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.
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?
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.
Actually it’s 18 and a half years.
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
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?
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.
wasn’t in the Pope’s budget to get “objective truth”
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?
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?”
Try a little study. The data is out there.
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
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.
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.
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).
Point(s) taken and am very much in agreement.
Regards,
WL
Now when Latin Americans in Vatican seem to be accusing the evil capitalists of destroying mother Earth, perhaps we should ask the motivations of the Latin Americans in Vatican, up to Pope Francis.
After all, there is little doubt Franciscans estinguished Maya civilization in the Latin America.
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.
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.
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?
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. 🙂
Argentina where the Pope is from continually defaults on their debt. So not being responsible appears a habit with the folks from there.
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.
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.
http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/globalTempAndCo2_last600MillionYears.png
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.
In my first sentence, I meant emission, not absorption. Sorry.
“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?)
That is a good point, unfortunately that issues seems to be demonstrated different ways depending on the units.
http://web.csulb.edu/~rodrigue/geog140/sunwavelength.gif
This comes from NASA
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/radiation_peak.png
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.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/radiation_peak.png
Temperatures reach -20 Degree C at a height of 6 Kilometers.
http://resources.yesican-science.ca/trek/scisat/final/images/trop1.jpg
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.
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.
People need to remember that Catholicism is the religion. The Catholic Church is a business…
Is the Kiwanis club a business or an organization?
Relevance? The Catholic Church has always been a feudal business.
The relevance is your belief that any organization is also a business.
And as Bishop Marcinkus (God’s Banker) once said: “The Church does not run on Hail Marys.”
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.
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?
Following this rabbit hole to its natural conclusion, behold the bunny in the room:
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/14691/climate-change-when-two-tribes-go-to-war/
enjoyed your article, thanks
Like most socialists, the Pope is only interested in learning information that confirms what he wants to be true.
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…?
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.
Marxist/Socialist and CAGW doctrines; a match made in heaven.
Naturally, since the latter is pretty much a creation of the former.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
“The money changers had just been brought back.”
Really? Curious as to what all the moneychangers were doing, I found this:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0014_0_14119.html
Seems they were endemic in that area, and needed.