who you know and who owes you favors.

  29. Dear Guest Blog Writer Martin Fricke. Ph.D. (nuclear physics),

    It is NOT for you to apologize on behalf of legitimate scientists. Such apology, however noble and however profound, is simply beyond any one individual (scientist).

    I make this comment with great respect to the whole content of your article: it is honorable, sincere and gives valuable information.

    Yours respectfully,
    WL

    • As an independent scientist (THE most independent scientist on the planet), I am on Dr. Fricke’s side on this point–as you yourself put it, he shows himself honorable and sincere. And this, despite the fact that you are right that no one individual can apologize for all–I would suggest that one honorable, sincere but most importantly competent scientist CAN apologize for all of his kind (and we could call that kind “legitimate scientists”, which promulgators of any aspect of consensus “climate science” are not–there are NO competent climate scientists, and no valid climate science).

  30. Quite amazing that a group who have resisted population control at every turn can think that teaming up with the Malthusians could ever be viewed as a logical concept.

    It looks to me like two desperate religions joining up to form a broader church.

    You would think they should have non conflicting drivers, if you have a faith and it depends for it credibility in some way on Catholicism you should be concerned.

  31. When I think of the Pope, I think of the Jesuit education that I received for 12 years and then I think of the political and economic travesty that is Argentina, a country with a seemingly genetic commitment to political chaos. The Pope, used to such environments, has a sensitivity and moral compass unrefined by the nuance of a more sophisticated arena. The recent Encyclical sadly betrays this.

  32. I would like to point out that there has been no laissez faire free market capitalism since the early 1800s. After the late 1800s there was ever more governmental intrusion and control. Ever more regulations and regulators. What we have today in most of the western world is a system that fuses the corporations and government into a unit and was called, by Benito Mussolini, by the name corporatism. He said that “corporatism” was a better descriptor than its other name: “fascism”. Yes, we live under a fascist economic system. That has nothing to do with the politics and wars of the middle 20th century that everyone thinks of when they hear the word “fascism”. (me too, that is why “corporatism” is so much better)

    The point is that the Pope is railing against corporatism and calling it capitalism. Does he know this, or is he just ignorant of economics?

    “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” ~ Murray Newton Rothbard

    Before the Classical Liberals revolted against the Ancien Régime and overthrew it, the State and the Church were the twin powers dominating the known world. The Roman Catholic Church supported the Kings by preaching that they ruled by Divine Right and that God himself worked through the King. The King supported the Church by funneling huge amounts of money into its coffers.

    It looks like the RC Church looks to again be useful to the governments of the world and will support the governments by preaching the CO2 delusion and by preaching government control of economic activity which in effect supports either socialism or corporatism.

    Throne and Alter all over again. Damn.

    • I haven’t noticed the Wall Street Journal losing much sleep over the Pope’s pontifications, about the environment or anything else. Ideologies come and go, and like this one are last month’s forgotten “news.” Follow the Smart Money to know what’s REALLY going on. You’ll get a lot fewer twists in your shorts.

    • Well put,though I believe you meant Throne and Altar. And in this case a Divine Right to absolute authority is being conferred on a parasitic regulatory cohort.

      Our language has been so perverted that few people understand that the US Constitution was a milestone for classical liberalism.

      The founders knew that a true democracy is bound to devolve into tyranny (is a lynch mob not a consensus?). Yet today’s leaders prattle on about spreading democracy throughout the world, and it seems that many people have no clue that it was our constitutional republic that attempted to guarantee that individuals could not be oppressed by the minions of those who demand ideological compliance.

      “Liberal” applied to “progressive” is an oxymoron. The ultimate end of progressivism is social stasis.

      • Agreed.

        And yes, that was an unfortunate typo. I do that a lot when I get to typing fast and am in a hurry. I should slow down a bit. :-)

  33. Argentina where the Pope is from continually defaults on their debt. So not being responsible appears a habit with the folks from there.

  34. Clearly the Pope’s message didn’t come from God, it is his personal agenda. The world his God created is a pure masterpiece, and it is unfortunate he didn’t use this opportunity to educate the People on this masterpiece. Just look at how CO2’s absorption of IR dwindles as it warms. Just look how there is an “atmospheric” window centered around the average temperature of the earth that prevents run away warming. Just look how methane and other demonized green house gasses don’t even really play a role. Just look how God created a system that prevents the catastrophes that the Warmists are claiming will be caused. This creation is a true masterpiece, with built in safety valves and adaptive systems. It is truly unfortunate to see the Pope mislead his followers. The Marxists that are behind this Global Warming Hoax have a history of unleashing hell on earth.

    • I see the potential run away warming in that graph of radiative energy. That is concerning to me. However, what you do not show is the dominant ability of water to transport heat to altitudes well above most of the CO2. That is the miracle our natural air conditioner.(credit to Willis E.) I think the evidence so far is in the order of 0.5 or 0.6 C of warming, ie, too small to measure, or care about. Thus CO2 is net beneficial.

      • I see the potential run away warming in that graph of radiative energy. That is concerning to me.

        Where? CO2 stops warming at 13 microns, or -55 Degree C. The atmospheric window spans from 13 to 8 microns. We have 600 million years of history that demonstrates that CO2 and other GHGs don’t cause run away warming. Over 600 million years we never sustained temperatures above 22 Degree C even when CO2 reached 7,000 PPM, and that is 100% consistent with the mechanics of this chart.

        600 Million Years and absolutely no run away warming.

      • co2islife, the problem is not CO2, it’s water. Any significant warming of the earth would result in the absorption band being shifted into a region that is blocked by water.
        The problem of course is that the earth is not a black body, nor is it’s temperature constant across surface or time. There is nearly a 50C difference between the equator and the poles, there is also a 10C difference or greater between day and night. Not to mention significant differences during the year.
        In order to use this graph, you would have to somehow integrate the absorption and emission graphs across both the surface of the earth over a full year, while also accounting for the day night cycle.
        I really have no idea how to go about doing that.
        Until someone has a relevant epiphany, your graph is a decent first order approximation.

      • “MarkW

        July 18, 2015 at 6:45 am

        co2islife, the problem is not CO2, it’s water.”

        Well, you have to accept there is no problem at all!

    • Why is the graph of a 310K blackbody showing the same peak output as one at 5525K ? Doesn’t that make you suspect it is wrong? (and what is 5525K supposed to represent?)

      • Why is the graph of a 310K blackbody showing the same peak output as one at 5525K ? Doesn’t that make you suspect it is wrong? (and what is 5525K supposed to represent?)

        That is a good point, unfortunately that issues seems to be demonstrated different ways depending on the units.


        This comes from NASA

      • BTW, this comes from NASA. Look at the temperature of earth, it is -20 Degree C. I agree, if the troposphere was -20 Degree C, CO2 may cause catastrophic warming…BUT IT ISN’T. The troposphere is much much much warmer, and totally outside the range that CO2 absorbs.

        Temperatures reach -20 Degree C at a height of 6 Kilometers.

        CO2 peak absorption is at -80 Degree C, that that temperature is found in the stratosphere. Last I looked the stratosphere isn’t warming. Imagine that.

      • I would expect that the area under the two curves needs to be equal since it represents energy at each band. Unless total energy in equals total energy out, the planet will either warm or cool until it does.

      • The Science of Doom one is OK except the Sun’s output is factored down by 10^-8, which is rather arbitrary (i.e it doesn’t exactly represent the proportion of solar radiation reaching the Earth). It has been scaled down otherwise it wouldn’t fit on the graph.

        The second graph is odd (wrong) in several ways. It is labelled ‘irradiance’ instead of ‘radiance’ or emission. Because it is showing a ’spectral’ distribution, the units on the vertical axis are wrong. It should be joules/sq.metre/sec/ per….unit of wavelength [ in this case per micron]. (and most people would simply say watts, instead of joules per second)

        The graph you say is from NASA is wrong, depending on what it is purporting to show. The intensity from the Sun (with an effective temperature usually taken to be 5780K, not 5500K) is obviously a lot more than the intensity emitted by the Earth. Note that the vertical axis conveniently has no units at all.
        It is not clear what the -20C is supposed to be. This is not the temperature of the Earth, except perhaps at a particular cold location. If it is supposed to represent the temperature at the top of the atmosphere or troposphere then emission from those altitudes does not follow a blackbody distribution. So, the graph as shown is wrong.

        The intensity (and distribution) of radiation emitted by blackbodies depends on their temperature (and nothing else). All blackbodies emit at least some radiation at every wavelength. The hotter the body, the more it emits.

        Any graph showing that a -20K blackbody emits the same intensity of radiation as one at 5525K, is wrong.

        By the way MarkW, as regards its own infrared emission, the surface of the Earth approximates to a blackbody.

  35. Capitalism is the economics of freedom and liberty, and it results in prosperity and happiness. The Pope’s beloved Communism is the economics of servitude and prohibition, and it results in poverty and misery.

    Yep, just read history. Leftwing/Communist/Fascist Governments are the closest thing to hell on earth and the pope has aligned himself with them. That is truly sad. The pope is preaching don’t turn to God or yourself, turn to Government to solve your problems. No wonder people are losing their faith in God, they are being directed to turn to the Government.

    • This is why I think he chose the advisers he did. It isn’t for want of good advice, he simply didn’t want good advice. He has a particular outcome in mind, and is organizing to fulfill it.

      The brick and mortar assets the Catholic church has must be maintained, If everyone becomes poor as a result of socialist policies, that income will shrink. When the income falls below what it takes to maintain those assets, I think the church will be in for some nasty surprises.

  36. People need to remember that Catholicism is the religion. The Catholic Church is a business…

  37. Generally if a politician is using a hysyerical concern for a reason to implement his ideological view he doesn’t care if that concern actually exists in reality or not. For him telling us you need a whole new engine when all you need Is new oil filter is completley justified. Unfortunatey for him it’s not just mechanics that know how a car works and the ones that don’t are learning how some mechanics work.

  38. If this pope possessed an enlightened understanding of the global climate-system himself he would not have succumbed to Schellnhuber’s mindwash.

    But even without that, if he had just been more aware of the wise teachings of other world religions he might not have succumbed then either. After all, the rise of misguided political cults like the CAGW-cult is an old phenomenon which one would expect the authentic spiritual leaders of humanity to know about and understand. For example, from the Sufi teacher Rumi:

    “Humanity is bewildered by false idols and driven by vain fantasies into the pit of destruction.”

    Yet Pope Francis would not even have needed that knowledge to save him if he had just taken more notice of what Christ himself taught:

    “When the blind lead the blind they shall all fall down into the pit.”

    What hope can there be for blind climate change idol worshippers like him who are willing to commit themselves and their millions of followers to a strange and unenlightened belief-system that is fundamentally antithetical to the one to which they are already committed? The Pope’s original guiding light is supposed to have said that a man cannot serve two masters. Apparently he disagrees with Christ about that. But in that case, why is he still the Pope?

  39. Like most socialists, the Pope is only interested in learning information that confirms what he wants to be true.

  40. Is it really “United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC)” or isn’t it “United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate CHANGE”? Or perhaps “Incompetent Political Climate Clowns…?

  41. This arrangement is so chillingly like the arrangement between Hitler and Martin Bormann. Bormann chose those who had access to Hitler, always lurking nearby as a beady-eyed toady. History is repeating itself.

  42. It is barely noticed that a papal spokesperson has gone so far at to label capitalism as an enemy of the church. (In defense of socialism which has identified the church as one of two primary enemies – the opiate of the masses that it wishes to supplant. The only compromise there is if the Church abandons itself to empower itself. Ringing a bell?)

  43. label capitalism an enemy of the church.

    First thing a Marxist totalitarian leader does is outlaw religion. Just watch the films of 1959 Cuba. Castro immediately deported the Catholic Church. Capitalism funds the Catholic Church, Governments would tax it if they could, others just eliminate it like Castro did.

    A church tax is a tax imposed on members of some religious congregations in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Sweden, some parts of Switzerland and several other countries.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

    With friends like this Pope, the Catholic Religion doesn’t need enemies.

    • BTW, has this Pope read the Bible? It was a totalitarian Roman Government that tacked Jesus to a cross. Mathew was a hated Tax Collector, Paul was likely a Government Representative (Sanhedrin) when he persecuted Christians. Jesus worked in the Free Market as a Carpenter. The only time Jesus got angry in the Bible was when he saw the Church, likely aligned with Roman Government, exploiting the people for money by requiring “Money Changers” to convert their currency so they could buy sacrificial animals. It was the Church Representatives cooperating with the Roman Government that resulted in the persecution of Jesus. Most ironic, the warmest period of the Holocene is referred to as the Roman Warming Period.

      • Unfortunately, many of the issues for which Jesus ridiculed the priests of the temple during his time can now be found in modern day examples in the Christian churches of today including the RC church. Only a poor man can be a holy man in my book and the Pope did live that way at one time but it seems to have had a deleterious effect upon his logic regarding how to help the poor out of poverty. The original church tried socialism and it did not work. The Pope needs to read St. Peter’s letter in which he chides those taking advantage of the system and tells them if they want to eat they have to work. However, I fear that the preachers getting rich from their TV shows might be in more trouble when they meet their maker.

      • Sorry, I don’t like this figure. What is its source? There are a) no error bars, and b) Greenland core temperatures may or may not be a proxy for global temperatures, even if one accepts this as accurate at the level of the width of the lines.

        I’m just plain skeptical about our ability to resolve past global temperatures, and that skepticism is not helped by the fact that the global practice in climate science is to never, ever publish a curve with error bars. Neither side in the debate ever does so. The error bars themselves are never a subject for debate. All we see is a curve, published as God’s Own Revealed Truth, that illustrates what temperatures were doing 6500 years ago, or 6,500,000 years ago, or 6,500,000,000 years ago. I’m not so certain we knew global average temperatures (or the mythical “anomaly”) 65 years ago, before the advent of satellites, before anything like the ARGO array, back when the world was still reeling from a century of modern globe spanning warfare and its continuance in Korea and across the iron and bamboo curtains.

        That’s why I put the error bars in to the HadCRUT4 fit above. They may be wrong — they are certainly unbelievable in my opinion over the first century they span from 1850 to 1950 and are dubious from 1950 to the present as well but for different reasons — but at least you can see what the CRU claims them to be!

        The evidence such as it is makes it plausible that CO_2 concentration has an immediate effect (with little lag or delay) on average temperature, granting that average temperature is a) not terribly well defined; b) not terribly well measured; c) subject to natural variations as climate is a non-stationary phenomenon of unknown and unpredictable amplitude that must be resolved from any inferred CO_2-based effect. In my opinion, the evidence makes it more likely than not that CO_2 has very nearly exactly the effect predicted by the radiative theory with little to no feedback either way, with a total climate sensitivity most likely to end up being between 1 and 1.5 C, with a somewhat reduced chance of being a half a degree lower or higher. This increase, like all shifts in climate natural or otherwise, is likely to benefit some and hurt others. The increase in CO_2 per se, however, is absolutely certain to benefit nearly everybody twice — once from the energy released burning the coal to make the CO_2, once from the cumulative stimulus of the entire biosphere with additional rate-limiting CO_2 to fuel plant growth.

        I don’t disagree with you that co2islife, but also don’t think the debate is well-served by still more curves presented as being “just true” with no range of possible error, or by claiming that there can be no negative effects of increased CO_2 in the atmosphere. Of course there can. Just as there are without question positive effects, even though they are completely ignored in any tallying done by e.g. WHO or the AMA or economists supposedly tallying up the risk/benefit of the projected “catastrophe”.

        It is this latter dishonesty that is at the heart of things. If we had known in 1850 the benefits of raising atmospheric CO_2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, would it have been the rational thing to do to deliberately raise it or would we have been well-advised to leave it alone? I think there is no doubt whatsoever that we would have — or should have — voted to raise it. Raising the world’s average temperature by 1-2 F and increasing the CO_2 available to the biosphere has been overwhelmingly beneficial, so far. There is little reason to think that raising it another 1-2 F and going to 500 or 600 ppm will not be overwhelmingly beneficial, globally beneficial even if it raises sea level by a half meter and swamps the Maldives. Raising it another 4 to 6 F is more problematic, especially if the raise is not uniformly distributed. Bumping CO_2 without limit without taking the time to let the planet fully adjust to the levels we’ve already reached might be unwise.

        If both sides in this debate were simply honest, then humans of good will and reasonable intelligence could look at what we really, truly do known, what we fear, what we like, and make the best possible decisions as to how to dispose of the increasing disposable wealth of the world in ways that are an investment, in ways that make the world a better place to live in all ways and with minimal risk. The thing I hate about it is that the debate is dominated by lies, name calling, gross exaggeration, and a complete failure to see the other side’s point of view.

        Oh, and absolutely terrible abuses of statistics and scientific reasoning, again on both sides but I have to say predominantly on the side of those that assert inevitable catastrophe. The evidence of bias is clear in IMO incontrovertible at this point. This sadly reduces the credibility of scientists everywhere, in all branches of science. Climate science proves one thing beyond all doubt. Scientists are just as easily suborned by the glimpse of easy money as anybody else.

        rgb

      • If you are interested in such things, here is a point for you to consider. Why was Jesus upset at money changers in the Temple? Well, certainly they had been around for a long time, right? There for his lifetime, right?

        Think about it. The money changers had just been brought back. The “Greek” (Mesopotamian) Hebrews had run the Temple for years but with a coming of the Romans they got kicked out and the “Egyptian” Hebrews took control. The Egyptian Hebrews reinstalled the money changers.

        So a bit more “logical” evidence that Christ was crucified early in Pilates rule and not late.

        Also it is probable that Christ as Mary’s firstborn was given to the church and not redeemed — meaning he spent his youth as an acolyte there in the Temple and begin his mission among the people when the Greek Hebrews got kicked out.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • re: rgbatduke July 18, 2015 at 8:47 am

        If we had known in 1850 the benefits of raising atmospheric CO_2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, would it have been the rational thing to do to deliberately raise it or would we have been well-advised to leave it alone? I think there is no doubt whatsoever that we would have — or should have — voted to raise it. ”

        Dr Brown, I think that if government could have seen a political advantage to raising atmospheric CO2 they would have provided the money for that scenario and it would have become climate policy. But alas, making people more comfortable and better off is never the intention of those that govern, no matter what the rhetoric appears to be. One cannot say in power unless they convince the voters that there is a problem and that only they can solve it. It is as simple as that.

      • Sorry, I don’t like this figure. What is its source? There are a) no error bars, and b) Greenland core temperatures may or may not be a proxy for global temperatures, even if one accepts this as accurate at the level of the width of the lines.

        No chart published before the Hockeystick denied the Medieval and Roman warming periods that I know of. This chart is from the 1990 IPCC Report.

        I would simply do what I’ve done, download the ice core data yourself and test the past 50 and 150 years for a statistically significant variation in the temperature. Every ice core I’ve tested shows that 1) there is absolutely nothing statistically significant about the temperature variation over the past 50 and 150 years and 2) we are well off the peaks of the Holocene period. If you find an ice core data set that doesn’t show that, please post the source, I’ve been looking for one.

        Also, while you are at it, run a regression over the Holocene period, or over the past 600,000 years between CO2 and Temperature, making CO2 the independent and Temperature the dependent variable. You will see that 1) The R^2 of CO2 and Temperature is about 0 and 2) if you make Temperature the independent variable and lag CO2 by about 800 to 1200 years so that temperature 800 to 1200 years ago line up with today’s CO2, you get a much higher R^2. That makes since because of Henry’s Law, heating water releases CO2.

        BTW, study AL Gore’s chart, it clearly shows the Roman Warming Period, and that we are well off the peaks of the past 600,000 years.

      • I don’t disagree with you that co2islife, but also don’t think the debate is well-served by still more curves presented as being “just true” with no range of possible error, or by claiming that there can be no negative effects of increased CO_2 in the atmosphere. Of course there can. Just as there are without question positive effects, even though they are completely ignored in any tallying done by e.g. WHO or the AMA or economists supposedly tallying up the risk/benefit of the projected “catastrophe”.

        You really don’t need temperature data to debunk this Global Warming Nonsense. Just because we are warming doesn’t mean CO2 is causing it, and it certainly doesn’t mean man made CO2 is causing it. If CO2 is the cause of the warming, how in the hell did we emerge from an ice age? Where would the CO2 come from? By what mechanism can atmospheric CO2 increase without warming? That is basic scientific method analysis 101, the very hypothesis of CO2 lead warming makes no sense what so ever.

        CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no one denies that, what is denied is that CO2 causes warming in the temperature range represented by the lower troposphere captured by ground and sea measurements. CO2 absorbs and radiates “heat” in IR spectrum of 13 to 18 microns. That range represents a blackbody temperature of between -50 degree C and -110 degree C, with a peak absorption at -80 degree C. The average earth temperature is 15 degree C, and consistent with 10 microns IR. If CO2 was causing warming, it wouldn’t be warming the lower troposphere, it would be warming the upper troposphere, lower stratosphere. CO2 is transparent to incoming viable light, so CO2 has no impact on daytime temperatures. Simply understanding the basics of this chart rules out CO2 as the cause. Also, CO2 doesn’t have a dipole, so it is a relatively weak GHG when compared to H2O. This chart demonstrates that as the earth warms, H2O becomes the only GHG that is trapping heat. That is the irony of this entire nonsensical CO2 caused global warming theory. The warmer we get, the less impact CO2 has. The atmosphere has a built in turn off switch when it comes to CO2. If CO2 does anything it prevents run away cooling, which makes sense because cold areas would be void of H2O, so some other GHG was needed to fill that void. Another miracle of God’s creation the Pope doesn’t seem to understand.

  44. The theme is the same for all Greenie organizations around the world that the monarchy so richly endorses so as to lower the earths population to the said under a billion people.
    It was never about science but is about genecide. We can continue to debate about numbers and graphs but the agenda will continue to inflict its destruction until it reaches its goal.

  45. There is an old youtube video where Schellnhuber explains to the stupid audience:
    “Nature makes it very easy for us to understand. As CO2 goes up, so goes the temperature.”
    Except it doesn’t.

  46. Pope Francis — The Useful Idiot
    Sings A Famous Religious Song

    (I)
    I don’t care if it rains and freezes
    Long as I got my plastic Jesus
    Riding on the dashboard of my car
    I’m driving fast to where I’m going
    Horn a’honking, headlights glowing
    Racing to that global climate war!

    It’s Armageddon straight ahead!
    For just as Adam Smith has said
    Creating wealth sets each against all others!
    The Covenant within the Ark
    Is best fulfilled by Karl Marx
    Shared poverty will make us Christian brothers!

    (II)
    I preach a new Theology
    Derived from Climatology
    My altar is the dashboard of my car
    I had a vision, went to buy a
    Naked, windup, plastic Gaia
    I serve Her in the global climate war

    For Gaia mends the Trinity
    She is the third Divinity
    God feminine as Christ was made a male!
    In all the nations they will herald
    The Moving Spirit Of The World!
    — Who bobs her head and shakes her tail

    Eugene WR Gallun

  47. >>Schellnhuber is also very close to Merkel…

    Is this why Germany has closed down all its nuclear power stations?

    I met a German nucler engineer who was very animated about this – almost having a meltdown himself. Not only was he losing his job, but:

    Germany did not have enough reserve power.
    There was not enough base-load power.
    There has been a huge increase in brown coal power.
    CO2 generation has increased substantially.
    Emissions have increased greatly.
    Costs have increased greatly.
    Imports of cheap French nuclear power have increased greatly.
    Germany was losing all its best engineers to Britain.
    German engineers were also heading eastwards, and may now help destabilise the East and cause a conflict there.

    Apart from all that, Merkel made a good descition.

    Ralph

    • “German engineers were also heading eastwards, and may now help destabilise the East and cause a conflict there.”

      Last I checked that was the job of Blackwater and Soros’ guys.

  48. “So, the Pontifical Academy of Science is obviously puzzled by the physical sciences, thinking that a big name in one field, say biology, knows the best scientists in another field, say meteorology. But, even within meteorology, there are few who know much about the sub-specialty of climate science.”

    I found that in my world of aircraft maintenance, those in the mechanical fields did a poor job of evaluating the abilities of those in the electrical fields and vise versa. I noticed that many that were not very able in their field were very good at convincing others of their ability. If the ones with little ability can fool the bosses long enough to become supervisors then they can make it to retirement.

  49. As a devout Catholic (at least I try to be), this is incredibly disappointing. It isn’t Catholic dogma/theology and it does not affect my faith, but I agree this situation will end up being a mini-Galileo. As much as it pains me to say it, Francis has truly become a Useful Idiot for the CAGW cause. A Pope is prevented (Catholics believe) from making grave the theological errors, but this kind of stuff will happen from time to time.

    As a Catholic, I have been interested in having an African pope for some time. I was a fan of Arinze (Nigeria) in the last two papal elections; he is now too old. But, if it wasn’t an African like Arinze, I thought a South American Pope was an ok consolation prize. Looks like I was wrong. After this current pontificate, with a Pope that has a good heart but is clearly incredibly naïve and not nearly savvy enough for the position, I fear we won’t have another Pope from South America, or another Pope from Africa (yes, there were a few early ones from North Africa) for a long, long , long time. And that is very disappointing to me. The damage this encyclical will cause long term will be great indeed, in a number of different areas.

  50. The Pope I believe is God’s representative on Earth. My question is – Why did God pick a fool to represent him ?

    • Owen says “Why did God pick a fool to represent him?”

      This is your straw-man argument, you answer it. As to who actually is God’s representative on Earth, obviously you missed that episode of South Park that provides the answer.

      “Probably” (Season 4, Episode 11)
      —-
      Speaker- Hello, newcomers, and welcome. Can everybody hear me? [taps the mic a few times] Hello? Can everybuh-? Okay. [the crowd quiets down] Uh, I’m the hell director. Uh, it looks like we have about 8,615 of you newbies today, and for those of you who are a little confused, uh, you are dead, and this is hell, so, abandon all hope and uh yada yada yada. Uh, we are now going to start the orientation process, which will last about-

      Man- Hey, wait a minute, I shouldn’t be here. I wa a totally strict and devout Protestant! I thought we went to heaven!

      Hell director- Yes, well I’m afraid you were wrong.

      Soldier- I was a practicing Jehovah’s Witness.

      Hell director- Uh, you picked the wrong religion as well.

      Another man- Well, who was right? Who gets into heaven?

      Hell director- I’m afraid it was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons were the correct answer.

      Crowd- [disappointed] Awww.

  51. I second Mark Stoval’s commendation of richardscortney’s comment at July 17,2015 11:06pm.

    In comments here and there on various websites, I routinely claim there is no definiitive evidence that an incremental increase in atmospheric CO2 can increase global surface temperatures. IOW, the null hypothesis prevails. Here, Dr. Fricke alludes to definitive evidence contrary to the AGW hypothesis. I would like to see definitive evidence cited and explained more frequently on the blogosphere, not just on “safe” sites like WUWT. Otherwise how will mainstream climate scientists, let alone the low-information crowd, ever be won over?

    • Again, don’t rely on web blogs for “definitive” evidence contrary to the AGW hypothesis. Consult the last few years of technical publications in professional journals. You WILL find it there, definitively.

  52. Urban the VIII had a lot better excuse in the Galileo affair. Francis has none. For the first time I can honestly say I am ashamed of a Pope. A bad decision is one thing, but, deliberately adopting the stalking horse of the culture of death is far more significant than Urban’s failure. I wonder what next? Will Francis endorse the population policies of the PRC? It is the Malthusian way after all and would be consistent logically with this encyclical.

  53. What the Pope needs to learn is that there is a minimum per capita energy requirement for people in order to live a quality life and prosper. To do that with existing energy sources requires significant expansion of fossil fuels and/or nuclear fission because the green renewable sources such as solar and wind have far too low energy flux densities per capital investment, required land mass, invested energy in the production of components, and amount of time required to fabricate components. I have shown this in several articles on our http://www.fuelRfuture.com website. The only realistic solution is a crash program…”Manhattan Project” like…or Apollo Moon Shot like…as Bill Gates recently stated…to develop a source of 100% safe, green, non-polluting, inexpensive, virtually unlimited power. Dr. Steven Cowley of the Culham Center in the UK is fond of saying fusion power is energy based on human knowledge (E=MC^2.) This is the message the Pope must hear. We cannot fall in the trap of allowing discussion on population reduction. We must focus the spot light on the true energy needs based on the projected 2060 worldwide population of 9 billion human beings and open up a national/worldwide discussion on what that “magical energy” solution is and challenge the world powers and/or private sector enterprises to develop it.

  54. A Schellnhuber’s paper published out of the Vatican City in 2014:

    “Climate-System Tipping Points and Extreme Weather Events”, HANS JOACHIM SCHELLNHUBER AND MARIA A. MARTIN

    http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/es41/es41-schellnhuber.pdf

    It is curious how adroitly Schellnhuber makes the segue from the natural ENSO to the evils of colonial exploitation – all in a single paragraph.

    El Niño can trouble weather behavior around the globe and may wreak
    havoc in most distant regions. In the late 19th century, droughts and monsoon
    failures, floods and epidemic diseases like malaria, bubonic plague,
    dysentery, smallpox and cholera accompanied marked clusters of El Niño
    and opposing La Niña events, although an exclusive causal attribution is
    very hard to establish in this context. In the course of those tragic events,
    around 30-50 million premature deaths were counted in India, China and
    Brazil (Davis 2001, and Figure 6). The inhumane practices of late colonial
    exploitation aggravated the disaster, creating even more opportunities for
    grabbing territories from the “inferior peoples in the South” and for cementing
    the political rule of the North.

  55. Bad advice begats bad decisions. Unfortunately, Pope Francis has not learned that.

    • Have ever commented on WUWT in thread that was within the scope of your technical competence? You know, being a PhD, PG. FGSA (since you went through the trouble to let us all know), one would think you would have something intelligent to say about any subject where you had actual knowledge and you could enlarge the discussion. Yet you confine your thoughts to Francis… yet again?

    • “The church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters,” he said.

      Bwahahahahahaha

      Methinks Pell is a member of two churches. The christian one and the
      cult of denialism.

      • Li D

        What you wrote makes no sense. The third line is a conclusion you have reached using the first line as source? It does not follow.

        And what are you laughing at? There is nothing there that is funny. Get yourself under control, man. Your emotions do not seem environmentally created. That is a bad sign, a really bad sign. Perhaps instead of posting here you should take your spiel to a Help Hot Line. They will listen to you and try to help.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • No, its not a conclusion i reached
        using the first line.
        Its a personal observation of my own using varied sources.
        I thank you for asking for clarification.
        Im not sure how to address your
        claim that the line isnt funny except that i accept it.
        Individual perceptions of what constitiutes humourous writing.vary from person to person.
        Perhaps you dont get that fundimental? Perhaps you do?

  56. The Vatican is not socialist. If you buy that, I have a bridge to sell you. It is fascist and extremely right-wing, no matter what their public pronouncements about the poor are. So the Pope visits a country in a white car and puts his hands on kids’ heads. BFD. It’s all political theatre. The secular branch of the Vatican is Opus Dei, one of the more reactionary politico-religious groups on the planet.

    I sincerely doubt anyone here has the time or real interest, but Dave Emory (35-year fascism expert, although he got the climate change bug in his 2015 old age, ignore it if you listen to his recent stuff, not his purview) did a great two-part series on this brand of fascism in 1994 called, “M61 Why Johnny Can’t Iden­tify Il Duce: The Cel­lu­lar Method­ol­ogy of Fas­cism. You have to scroll down to the penultimate entry on this webpage to see the this story and the mp3 interviews that you can download. Worth it just to read the description. Remember this was 20 years ago. Copy the title of the link and use FIND. The Vatican is steeped in this fascist thinking.

    rgbatduke is 100% about Vatican investments. The Vatican is now completely aligned with the 1% running UNEP. They have their future to protect.

    • You mean this guy? http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2010/12/123-dave-emory.html

      Riiiiiiight, he said while carefully backing towards the door. But I will grant you that as “they” say: even a broken (or in this case a mentally disturbed) clock is correct twice a day. There is little doubt that the clichéd rhetorical saw: “Is the pope catholic” certainly needs revising, but I would step well away from the Emory if I were you..

      • Interesting to see Singers name
        on that list of deluded and sometimes dangerous muppets.
        Of course the list is incomplete.
        And it would be unfair to suggest USA has the market cornered in this area.

  57. I find myself wondering whether this Pope was astute enough to realize that ‘Climate Change’ had become a worldwide religious movement in its own right, and so figured the best strategy was to embrace and co-opt it. But this may be attributing calculation to a mind just blinkered by naivité.

    /Mr Lynn

  58. “The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits.”

    Replace “capitalism” with “Jew”, and you have the church 500 years ago. The more things change…

    • The time value of money is to be rendered unto Caesar; that religions try to abrogate it is the root of much evil.
      ==================

  59. It is energy that lifted us out of the stone age. (Farming – human and animal energy) Energy is required to grow and transport the food needed by the poor. It is the population growth that is causing most of the misery but some folks think that we should all be equally poor. Energy has lifted me from poverty – a post WWII in a large family. When the government itself begins fighting the use of energy then the government is ensuring the rise of poverty and government dependence, IMO.

  60. The Church has no expertise in science and indeed makes no claims to such. Nevertheless as we see in the case of Francis, it gets into trouble when it tries to buttress its theological and moral pretensions with worldly science preferences. Indeed in this case their direction would rob the world’s poor of the opportunity to become unpoor, the exact opposite of what the Church says it wants.

    • The events leading up to COP 21 are part of an international Marketing strategy.

      Marketing is selling something including ideas.

      Two more meetings have been added to the Pope’s Encyclical which serve to re-enforce it. Then there are the up-coming visits to the UN and Washington in September.

      This is Marketing so deal with it!

  61. Finally, I wish to thank those here who have defended my post and to compliment them because, in most cases, it is clear they are well informed on this subject. This includes MarkW, rgbatduke, MRW, Eugene WR Gallun, Paul Westhaver, Warren Latham, harrydhuffman, Andres Valencia, and others. And I wish to thank Anthony for putting this on WUWT the very day he received it (another honor; he’s written books on this subject).

Comments are closed.