In matters of Catholic dogma the Holy Father in Rome is deemed infallible, but when it comes to more earthly matters surrounding climate change, Pope Francis is mostly talking through his Pontifical Posterior. At one point, Francis suggests humans emitting carbon dioxide are causing “seaquakes”, while his inner Guardian soul is on clear display with his claim that the world is “collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point”.
Pope Francis’s latest comments on climate change are contained in an ‘Apostolic Exhortation’ titled Laudate Deum. It is a follow up to an earlier doom-ridden encyclical letter in 2015 when he referred to CO2 – a gas the Supreme Pontiff emits with every breath – as highly polluting. The latest letter is full of emotional errors, unsubstantiated scientific opinions and a cold condescension for the growing number of scientists who dispute the political narrative of a climate emergency. At one point these scientists are said to bring up “allegedly solid scientific facts”.
Francis is on very shaky ground with his contention that humans somehow cause submarine earthquakes. Even more nonsensical is his suggestion that the human-caused seaquakes are leading to communities being swept away. As the Daily Sceptic recently noted, the Holy Grail of climate alarmism is to link earthquakes to humans driving their cars. Sadly to date the suggestion is only to be found at the whacky end of climate fearmongering. A recent article in the Conversation noted “evidence” that the loss of surface ice in Scandinavia triggered numerous earthquake events around 7,000-11,000 years ago. Alas, further inquiry showed that the only tectonic plate action was to be found in the circuit boards of a researcher’s computer. Seaquakes would appear to be a new field of climate alarm, suggesting Francis is well ahead of the game on this one.
The Pope is also leading the pack with his contention that melting of the continental ice sheets at the poles will not be reversed for hundreds of years. What melting of the ice sheet in Antarctica Francis is referring to is not immediately clear. Alarmists usually find Antarctica a difficult neighbourhood to run the Thermogeddon narrative. According to Singh and Polvani, warming has been “almost non-existent” for at least 70 years. NASA reports the ice loss is 0.0005% a year. In 2021, the South Pole recorded its coldest winter since records began in 1957. Meanwhile in the Arctic, a small, little publicised, cyclical recovery in sea ice has been underway for over a decade.
At one point in his letter, Francis makes the claim that it is “verifiable that specific climate changes provoked by humanity are notably heightening the probability of extreme phenomena that are increasingly frequent and intense”. Quite how it is possible to verify something that is only probable is not immediately clear, but it seems Francis is referring to the computer model-driven pseudoscience of weather attribution that has grown up in recent years. In fact its popularity is partly in response to the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) currently holding back from directly linking individual weather events to longer term changes in the climate.
Despite all attempts to deny, conceal, gloss over or relativise the issue, continues Francis, the signs of climate change are here and increasingly evident. No one can ignore recent extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and unusual heat, he continues. It is not possible to conceal the correlation of these global climate phenomena and the accelerated increase in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly since the mid-20th century, he argues. As regular readers will know, plenty of scientists do just that, as does the IPCC. According to its latest report, the IPCC states there is “low confidence” that humans influence droughts in most regions, while confidence is generally low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence.
All Francis is doing is joining up the dots of recent weather anomalies and claiming a causal link to long-term climate trends. With global warming having run out of steam over the last 25 years, this practice is in common use in alarmist circles. It is used to promote the collectivist Net Zero narrative, and is profoundly unscientific.
“I feel obliged to make these clarifications, which may appear obvious, because of certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church,” states Francis. In fact the Pope shows no sign, as was his attitude in 2015, of listening to any alternative view – the “allegedly solid scientific data” he seems to find so distasteful. He merely repeats the collapsing and tipping point fearmongering of the green activist lobby. In doing so he does a disservice to a tradition of Church support and patronage to the scientific process through monasteries, funded hospitals, schools and universities. The Catholic Church teaches that faith in God and science are complementary, with the Catechism noting that “methodical research in all branches of knowledge, providing it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God”.
Of course it would take a longer article than this to identify many of the inevitable past conflicts between the Church authorities and some of the findings of science (don’t mention Galileo). So far as the climate story is concerned, scientists are just starting to comprehend the complexities of the non-linear atmosphere. However, it is perhaps not surprising that the Vatican has hitched its influential wagon to current unproven scientific narratives that serve a largely political purpose. In a 2020 encyclical letter, Francis spoke of the possibility of a world authority “equipped with the power to provide for the global common good”. The world Government should be given “real authority in such a way as to provide for the attainment of certain goals”. In this way , there could come about a multilateralism that is not dependent on changing political conditions or the interest of a certain few, and possesses a stable efficacy, he concluded.
Possibly this is papal speak for no more Trump, Farage, Brexit and all those other annoying inconveniences of national democracy.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
As the Daily Sceptic recently noted, the Holy Grail of climate alarmism is to link earthquakes to humans driving their cars
Might work with the average Gretahead but there’s always the tyre pollution angle they’re working on while the elites will be able to fly.
On the one hand, the Pope said in his encyclical letter that the fruits of the earth and the resources of the earth are a gift from God and should be shared equally with everyone. On the other hand, the Pope wants us to phase out the use of fossil fuels, deny them to the poor, and tell God “no thanks” for such evil gifts. Never mind that God’s gift of fossil fuels has done more to bring people out of poverty than anything any Pope has ever done.
On point. If the pope is intelligent enough to realize that the third world (from which he comes) must live on fossil fuel or not live at all, then his advocacy for belief in climate change orthodoxy and castigation of scientists who do real science on the subject demonstrates that he is perfectly OK with the people of the third world dying off, as they must without fossil fuel or fertilizer from natural gas. I hate to say this, but Francis is either stupid or evil. I used to admire the man. Would someone please change my mind?
There’s nothing to rule out stupid AND evil, is there?
Any god-botherer (including the Head God Botherer [aka Pope]) speaks equally from their posterior when it comes to non-earthly matters, as well.
This is why we have people murdering each other by the hundreds in the middle east over who has the best imaginary friend.
Tom2b.The Muslims attack the Jews, not because they have different Gods. BOTH believe in Yaweh.
The Muslims hate and murder Jews because Jews (along with Christians) reject their false prophet, Muh’med (and other false teachings).
The Jews are DEFENDING themselves (and sometimes, the best defense is a data-driven preemptive strike).
Your hatred for God has muddled your thinking; you are equating what is not morally equivalent.
P.S. Praying for you!
And I have high hopes that I will see you in heaven, for the anger of someone as irritated by “God. Botherers” as you are makes you FAR closer to bowing the knee to Christ than the cool Pride of someone not bothered in the least.
You, like C.S. Lewis may come kicking and screaming into the fold.
Their pride, on the other hand, is an almost impenetrable wall to the gospel. “Almost.” “‘With God, ALL things are possible.'” For God is love. And love is the strongest force in the universe. Love can penetrate that hardest of all walls: the pride of the human heart.
Just goes to show, even an idiot can be Pope! What a religion!!
While some of the current pope’s statements are, indeed, idiotic, I don’t think he’s an idiot. He is, rather, a cunning promoter of the lie about human CO2 emissions to promote the “renewables” and other scams such as “carbon storage” (lol). Bottom line: MONEY. (check out the investments of the Roman Catholic Church in scams like solar and wind, etc..)
And, of course, there is no religion without hypocrites within its ranks. Those, per se, don’t negate their teachings.
“Eppure, si muove.”– Galileo Galilei, muttered under his breathe as he left The Pope, forced to admit he was wrong about planetary motion, while flashing the classic single digit salute to The Pope. The remains of that finger are now on display in Firenze. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/galileos-middle-finger
“Sic semper tyrannis” may also apply here.
The Pope needs to reflect on his enthusiasm for One World Government. At the present rate of religious evolution and change that one world authority will be controlled by Islam not Christianity.
When the two beliefs occupy the same territory there is only ever one ‘belief’ system that takes over and it is not the one that advances turning the other cheek.
Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? God destroyed them with an earthquake as punishment for their sinful existence. You might say the inhabitants brought it onto themselves with their lifestyle.
Perhaps that’s what the pontiff means. He’s just going back to basics.
What I dislike about the Pope’s views is his lack of pity, concern, support for the 600 million without electricity. Same goes for the Synod of the Church of England who wish to ‘disinvest’ fossil fuels from their threadbare priesthoods’ pension fund, the narrow minded idiots
Perhaps the Pope should concentrate on his priests inflagrante delecto with the choirs
Regarding Pope Francis’ comments on climate change, including those in Laudate Deum, methinks he should avail himself of the holy sacrament of Confession, which begins with the penitent stating:
“Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned.”
Why does the image of the pope remind me of Peter Sellers as ”Chauncey Gardiner” in Being There?
Oh, I just wonder why… 😏
It is uncanny isn’t it – the likeness of expression and the impression that it might be echoed in the deepness of thought about complex issues.
Popester Child for “Everyone Is A Sinner.” On the other hand, linking a religious idiot talking outside of any area of his expertise to alarmists ought to help at this point.
(Full disclosure: I also condemn him as a representative of the Church. Unless it’s the Church of Marx.)
Falsehood Frankie should stick to something he is knowledgeable on like……..oh, never mind.
I agree with almost everything said in that article. Apart from this totally-unsubstantiated sentence:
Of course it would take a longer article than this to identify many of the inevitable past conflicts between the Church authorities and some of the findings of science (don’t mention Galileo).
Why inevitable? Why has the author not provided a different example of this alleged conflict apart from the usual reference to Galileo? (Hint: There are no others. That’s why he mentions Galileo.)
The current Pope is extremely unwise to give his opinions on matters that are purely scientific. Nor should he make pronouncements on matters of politics that are purely prudential, such as his support for some kind of world government. I fear that all he is doing is giving massive ammunition to those people who wish to criticise the Catholic Church. However, the document is only an Apostolic Exhortation and such a document is quite low in terms of the authority it carries. (Not a lot of people know that.)
I also regret the many facetious comments about Pope Francis which are of a personal nature. Please keep the criticisms to the statements he makes. Ad hominem arguments are never acceptable.
If the question is the character of the man, all arguments must necessarily be ad hominem. We don’t bother to dispute his absurd views. Everything on WUWT establishes that. The question of relevance and interest is why he spouts this nonsense.
As a imperfect student of Latin, I wondered what the plural of “ad hominem” was. At first I thought that I should make “hominem” plural. “hominem” is the accusative singular of “homo.” So the accusative plural is “homines.” That would be “to the men.” It turns out that “ad hominem” is short for “argumentum ad hominem.” So multiple arguments against the man should be “argumenta ad hominen.” I know, who really cares.
Where’s that stupid edit button? It should read: “As an imperfect student . . . .” The last Latin phrase was misspelled. It should be “argumenta ad hominem.”
“If the question is the character of the man . . .”
Actually, the questioning in the above article and in most of the related reader comments is more focused on the man’s (i.e., the Pope’s) general public comments and his specific writings in Laudate Deum under his name (whether written directly by him or by his “advisors”) than it is on the personal character of Pope Francis.
IMHO, Pope Francis is a man of good and noble character . . . but he is just misinformed/uninformed about science in general, and most specifically about the science surrounding climatology.
I’ll leave it to others to decide if the phrase “ad hominem attack” should apply to statements issued by a person, as opposed to the only the innate character of person.
It’s not surprising that you would disagree KnowItAll. That seems to be your one joy in life.
I referred primarily to my own comments. But I’m sure you know my mind better than I do.
Thank you for your remote armchair psychoanalysis . . . it is worth exactly what I paid to get it.
You should note that I didn’t disagree with your speculation about ad hominem vis-a-vis the “the character of the man” but instead left such to others to decide on that issue.
Your phrase “all arguments must necessarily be ad hominem” in your post of October 14, 2023, 3:31 pm clearly falsifies your statement of October 15, 2023, 11:53 am that “I referred primarily to my own comments.” But I don’t imagine that matters to you.
Carry on.
You really are a sad pathetic case. Citing precise dates and times and parsing phrases with apparently no concept of which phrases represent the main point. I did say ‘we’ when I ought to have said ‘I’, but 99% of the population would get what I meant.
Someone criticized the fact that others were commenting negatively on the pope and calling that the argumentum ad hominem fallacy, as if ‘we’ (those commenters making negative comments about the pope’s character) were attempting to discredit his ideas by attacking his character.
I rebutted that by saying that I was (we were) not arguing against his ideas at all. I was commenting on his character not as a means of disputing his ideas which I consider to have been long ago adequately disputed by years of WUWT postings. It was my intent to comment on his character flaws and motives. If one’s premise is that the man is flawed then the arguments must be ‘against the man’ (ad hominem). It’s just common sense.
You delight in being disagreeable about utterly irrelevant points and absurd literal interpretations of phrases. I wish that we could avoid all further interaction.
“I wish that we could avoid all further interaction.”
A past interaction with Mr. ToldYouSo, and I try to. So I feel your pain–to be Clinton-ness.
https://www.google.com/search?q=YouTube+Video+%22So+Let+It+Be+Written%22+The+Ten+Commandments&sca_esv=573788213&ei=CkstZZGNOeTRkPIP58GxkAw&ved=0ahUKEwiRur7y5fqBAxXkKEQIHedgDMIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=YouTube+Video+%22So+Let+It+Be+Written%22+The+Ten+Commandments&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiOVlvdVR1YmUgVmlkZW8gIlNvIExldCBJdCBCZSBXcml0dGVuIiBUaGUgVGVuIENvbW1hbmRtZW50czIFEAAYogQyBRAAGKIEMgUQABiiBEjp0gFQ_whYlscBcAN4AZABAJgB8gigAbEkqgEMMjUuNy4wLjIuNy0xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIEEAAYR8ICBBAhGAriAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3915b9fe,vid:2O8gTIr4lys,st:0
A Catholic response to Laudate Deum
Laudate Deum, the new apostolic exhortation released by the Vatican on October 4, is an astonishing document, in which Pope Francis uses his authority to make definitive judgements—not on questions of faith and morals, but on scientific and political questions that are still under debate.
In the Galileo controversy, some Church leaders unwisely sought to settle a scientific debate by invoking ecclesiastical authority. In this new document Pope Francis takes the same approach to the issue of climate change, insisting that only radical economic and political reforms can stave off environmental disaster.
“It is no longer possible to doubt the human—‘anthropic’—origin of climate change,” the Pope writes (#11). That statement, an essential key to the argument of the entire document, is plainly, demonstrably wrong.
It undeniably is possible to doubt that human actions are responsible for climate change, because many people do doubt it—including many scientists with excellent credentials. Personally I find the skeptics’ arguments persuasive. Of course my opinion carries little weight, because I am not a scientist. But then Pope Francis, too, is not a professional scientist, and while his authority as Roman Pontiff enables him to speak with authority on doctrinal issues, that authority does not extend to scientific controversies.
After saying that it is impossible to doubt human-caused climate change, the Pope hedges his bet a bit (#13), saying: “The overwhelming majority of scientists specializing in the climate support this correlation, and only a very small percentage of them seek to deny the evidence.” That may be true, but scientific facts are not settled by majority vote.
Sections 4 and 5 of Laudate Deum are devoted to the sort of detailed analysis of international climate conferences that we might expect from a policy wonk rather than a Successor of St. Peter. (Section 4 is entitled: “Climate conferences: progress and failures;” Section 5 is “What to expect from the COP28 in Dubai?”) But finally, in Section 6, the Pope turns to “Spiritual Motivations.”
Full article here:
https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=60106
Well reasoned, and well said.
Great comment . . . thank you for that!
I believe the official name for such declarations is “Papal Bull”. Very fitting.