Pontifical Academy of Science Emails Document Vatican Hostility to Climate Change Skepticism

From The National Catholic Register

The 2015 emails show how the academy’s chancellor and some of its senior members were alarmed about a French scientist attending a high-level Vatican summit and had him disinvited.

Edward Pentin Blogs January 5, 2021

VATICAN CITY — Five-year-old emails within the Pontifical Academy of Sciences have surfaced to show just how anxious some top Vatican officials were to suppress any voices skeptical of the science of climate change.

The testy exchanges, all written that year and leaked to the Register, mostly relate to an invitation the academy made to professor Philippe de Larminat, a French climate change skeptic, to speak at an important Pontifical Academy of Sciences-hosted high-level summit on “The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development.”

READ MORE: Vatican Global-Warming Conference Displays Climate of Cooperation

Aimed at building a consensus between scientists and religious leaders on the science of climate change, the April 2015 meeting coincided with both Pope Francis’ environmental encyclical Laudato Si (On Care for Our Common Home) published a month later, and the creation that year of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

Among the keynote speakers were the then-U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the SDGs’ chief architect, Columbia University economist and population control advocate Jeffrey Sachs, and five Nobel laureates. 

De Larminat, who wrote a book arguing that solar activity rather than greenhouse gases was driving global warming, also dissented from the conclusions of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He had reportedly sought a place at the 2015 symposium to try to change the Pope’s mind on the science. 

The then-president of the Pontifical Academy, Werner Arber, a Protestant Swiss microbiologist and Nobel laureate appointed by Benedict XVI in 2011, was sympathetic to de Larminat’s concerns and cautious about accepting the climate change “consensus.” 

In one of Arber’s emails, dated March 23 and sent to the academy’s chancellor Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo and academy member Veerabhadran Ramanathan, the Swiss scientist stressed that the climate has a “high degree of complexity” and scientific studies depend on models that can lead to “different conclusions.” In general, these produce conditions of “insecurity” about the science which, he wrote, the Vatican and the Pope should be informed about.

Arber therefore argued for following “the precautionary principle” — to recommend lowering the quantity of CO2 emitted by human activity, but not issue a “clear statement” of predictions regarding climate change that “could seriously harm confidence in the science.” As a postscriptum, he added that de Larminat “might be ready to attend our workshop on April 28, if desirable.”

The decision to invite de Larminat appears to have already been taken as in a March 30 email, Cardinal Peter Turkson, then-president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, told de Larminat that “if you would like to participate [in the summit], the academy would be very happy. All you have to do is let me know.” 

The French scientist responded by asking if his brother, professor Stanislas de Larminat, an expert on Christian ecology, could also attend with him. Stanislas had once written that “ecologism” is a “form of culture of death that pushes us to dream of a return to paradise lost.” He had also authored a book prefaced by Cardinal George Pell, well known for his skepticism of human-caused climate change. 

Bishop Sanchez didn’t become aware of their invitation until April 16, a few days before the symposium, when Arber emailed him to say he “would welcome” de Larminat’s participation. The scientist’s contribution, Arber wrote in the email, would offer “a deeper insight into the complex phenomenon of climate variations and into predictive modeling by using this approach, which differs from the approach used by the IPCC.” 

In an email the following day opening with the words “Dear Friends” and sent to academy members Ramanathan (now known as Pope Francis’ “climate scientist”), Peter Raven, an American botanist, and Sir Partha Dasgupta, an Indian economist, Bishop Sanchez expressed his shock, calling Arber’s suggestion to Cardinal Turkson to invite de Larminat “incredible!”

Raven responded by expressing sorrow that Bishop Sanchez should be “put in the middle of this ridiculous and most unfortunate situation,” adding that “if we differ from what the scientific world has concluded in this area, we will be ridiculous.” A controversy at the meeting “will make all the news,” he feared. Raven encouraged Bishop Sanchez to “continue to be strong,” and claimed Arber “wasn’t listening.” 

Dasgupta urged the chancellor not to “fret” about the situation “because there is nothing to be done,” adding that even if they had a scientist to rebuff the dissenting position, “the whole point of the meeting on the 28th would be lost.” Ramanathan believed that the only option was to disinvite the dissenting scientist and do everything possible in order to “avert an undesirable outcome.” 

Bishop Sanchez wrote back, telling them, “Don’t worry because even if this Professor de Larminat should come, he has no authorization to speak or make any kind of intervention.” 

Read the full article here.

4.9 9 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
January 7, 2021 2:06 am

The “Pontifical Academy of Sciences” is an oxymoron. The science would be the same as what burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for saying the earth revolves around the sun. The usual Inquisition Deniers need not reply.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Ron Long
January 7, 2021 4:17 am

Oh dear. See my comment at 4:12.

Ron Long
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
January 7, 2021 11:46 am

Ed, I read your post, nice try on your part, and your comments are consistent with my view of current Pope (El Papa here in Argentina).

Jacques Dumon
Reply to  Ron Long
January 7, 2021 2:22 pm

You are wrong. There are nowadays great catholic lay or cleric scientists. None among them is a flat earthed.
Bu the Pontifical Academy for Sciences founded many years ago with true scientists has become a political tool in the hands of the Pope Francis who himself is an ideological marxist surrounded with true communist sycophants

Ron Long
Reply to  Jacques Dumon
January 7, 2021 5:32 pm

So why am I wrong? You’re saying the same thing I am, in both above comments, just trying to put a spin on it.

January 7, 2021 2:20 am

Frank has two religions

Just in case…

Reply to  fretslider
January 7, 2021 4:18 am

No, he has TURNED AWAY from GOD, and now worships a heathen anti-christian cult religion.

Jacques Dumon
Reply to  fred250
January 7, 2021 2:24 pm


Edward Hanley
January 7, 2021 2:22 am

From the article, regarding the invitation sent to de Larminat, “Bishop Sanchez responded: “I know that [invitation] hasn’t been sent because the invitations were sent by the Academy and nobody approached that author.” ”

I am disappointed, because as an Altar Boy I was taught never to lie, and was often chastised for that in the confessional. I should have stuck with my vocation to the priesthood, stayed in the seminary, and finally made my way to Bishop, so that I could lie with impunity.

Last edited 2 years ago by Nevada_Geo
Reply to  Edward Hanley
January 7, 2021 2:35 am

But these lies were for the greater good. :O

Reply to  Edward Hanley
January 7, 2021 11:06 am

Just become a Democrat politician, they also can lie, as well as cheat and steal, with impunity.

Ron Long
Reply to  Don
January 7, 2021 11:48 am

You can also jump in bed with Chinese spies, with impunity.

January 7, 2021 3:16 am

… “if we differ from what the scientific world has concluded in this area, we will be ridiculous.”
So the Vatican has a science department, and it constructs sentences like that?
Oy Vey!
But then again, was their entire mythology not built to prevent science? The Church is the greatest creator of atheism. And satanism. Maybe they feel guilt at warming the atmosphere with all the friction they cause in little boys’ botties?

Rod Evans
January 7, 2021 3:48 am

Clearly the golden rule here is. If the scientific study disagreed with your belief then always ignore the science.
So good of the Vatican to clarify their and other believers position.

alastair gray
January 7, 2021 4:04 am

“Faith is believing what you know aint so” as Mark Twain said, so common cause between Frankie and the boys in the Vatican and Mikie Mann and the other leading lights of academia. Both have the role of loading us with guilt and then promising absolution. Indulgences are alive and well. Please send cheques Rome or Penn State preferrably before Armageddon day which is 1 year hence

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 7, 2021 4:12 am

I had a brief exchange on this matter at the time with the late George Coyne, a jesuit at the Vatican Observatory in Arizona, pointing out some of the glaring holes in the AGW nonsense. I knew him from meetings on the archiving and preservation of astronomical observations. Him being one of very few scientists with access to the pontif I assumed he could put the argument for staying well out of the discussion and spare the church a future embarrassment. Alas, he replied that he was out of the loop and that the discussions bypassed the few scientists that could have given proper advice.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
January 7, 2021 5:50 am

“he replied that he was out of the loop and that the discussions bypassed the few scientists that could have given proper advice”
Sounds like an excuse- you don’t challenge the boss in that most ancient of Mafias.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 7, 2021 7:56 am

Sounds like the IPCC.

John Doran
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 7, 2021 10:22 am

You are correct. The RC Church is evil & corrupt. Read Operation Gladio by Paul L. Williams. Since WWII the Vatican banks have been laundering Mafia & CIA dirty money for a minimum 15% cut.
Extremely well referenced.
Quite apart from the huge damage done to generations of abused young children.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
January 7, 2021 1:41 pm

Pope Francis has a degree in chemistry, but he is ideologically a marxist first, not a christian. No scientific demonstration will be able to convince him he is wrong.

CD in Wisconsin
January 7, 2021 4:12 am

I went to school at a Catholic college and was required to take a course in moral philosophy for my degree. In the course, we were taught that lying was morally justified in certain cases when saving and protecting human life was involved.

I believe the instructor used the case of Anne Frank and her family from WWII as a example (for those of you that know the story). The owner of the building hiding Anne and her family from the Nazis would be morally justified in lying to the Nazi SS and telling them “no” if asked if he/she were hiding Jews in his/her building because the safety of human lives was at stake.

Now I don’t know if the Pontifical Academy of Sciences actually does believe in the CAGW theory or not. I suspect that they do. If they do indeed understand as least some of the scientific problems with it and are lying for the sake of the planet and humanity, they may feel morally and ethically justified in doing so for the reason I explained above.

Otherwise, it may be just a case of the Academy not accepting and believing what the skeptics are saying when the skeptics criticize the CAGW theory. This may be simply because the CAGW theory fits in nicely and provides confirmation bias for their belief in the existence of evil in the world in the form of capitalism and capitalists. That kind of mindset would probably preclude one from listening to and accepting any criticism of the CAGW theory. In that case, a closed mind is not a good thing if they actually fancy themselves scientists at the Academy.

Lying or not, the Catholic Church should stick to Christianity if and when their faith and belief systems preclude them from being open-minded when a scientific theory like CAGW comes along.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 7, 2021 10:39 am

Another example of believing that the end justifies the means. That is always a slippery slope with the potential of being able to rationalize almost any behavior.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 7, 2021 12:19 pm

In my mind, there is a potential problem with the idea of one’s ends justifying one’s means to an end. It involves the assumption that the individual has chosen the correct (and maybe ONLY) means to that end.

In the case of climate alarmism, the alarmists no doubt feel that the fossil fuel and CO2 demonization narratives are the only paths to a post-fossil fuels era (and perhaps a Marxist-Socialist era) that they have at their disposal. They think that there is no other choice. I suggest that this is faulty thinking.

When I look back at history, I see numerous cases when technological advances served as the trigger for the opening of a new era and not demonizing narratives. Automobiles replaced the horse and buggy, aircraft largely replaced trains for long range travel, television displaced the popularity of radio, the rocket engine ushered in the era of space travel, etc., etc.

The idea that the CAGW theory (as a fossil fuel demonization and capitalism demonization narrative) can work as an alternative to technological advances in energy generation for the replacement of fossil fuels may prove to be far more difficult and frustrating for the alarmists than they imagined. Along with the demonization narratives, they chose the wrong technology as a replacement for fossil fuels when they picked wind turbines and solar panels.

But I guess when the alarmists demand unquestioning religious faith in their argument and position, we are not REALLY dealing in science or technology anyway. Those among the anti-fossil fuel alarmists who are also anti-nuclear are at a dead end when it comes to energy generation—wind and solar (and maybe biofuels) are all the have. No intellectual thought involved.

If the CAGW alarmist narrative truly is the only true and righteous path the PAS scientists feel that the have as a means to their ends, I suggest they do not really understand what science is all about.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 8, 2021 7:11 am

“In the case of climate alarmism, the alarmists no doubt feel that the fossil fuel and CO2 demonization narratives are the only paths to a post-fossil fuels era (and perhaps a Marxist-Socialist era) that they have at their disposal. They think that there is no other choice. I suggest that this is faulty thinking.”

It is more than faulty thinking, it is immoral. Not only is it a dishonest means to an end, but the ends (elimination of fossil fuels and Marxist-Socialist bondage) are inhumane, as well as being unnecessary. Moreover, the end goals are proven to be un-workable, by physical science, mathematical, and economic realities.

Fuel poverty, and enslavement of people to the state are evil out comes, and can not be of God.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 8, 2021 1:26 pm

Is telling a lie ever justified? The case of telling lies to protect the lives of innocent people seems to suggest that lying can be justified. However, if we simply want to know what the Catholic Church teaches about lying all we have to do is look up the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says:
2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: “You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”282
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.
2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.
2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.
2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

January 7, 2021 4:17 am

And this poop is one of the main reasons why people are turning away from actual religion…
.. to the AGW cult religion

He KNOWS he is losing his “believers” to another religion, so is trying to shore up his numbers before GOD smites him down for incompetence

Too late mr Poop.. you will be going DOWN, not up, at the end of your pitiful life.

Reply to  fred250
January 7, 2021 5:42 am

I call him “Frank, the Peronista Pope”. The only Capitalism with which he is familiar is the “Crony” kind.

January 7, 2021 4:37 am

So the Catholic church won’t invite someone sceptical of AGW but did invite “population control advocate Jeffrey Sachs”.

Go figure

Reply to  Redge
January 7, 2021 5:23 am

Dasgupta is the co-author of a paper presented by population control advocate Dr. Paul Ehrlich.
And Botanist and environmentalist Raven says Pope supports population control.
Dr. Schellnhuber, CBE is quite outspoken on 1 billion people max.

The Religion of Malthus needs human offerings at the Altar of Molloch for a Great Reset !

There was a man 2 thousand years ago, who in Tiberius’ eyes looked ridiculous. How dared he challenge Tiberius’s Deity?
Seems some at the Vatican feel ridiculous in the face of today’s Titans, er, billionaires….

Reply to  Redge
January 7, 2021 5:48 am

Does the Pope openly support abortion? Is it just a matter of time?

Reply to  Scissor
January 7, 2021 6:37 am

Not that I’m aware of

The population control freaks can only introduce populations control either through methods disapproved of by the Catholic church or by culling and who knows what they think about culling!

Interestingly, Jeffrey Sachs has three adult children.

Reply to  Redge
January 7, 2021 7:23 am

‘Culling’ is alwaysof other people’s children.
Otherwise the term used would be ‘killing’.

Reply to  Photios
January 7, 2021 8:26 am

I know.

I would also lay bets that any member of an organisation promoting popular control will not volunteer their own kinds or grandchildren to set a good example.

Reply to  Redge
January 7, 2021 9:23 am

Dr Sachs sure gets around:

“The Lancet COVID-19 Commission chair is Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia Univ Earth Institute Leading Lancet investigation into COVID-19 origins is Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance EcoHealth Alliance gives Columbia Univ E.”


Reply to  kakatoa
January 7, 2021 12:03 pm

The Dr. Joyce Brothers of our time.

Reply to  kakatoa
January 7, 2021 12:05 pm

Was he on Dancing with The Stars too?

January 7, 2021 4:40 am

Odd that the actual author of “Laudato Si” is Dr. John Schellnhuber, CBE, ex PKI chief, be-knighted in 2004 for his outspoken views, is not mentioned, air-brushed out?

As Merkel’s scientific advisor, his Great Transformation, de-carbonization took off. He was fired in 2014 likely because media started reporting his population reduction views -1 billion people max., a trifle embarrassing, what?

So here we have the spectacle of “pro-life” religious, willing to simply erase 6 billion people? Almost as bad as the messianic Mike “Armageddon” Pompeo, of the Old Testament Rapture, heading straight to thermonuclear war with Russia, er, China…

Good reason that the US has separation of Church and State, at least on paper…

Britain’s Monarch is actually head of a Church since Henry VIII ran out of heads to roll. A Theocracy, anyone? At least Pope Francis has the Vatican State, but Primus inter Pares?

Last edited 2 years ago by bonbon
Reply to  bonbon
January 7, 2021 7:25 am

Surely: Primus sine Paribus?

Joseph Zorzin
January 7, 2021 5:48 am

“Christian ecology”

Shoki Kaneda
January 7, 2021 5:56 am

As has been seen in many other leaked emails; this was never about climate. It’s all about wealth redistribution.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
January 7, 2021 10:42 am


January 7, 2021 6:45 am

No time for science, this is backroom politics with the powerful.

January 7, 2021 7:23 am

We all know the world is “flat” . That is a fact. The Pope has spoken.

January 7, 2021 7:31 am

How long till nyolci pipes in to inform us “amateurs” that the suppression of voices that disagree with the opinions of insiders, is how science is supposed to work.

January 7, 2021 7:41 am

‘Laudato Si’ seriously tested my attitude to this Pope and the Vatican mafia. ‘Fratelli Tutti’ too. God-lite (but max Marx) ‘motherhood and apple pie’ gloop with a side order of platitudes.

J. Bob
January 7, 2021 8:03 am

I would imagine Fr. George Lemaitre and Louis Pasteur are rolling over in their graves, on this mockery of science.

Andre Lauzon
January 7, 2021 9:05 am

I’m suppose to be “all inclusive” when dealing with other religions and ethnic groups and turn the other cheek… etc… etc…… but the Pope and his friends wont listen when the preaching goes against what they like to preach. I guess the IPCC has precedence over moral values???

I’m a practicing Catholic and i will not let the Pope’s illusions distract me from my faith. I do not believe in him, I believe in God whose creation never stops.

Jacques Dumon
Reply to  Andre Lauzon
January 7, 2021 2:32 pm

See the comment of Jack hereunder at 1:21 pm.
Cardinal Ciappi who had read the 3d Secret of Fatima said once that this secret is terrible since it deals with the great Apostasy in the Church prophesied by the apostle St Paul. He said that this apostasy WILL BEGIN AT THE TOP of the Catholic hurch.

January 7, 2021 9:44 am

Ah! For want of a desirable outcome hopes were hoped, desires denied, and for fear of being seen as ridiculous, others ridiculed. The science was settled.
An act of contrition, ten Hail Mary’s, and a little self-flagellation. There will be no embarrassing questions next time. 😏

January 7, 2021 9:44 am

The principles are right. The mortal gods and goddesses are not.

Last edited 2 years ago by n.n
Clyde Spencer
January 7, 2021 10:32 am

How apropos that the leaders of one religion should invite the leaders of another religion to a conference to discuss whether they had common interests and might be able to work together.

January 7, 2021 11:35 am

With all due respect to the Pontificator (which is NONE since NONE is deserved for the Communist), his royal excretiency can stuff his denial of evidence based climate science under his royal robe where the sun doesn’t cause GlowBULL Warming.

January 7, 2021 12:14 pm

There will be a blessing of the EV today and a sprinkling of the Holy water on the solar panels tomorrow. Blessed are the advocates for they shall own the earth soon.

January 7, 2021 1:21 pm

“Rome will lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist”
(Our Lady’s apparitions in La Salette, France, by mid 19th century)
The Pope Francis is eager to enlist the Vatican in the New World Order.
Not so sure the catholics are happy with this idea.

Gerard Flood
January 7, 2021 5:33 pm

Well done, WUWT, to circulate this report, thank you!

January 7, 2021 7:57 pm

If the Pope and his Pope-ettes at the Vatican would spend just half as much time PREACHING THE GOSPEL as they do organizing a Spanish Inquisition for global warming skeptics, we might see a worldwide spiritual REVIVAL.

January 7, 2021 8:48 pm

Although the way I discovered Conservapedia (the Christian Islamic fundamentalist like anti science “alternative” to Wikipedia) was a long ago via Google, while doing nothing but normal searches (searching for knowledge NOT sociological info on hot takes by American Bible literalists), I know Conservapedia was featured on progressive TV shows (on Maddow I think) to mock conservatives.

The idea that searching for nature’s law through religion is indeed absurd.

Will these “progressive” “liberals” mock the Pope now for establishing a doctrine of faith on atmospheric sciences?

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  niceguy
January 8, 2021 1:15 am

Into the early 19th Century most of the scientists were priests, clerics, monks etc. For a long time those guys were the most literate people on Earth, they had most of the books, they’d written most of the books. They investigated biology, botany and many other things. It was their work, even when they got things wrong, that laid the foundations for non-clerical people to further expand human knowledge.

But now we have the top Catholic guys and others working to stifle genuine scientific inquiry and research.

January 7, 2021 10:47 pm

Bi Polar conferences encourage free speech.
The Vatican is not free speech.
Vatican is one of the leaders of the cancel culture and politically correct New world order.
Boycott. The pope is not a Bible believing Christian. He is multi faith false prophet

January 8, 2021 10:32 am

Is there another list of pedophiles coming out? That tends to explain the timing of news deflection and deal making.

January 8, 2021 2:03 pm

At least the Vatican is genuinely creationist. If God had created the world 6000 years ago with a CO2 level of 270ppm then it would be reasonable to think that any deviation from that would be bad. The people who deserve derision are the people who claim to believe in an evolving world who will not even consider that a little extra CO2 might be a good thing for the ecology.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights