Skip to main content

So I asked the Vatican about global warming... Special Report Comments

Recently, I wrote an article for Catholic Online about global warming. The comments from so many readers, obviously intelligent, gave me pause and I took it upon myself to conduct further research, specifically into the Church's teachings on the subject. I pledged in advance to accept what I would discover, no matter what my personal opinions were, after all, I am Catholic and I have faith in my Church. Surprisingly, I soon found the Church has ... Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 35 Comments

  1. Nathan Huber
    1 year ago

    If there is a situation for alarm, which many in the scientific population has identified, I believe that as catholic citizens we must take honest and prayerful action towards making a difference. The earth is a beautiful yet such a very fragile place. See how easily an invasive species can take over a lake? See how rash human decisions can wipe out beautiful forests and prairies? The sky is not the least bit different. The health of our atmosphere is affected by human actions. With love, I ask that you to pray about this situation dearly. A question that has such a profound impact on the beautiful world our children and grandchildren will live in, must be carefully considered.

  2. Gordon Wratten
    1 year ago

    Dear Marshall Connolly,
    I read your article with interest & growing alarm. My alarm was because of the lack of accuracy & out datedness of your sources. I will explain.
    First I respond to your particular comments & quotations & then show you how Britain is now in crisis because of our reliance on junk science & junk economics for the last 20 years. I will then expand on the elements in the current so called consensus. My questions to you are in BOLD type.
    You quote
    "There is now a growing consensus that human activities are having a discernible effect on the Earth's climate (IPCC, 1996). An enormous amount of effort has gone into the scientific research that forms the basis for this judgment. There is also growing concern that such human-influenced changes to the Earth's climate could have negative effects on human societies & on the Earth's ecosystems & therefore that these changes should be avoided or slowed." Firstly this quote is now vastly out of date & has been much modified in more recent IPCC reports. Consensus is not science. I quote: - “Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.” Margaret Thatcher. Science is about evidence & it only takes one person to be right as Einstein famously said. I assume that this quoted report is the 2nd assessment report of 1995. You have to look at the source of the sentence you have used. This is from chapter 8 of the working group’s report, the lead author of which was Ben Santer. Some of the scientific contributors who had signed off the chapters in the previous year were dismayed. These words had not appeared in the draft they had formally approved. They had subsequently been added by Santer who also deleted some key statements from the agreed text all of which reflected serious scientific doubt over the human contribution to global warming. These doubts are too long to quote but include such phrases as “no clear evidence”; “no positive attribution”; “any anthropogenic effect on climate may never be identified”. Professor Frederick Seitz a former president of the US National Academy of Sciences commented at length including the following” “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events which led up to this report.”
    The story is long & complicated but it shows how then & in subsequent reports a single person can for whatever the reason change the whole tenor of a lengthy scientific process. Prof Paul Reiter (global expert on mosquito borne diseases) sits in a committee for the same report with no other person who has any knowledge of the subject. (One person was an expert on motor cycle helmets). So he says “the treatment of this issue by the IPCC was ill-informed, biased & scientifically unacceptable”. The world’s leading authority on hurricanes Dr. Chris Landsea was part of the IPCC’s report 1996 & in 2001. His work failed to support any view that global warming caused an increase in hurricane activity; nor did any scientific study that he was aware of. So (this is in 2004) headlines were made about an IPCC press conference which sent shock waves round the world. (This is too long to quote here). So he resigned because the press report did not match the science. I could go on & on & on. The same thing happened over & over again with the IPCC processes. All of this information is in the public sphere. So why are you quoting from an out of date report which hides a complicated story which is not all what it seems? Surely it is important for such an important subject that you research your evidence! I am not trying to be offensive but you cannot just take these statements at face value without digging deeper. The human & financial cost is too great.
    You also quote
    "We call on all people & nations to recognise the serious & potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses & other pollutants."
    This statement could be torn apart by any high school science student.
    Firstly how can an individual make any change to the situation other than taking care of their immediate environment. Britain for example is in control of only a small portion of the Earth’s surface & we have the cleanest rivers for 100 years & the highest tree cover for 250 years. All done without any relationship to a “global warming” religion. If China regretfully severely damages the environment as they have done we cannot change that situation. They are not going to take notice of anything we might say.
    Secondly – where is the evidence that global warming is irreversible, especially as it stopped about 1998? The warmest year in the last century was 1934. The Earth goes through warming & cooling periods & in any case we are now historically overdue for the next major glaciation. All previous Ice Ages & interim warm periods can be clearly seen in ice & earth & ocean floor cores. The oldest go back 800,000 years. So we should be more alarmed about cooling than warming since less food can be grown during cold periods. In any case our orbital tilt is now moving towards the vertical & will not return to its present position for another 41000 years. (Speaking from memory). Any movement away from the Sun leads to colder winters.
    The greatest issue is to say that these emissions cause global warming & therefore ignore all the history of the subject for the last 20 years. One must also look at what I have previously said about the fact that the correlation is disproved. The paragraph also makes an implicit suggestion that industrial & traffic pollution is part of the greenhouse gas mix. Well they may be for some gases but the main culprit is usually identified as CO2 & you well know that this is not a pollutant. So surely it is dishonest to make a suggestion that carbon is the sole source of our troubles, is a pollutant & to also implicitly suggest that traffic & industrial pollution caused by others could in any way be reduced by an individual country. The US did not sign up to Kyoto but has nevertheless reduced its carbon emissions (not that from the sceptic’s point of view this is of any importance). In any case since water vapour is 97% of our greenhouse atmosphere there is little we can or should do. What we have to do is reduce the damage from any & every source. This is what the Catholic Church should be sending out as a message instead of peddling bad science.
    So my questions to you are: - Where have the Pontifical Academy been in the last 15 years since warming flat lined in 1998? How can you quote this knowing that their data is out of date & how can an eminent body ignore all the current evidence? Do they live on a different planet?
    You make further statements about the possible reasons why many oppose the so called consensus. I will deal with these.
    FIRST As has already been said a scientific conclusion is not arrived at by consensus. This is not a majority voting issue. The facts are shown & then have to be capable of reproduction. Isaac Newton was quite clear about this scientific method. When the facts change or are amplified then a new hypothesis has to be formed. You cannot get correct results from a computer model as these models depend on assumptions (guesses) which reflect the pre disposition of the modeller. All the models of the late 20th century have been proved inaccurate or they would have shown the last 15 years of cooling. The climate is of such complexity that it might never be possible to fully quantify the relationships between different forces. In the end we have to use our common sense which seems to be in short supply at the moment. I would suggest pragmatism & adaption are the key words. Quote "Insanity: Doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results" - Albert Einstein
    You quote: - “.....situation where most scientists remain silent on an issue, or publish supporting research, & very few continue to argue against it.” The reason why many scientists go along with the general view is that they would lose their jobs or pensions if they speak against the prevailing view. This is reason 2 why there is a hidden opposition. (See below)
    You further quote: - “In any case, I trust in the most careful research performed by the Church, for the good of all the people on Earth.” The Church has been wrong before & is wrong again especially as it gets sucked into what must be the greatest scientific scandal of the age. The amount of research has to be in question when the Pontifical Institute is ignorant of the fact that global warming ceased in 1998. Can I remind you about Galileo?
    You now ask “from whence does denial come?” I will tell you & more importantly tell you with relevance to any absence of denial. Incidentally it is insulting to speak of sceptics as deniers. We are not denying anything. No sane person could ever dispute that the climate changes. The word “denier” came into being when there was an attempt to associate us with Holocaust denial. Thus you denigrate by association.
    1. First the body of evidence contrary to the prevailing view & especially that point that even if you do not agree the maths alone shows that carbon reduction is futile. Remember that we are not talking about environmental damage which is a different subject.
    2. Quote: - “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair. In the UK every local council spends anything between £250,000 & £500,000 on the subject with no hope whatsoever of achieving any positive result. One of the poorest boroughs in the country Tower Hamlets employs 29 people with “climate” as part of their job title & these people will make sure that they scurry around giving the impression that results are being achieved. Same thing applies to employees of national governments & our government in Brussels & NGO’s & Climate Quangos. Meanwhile more worthy subjects are starved of funding.
    3. All academics in this field rely on constant research to ensure that next year’s research budget remains the same. Many scientists know full well that they are more likely to get funding if the subject has “climate change” in its title. No one in their right minds is going to rock the boat until they retire.
    4. You mention the fear factor. You quote: - “It would seem to me there would be greater rewards for a scientist who can disprove the claims of the climate change fear-mongers.” This is not true because no one wants to hear a message that conflicts with their life’s work. All those scientists who have resigned from the IPCC including Dr.Landsea disappear without trace because their resignations are not newsworthy. The press releases & press conferences which portray imminent disaster will get attention because all news is focused on bad news. Nobody wants to spend time or the intellectual sweat in reading the initial reports & which might have been full of cautions & caveats as has happened with all IPCC reports. Have you read them?
    5. The EU supports the alarmist view because their objective is to achieve more control over our lives & raise more in taxes. This remember, is not a democratic body but more like the USSR without the gulags. Gorbachov was quite clear on this. So they dispense funds to everybody within range from the British Cyclists Federation to Greenpeace. All good you might say but these charities, Quangos, NGO’s, Government departments, Regions in receipt of development aid & bodies too numerous to mention are now virtually in the hold of the EU. They cannot speak in opposition to any prescribed view because if they did their funds would be cut off. They have to stay on message.
    6. I can think of no British politician who has a science background. So again in ignorance they will stay on message because of the ignorance surrounding them & because for the Government at least political advancement would not happen.
    7. Most respected scientific bodies such as the Royal Society in the UK, The American Physical Society & the BBC in Britain have long since abandoned any pretence that conclusions should be based on purely scientific evidence but make statements that show they are turned into quasi political bodies without any attempt for balance in presenting views. For the Royal Society it has been said that Pseudoscientific may seem a bit of a harsh charge to lay at the door of the reverend body founded in 1660 whose alumni include such distinguished figures as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Hans Sloane, & Sir Joseph Banks. The problem is, in the latter part of the last century & the first bit of this one, they managed to lose three centuries’ worth of credibility & rigour by deciding to abandon all objectivity & act as cheerleader for the Man Made Global Warming lobby. You have only to look at their founding principle to see the depths to which they have gone - “it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always adhere, never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject, either of Nature or Art that comes before them.” It is worth also looking at the resignation letter from Harold Lewis who was Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, & President of the American Physical Society. Anthony Watts described it as an important moment in science history & described it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church door. It’s so utterly damning that one should read the letter (available on the web).
    8. Most charities in Britain now receive large funds from the EU & can never speak off message. Sir Patrick Moore was a founder of Greenpeace but left the group since they had effectively turned from scientific objectivity to become a quasi political body. The same thing applies to Christian Aid, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF & numerous other British & international environmental charities & groups. The first business of any charity is to continue to raise money as without this they cease to be. Alarmist & scare stories raise more money than stories of success so naturally they concentrate on these.
    9. How about the Oregon Petition? Signed by 18,000 scientists world-wide on global warming stating: - "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere & disruption of the Earth's climate.”
    10. How about Russian Scientist Gregory F. Fegel "The Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time & it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change." He argues that global cooling is more likely than global warming.
    11. How about Roger Revelle, who led the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution in 1965 which first identified CO2 from fossil fuels as a possible problem. Yet in 1992, he wrote, "Drastic, precipitous, & especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs & prosperity & increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating; particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
    12. How about from New Zealand - Dr Willem de Lange a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth & Ocean Sciences at the University of Waikato, specialising in coastal oceanography & a UN IPCC expert reviewer & chapter co-author wrote on 23 May 2009: - “I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, & the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis [of] runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.”
    13. Science journals go “off message” at their peril. If any publish material from sceptics or any who question the current orthodoxy they are warned & might possibly lose all future contributions. So Marshall you have to ask yourself where in this is justice, free speech & scientific objectivity.

    I have quotations from a further 25 or so scientists most of whom are IPCC authors or lead authors or reviewers who are highly critical of current views & the processes of the IPCC. Do you want any of these?
    THE STATE OF BRITAIN TODAY after two decades of junk science & junk economics driving public policy & the stupidity of our various Governments & the intellectual vacuum of all those involved in some way whereas they substitute good science for political whims & slogans. This as I will suggest is often driven by narrow sets of interests & above all money!
    ENERGY We have this day 032213 two days’ supply of gas left after the coldest March for 50 years, after years of dithering about Nuclear until it is too late. (Now in May 2013 we learn that we had actually six hours worth of gas supplies left). The Government have caused huge uncertainty & you must know that generation decisions have to be viewed at least 10 years in advance on a rolling basis. The shutting down of coal fired power stations is now happening because of an arbitrary decision by the EU on carbon levels. The building of wind turbines which destroy birds, spoil the countryside continues producing very little energy & at many times the cost from usual sources. Every wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2.5 tonnes of it in each. The mining & refining of neodymium is so dirty (involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product), that only one country does it: China. It has in past years flexed its trade muscles & briefly stopped exporting neodymium from its inner Mongolian mines. How’s that for dangerous reliance on a volatile foreign supply?
    We can now look forward to 15% energy prices during this year & green levies to add 2% per year until 2020 & the possibility of power blackouts by 2015.
    Wind does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. As Robert Bryce shows in his book Power Hungry, even Denmark, which can switch off imported Norwegian hydro power when the wind spins its many turbines, has failed to save any significant net carbon emissions through wind. The intermittent nature of the wind means that fossil-fuel power stations have to be kept going, or inefficiently powered up & down. Besides, the total power produced from even the biggest wind farms is so small that, as a strategy for reducing carbon emissions significantly, wind power is a failure especially as the building of the wind farm & roads releases large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere from underlying peat.
    We are shortly going to enforce a carbon tax to make normal sources more expensive so as to help wind power. In other words the Government is fixing the energy market & thus driving more & more into poverty (especially energy poverty). At the same time they wring their collective hands at the price of energy. This tax will drive high energy industries overseas so that the so called pollution happens elsewhere whilst we go bankrupt. This is the economics of the madhouse.
    HOUSING The UK is short of housing because of the level of immigration. Carbon taxes are now adding £38,000 on to the cost of every new 4 bedroom house to make them “carbon neutral”. As I will explain this attempt to reduce carbon emissions is futile & unnecessary. So we make the prospect of good housing for some more distant because of a mistaken view of the science.
    SWITCHING OF RESOURCES FROM THE POOR TO THE RICH The rich landowners in the UK are receiving large rentals from the siting of wind turbines & this cost is spread over all users including the poor. Mr Cameron’s father-in-law for example earns £1000 per day for doing nothing. Even in the US you have a similar situation. The millionaire T. Bone Pickens in Texas built a large turbine array which gave him a return of 9%. The snag was that this was unconnected to any nearby grid. Who paid for the connection to the grid? The taxpayers at all levels of Texas. Where Marshall is the justice in this? Why is the Church not complaining? Could it possibly be that they are ignorant of the situation?
    AGRICULTURE Our farmers are in a desperate state after one of the wettest Summers for decades & a cold wet Winter which continues. Suicides are now very common. We last had an extended warm & dry period in 2006. Since then nothing but wet miserable summers & snowy Winters. Now of course I am not suggesting that the politicians are to blame for the weather but their whole policies are predicatedy on the premise that the world is getting warmer & CO2 is all to blame.
    Now I will expand on the background to my interest in this subject. One reason why I hesitate to become a Catholic (I go to church every Sunday) is the fact that the Church subscribes to the so called consensus CO2 increase = global warming = climate change = disaster. (All except Cardinal Pell). You have to deconstruct this simplistic & dangerous equation & most importantly separate out the two issues of "man's environmental damage" & "any explanation" why the environment always changes & has done for 4.5 billion years. It is not a contradiction to be a sceptic & at the same time wish as any sane person would to look after our world for future generations. Unless you do this (separation) you will & are supporting injustice in the world because the vast resources then are misused instead of being used in the more cost effective way of repairing environmental damage & making the world a better place. The list of potential good causes is endless. So however innocently the Church is now in effect in the business of robbing these causes & the poor by bad science & bad economics. I have had an interest in meteorology all my life & did work for the UK Met Office at one time. It is important to forensically examine current views.
    GREENHOUSE GASES. We have to have a greenhouse atmosphere or life could not exist. CO2 is increasing at 2 ppm per year & this may well be due to man's activity but the amount in the atmosphere is 0.038% & Britain for example is responsible for 1.7% of global totals. Water vapour is at 97% of the atmosphere by way of comparison. Any reduction we (the UK) might make is so tiny that all efforts for a reduction would be futile. My figures have been checked with Prof. John Christy (director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama in Huntsville & IPCC author) who confirmed my conclusions & says that any reduction could not be measured or be attributable. As my calculator is not 5 yards wide I leave it to Lord Monkton to produce the final result: - “Thus this equals less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree of "global warming" every year. That is all. Or in another way, it would take almost a quarter of a century with NO carbon-emitting activity at all – not a single train, plane, automobile, or fossil-fuelled power station – to forestall just 1 Fahrenheit degree of "global warming", an amount so small as to be hardly measurable on the Celsius scale. That is reality vs. Play station "science".”
    CO2. I & others do not believe that CO2 is the sole driver of weather & climate & it must surely be the sun which is the main driver plus orbital changes, ocean & wind currents, tectonic activity, axis wobbles, jet streams & others added to whatever cloud cover prevails. Even if you don’t agree it does not change anything since the maths (above) show that aiming for a low carbon economy is absurd. Climatic forces are on such a huge scale that to pretend that we could bring it to a stable state when it has been changing for 4.5 billion years is absurd.
    There were many periods in the last 150 years when CO2 was rising & global temperatures were falling such as between 1945 & 1975. So the correlation is disproved & in any case correlation is not causation. These suggested reductions are only important if you think that CO2 is the devil incarnate. It is not a pollutant & every single living thing on the planet relies on it for survival & plant food. There is a natural carbon cycle & we breathe CO2 out all the time.
    Global warming has not been happening for the last 15 years or more. The world is now in a cooling phase & will probably remain so for another 30 to 50 years. You & I might never see warming again during our lifetimes. This switch between warming & cooling is quite normal from an historical point of view. It was much warmer in the medieval period than during the latter half of the 20th century. Any warming during the 19th & 20th centuries could be expected as a result of our coming out of the Little Ice Age. This present cooling is confirmed by Dr Pachauri (head of the IPCC), Prof. Jones of the Climate change department of the University of East Anglia & on 24th December last by our UK Met Office. (Perhaps a good day to bury good news!). The warming of the last 50 years is confirmed as about 0.5 of a degree Celsius. All normal in relation to the long term historical record.
    Climate change. The climate changes constantly & has done for 4.5 billion years. Academics will tell you that the climate is a non linear chaotic system. It is its nature to be chaotic & the non linear part means that we can never accurately forecast the future beyond about 10 days. The UK’s Met Office has a 63 million new computer & has consistently been unable to tell us in advance what the seasons might bring us. On the 26th of March last year they said that the months of April, May, June & July would be warm & dry. We had the wettest year for decades. All their previous seasonal forecasts for the previous four years were all wrong by massive amounts.
    The Church & others say constantly that we must “tackle climate change”. This is disingenuous because they can then slip out of saying what they really want to do. They cannot say “stop climate from changing” as they know this is impossible. They cannot say “reduce climate change” since they know that if any changes were made they could not be distinguished from normal climatic variations. So we are left in limbo & this is dishonest.
    Climatic forces are on such a huge scale that to pretend that we could bring it to a stable state when it has been changing for 4.5 billion years is absurd. At the risk of repetition the financial & physical resources should be used to make for a better cleaner world & to make efforts to stop environmental damage & to repair past damage & to make energy production more efficient etc. This is the cost effective & pragmatic way to deal with the environment.
    Disaster. Every natural disaster is usually blamed on global warming or man’s activity or both. Extreme weather events have been with us throughout history & will continue to take place. If a volcano explodes no one rushes forward to say what we must do about it. However the natural forces of nature are on such a huge scale that they must be millions of times stronger than any tectonic activity. Wave power alone driven by the gravitational power of the moon is immense being able to rip apart steel & concrete & so on. You will see below comments on extreme weather events by Prof Roger Pielke. Some events are on the increase & some on the decrease. Instead of using resources on an ever increasing scale to do research which is simply academic why not use these resources so that we are ready to help wherever that might be needed. For a fraction of the cash spent on research we could have formed an international force equipped with aircraft carriers, planes, vehicles & all other necessary equipment to go to the help anywhere in the world where a natural disaster takes place.
    We were told that by 2010 there would be 50 million climate refugees & in 2000 that we would never see snow again & that polar bears were in decline & Indian glaciers were melting & that North African food production would suffer. All these predictions have been proved wrong.
    It should be noted that if in current times more people are affected the “more people” bit is not the result of global warming or man’s economic activity. When Holland built the dykes to keep out the sea they were poorer than Bangladesh is today yet they just got on with it & this is the pragmatic lesson for the world.
    To paint a scenario that if I choose to cycle to Church instead of driving this will help somehow to avert a drought in Australia is a parody of science.
    Plus some additional quotes: -
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S.Lewis
    From the remarks of the Tory, Lord Salisbury. Think how aptly these words apply to our UK membership of the EU & current views on climate change. “The commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcasses of dead policies. When a mast falls overboard, you do not try to save a rope here & a spar there in memory of their former utility. You cut away the hamper altogether. It should be the same with policy, but it is not so. We cling to the shred of an old policy after it has been torn to pieces, & to the shadow of the shred after the rag itself has been torn away”.
    You quote: - “The chief accusation is that climate change denial comes from industrial interests who stand to lose the most from public acceptance of anthropogenic global climate change in America. These interests have supported public policy think-tanks & politically conservative scientists to publish material that questions the validity of the ongoing research.” I don’t agree with any of this. You have it all the wrong way round. The climate change denial (there we have the insulting remark again) is not a denial but a deep disagreement with the current so called consensus. Where industrialists & the public stand to lose is the trillions of US$ or £ which have been spent & will be spent in a futile attempt to reduce CO2 which would achieve nothing. The maths I explained above shows this so even if I am 100% wrong the conclusion remains the same.
    The so called deniers question the validity of the research because the story is full of holes & the public are more & more beginning to get the message that they are being duped.
    I must say Marshall that this is not some mere academic discussion. The subject has to be addressed with good information & not in a simplistic way. If you don’t do this the financial resources which are finite will be spent in all the wrong ways & our children, grandchildren & those not yet born will be paying for our mistakes for the rest of their lives.
    Finally it must be said that the lunatics are now running the asylum & the public are generally unaware of what is being done in their names in both our countries. So we might have hoped that the Catholic Church which has very many intelligent people could have brought some sense into the discussion, so that the environment is protected, good science takes the place of junk science, rent seekers do not gain at the expense of the poor, our money is well spent, future generations are protected from a degraded world & financial ruin & our energy supplies are from constant & cheap sources. The Church should be pragmatically supporting environmental protection & repair & not joining in the current scare scenario which is politically orientated & long since parted from pure science. Follow the money!
    But the Church is making no contribution to the cause of justice in this regard. When I see that the Pontifical Academy has apparently been asleep for the last 10 years all I can say Is “God help us”!
    EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS by Prof. Roger Peilke reported in the Denver Post 10/12/12 – “Climate spin is rampant”.
    Along with colleagues around the world, I've been studying climate change & disasters for almost 20 years, & we just had a scientific paper accepted for publication this week on damage from U.S. tornadoes since 1950. What we found may surprise you: Over the past six decades, tornado damage has declined after accounting for development that has put more property into harm's way.
    Researchers have similar conclusions for other phenomena around the world, ranging from typhoons in China, bushfires in Australia, & windstorms in Europe. After adjusting for patterns of development, over the long-term there is no climate change signal — no "footprint" — of increasing damage from extreme events either globally or in particular regions.
    What about the United States? Flooding has not increased over the past century, nor have landfalling hurricanes. Remarkably, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane. The major 2012 drought obscures the fact that the U.S. has seen a decline in drought over the past century.
    Such scientific findings are so robust that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded earlier this year that over the long-term, damage from extreme events has not been attributed to climate change, whether from natural or human causes.
    So if the science is so clear on this subject, why then are companies & campaigners, abetted by a willing media, engaged in spreading misinformation?
    The debate over climate change is well known for excesses on all sides. Those who claim that the issue is a hoax actually have a lot in common with those who see climate change in every weather extreme. The logic behind such tactics is apparently that a sufficiently scared public will support the political program of those doing the scaring.
    Andrew Revkin, who has covered the climate issue for decades for The New York Times, explains that "the media tend to pay outsize attention to research developments that support a "hot"conclusion (like the theory that hurricanes have already been intensified by human-caused global warming) & glaze over on research of equivalent quality that does not." This leads to an amplification of "findings" such as the report presented by Munich Re this week & a complete blackout of coverage of our peer-reviewed paper on declining tornado damage.
    Does it matter that campaigners & the media are actively peddling disinformation? For the most part, probably not, as the public is by now used to such nonsense on just about every subject from unemployment figures to Barack Obama's birth certificate.
    But there is one group that should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation: the scientific community. It is, of course, thrilling to appear in the media & get caught up in highly politicized debates. But leading scientists & scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation — even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change — may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.
    Roger Pielke Jr. is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado-Boulder & author of "The Climate Fix: What Scientists & Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming" (Basic Books 2010).
    From Gordon Wratten em is

  3. JoAnn
    1 year ago

    People can listen to Democratic Socialists propaganda or they can research for themselves.
    They "globalists" call information that they do not want the citizens to know conspiracy theories. Our "Regulations Czar" Cass Sunstein, told his comrades "to discredit all conspiracy theories even if they're true." They cannot afford to have the American people learn the truth. It would only make it harder for them to complete their agenda. Again, I encourage everyone to read the United Nations report, "Agenda 21 on "Sustainable Development" and make up your own minds. It is true the "League of Nations" was during Woodrow Wilson's presidency and he wanted us to join BUT America knew better at that time, and told Wilson an emphatic "NO." Lo and behold years later FDR gets in office and under the pretense of making a safer world,. FDR, Winston Churchill and Stalin ushered in the United Nations. Unfortunately, a communist spy (IAlger Hiss) was sent to Russia to draft the agreements and gave Russia most of the countries, which resulted in the Berlin wall years later. America became skeptical and when Alger Hiss was proven to be a spy, AND CONVICTED,America was not very happy. I am in the last 1/4 of a century in age, so I have lived through most of what I have written. I have been through wars and qute a few presidential elections and I have watched this country lose its sovereignty little by little and it is breaking my heart. The "globalists" are hard at work and we are about to lose our country. "We have before us, the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations, a "New World Order." A world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this "New World Order," an order in which a credible United Nations, can use its peace keeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the United Nations's founders." George Herbert Walker Bush. He said this when the Berlin wall came down. "First, we Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That's going to be, to many, a bitter pill. It will take a lot of courage, a lot of faith, a lot of persuasion for them to come along with us on this necessiity. Today we must develop old structures on a global level. To deal with world problems, we need a "forcible world law," a democratic world government. Pat Robinson has written in a book a few years ago, that we should have a world government, but ONLY when the "Messiah" arrives. (Laughter) He wrote, any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the devil. (Laughter) Well, join me, I'm glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan." Walter Cronkite, at a meeting of the Council of Foreign Relations. "Who controls the food supply, controls the people; who controls energy, controls the continent; who controls the money, controls the world." Henry Kissinger "We must exterpate all genecide, aparthied and religious exclusiveness." Mikail Gorbachev in his book entitled "Perstroika" "In the 21st century, national sovereignty, as we have known it, will cease to exist. We will all answer to a single global authority." Strobe Talbot from the article he wrote "Birth of the Global Nation" which appeared in Time magazine July 20, 1992. If you don't know who Strobe Talbot is, he is a close friend of Bill Clinton. They were roommates in England in school. "This present window of opportunity during which a truly peaceful and interdependent World Order might be built, will not be open for too long. We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis (global warming) and the nations will accept the NEW WORLD ORDER." David Rockefeller, 1994 "He who votes does not have the power. He who counts the votes has the power." George Soros quoting Stalin. AND, "A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama's circle is offered by a recent report from the "Managing Global Insecurity Project", whose small U. S. advisory group that includes John Pedesta, the man heading Mr. Obama's transition team, and Strobe Talbot, the president of the Brookings Institute from which Miss Rice has just emerged. The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN "High Commissioner" for counter-terrorist activities, a legally binding "climate-change" agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000 strong UN peace keeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserved army, the UN would have 1st call upon them." Financial Times magazine in article entitled: "And Now For A World Government." Dec. 8, 2008. All of the above is thought provoking. You can do with it what you will. God bless.

    PS: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." Thomas Jefferson

  4. Lorna
    1 year ago

    The "UN wants to take over the world" theory has been disproved time and time again. Please remember that the Vatican holds permenant observer status at the UN.

    The idea of the UN actually came from the old League of Nations, which was unable to prevent WWII. There was widespread recognition that humanity could not afford a third World War, with the advent of nuclear weapons. The name is the term President FD Roosevelt used for the Allied nations in WWII. The conference to set up the new United Nations started on 24th April 1945. The US, the UK, China, France and the Soviet Union, plus 46 other nations in attendance, signed the United Nations charter and when those countries ratified it, the UN came into existance on the 24th of October 1945. No Nazi spies, no secret agenda. The aim of cooperation on international law and governance simply means respect for other countries rights and preventing a repeat of the Holocaust, not a "one world government". Those rumours were started by groups like the John Birch Society in the US.

    Without the UN, the world would likely have spilled into another war. There would be no Israel. As proof that the UN is not all-powerful, the US and UK could go to war in Iraq against the UN's wishes.

    The UN doesn't control the science of global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is made up of idependent scientists, who don't have a political agenda. They don't undertake any research themselves, they simply review that latest research and findings and take all of it into account. This is actually a really good way of doing science, since any research with a political agenda will be cancelled out. The IPCC was set up in response to scientists' warnings about climate change, it didn't "invent" it.

    As the article points out, if climate change were false, someone would've published real evidence of it by now. Being the person who demolishes a theory is a great way to make your name in science. It's how we've all heard of Einstien. The famous climate change skeptic Dr Richard Muller's own research changed his mind. Last year, his own review of temperature records convinced him that humans are almost entirely to blame for climate change.

    Climate change is real happening now and is dangerous. What kinds of Christians would we be if we don't make simple changes to our lifestyles to prevent our brothers and sisters in today's developing countries suffering? Those in such countries suffer terribly as a result of the extreme weather events and climate change that global warming will cause. The people often live in poorly constructed houses which are much more prone to damage or collapse, they have no resources to fall back on if their houses and crops are destroyed, their governments do not have the resources to help in times of crisis and are much less able to help those suffering as a result. To allow that to happen simply because we don't want to make a few simple and painless changes to our lifestyle is to fail in our Christian duty. The longer we leave it before changing, the bigger and more painful the changes have to be.

    Those who maintain that climate change is fake and come up with conspiracy theories do so because they don't want to face the fact that their own way of life has to change. Making small changes will have only benefits for you, you'll save money. Saving energy means that you don't need to pay for that energy. As I pointed out in a previous post, it is also a patriotic thing to do, as it would allow the US to stop depending on other countries to supply the oil. If the US doesn't lead the way in developing alternative technology, it just means that another country will get the money, the jobs and the corresponding power.

    Our Holy Father has called for Catholics to care for the enviroment and to help the poor. Part of doing those things includes reducing our energy usage. God bless

  5. JoAnn
    1 year ago

    After WWII, the UN was founded as an international org. to maintain peace and security by developing friendly relationships between nations and promoting social progress. The idea behind this institution sounded great until it was discovered that the charter establishing the UN was drafted by a convicted communist spy, Alger Hiss. A Socialist world gvernment is the goal and promoting belief in "global warming" is the #1 vehicle to reach that goal. This is the main goal of the global warming and climate change hoax. The UN elites know that a perpetual global, life-threatening crisis is necessary to convince wealthy nations to accept the punitive cost of cap and trade taxes. Wealth redistribution is exactly what carbon cap and trade laws are designed to accomplish. Unless they are also globalists, scientists have proven that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with global warming. Global warming fear mongering is simply a scheme put together by global elites to redistriute the weath of the world and to move us into world government. Global warming is only one of the messages being used to force the nations of the world into world government. Anytime you hear global governance propaganda like Agenda 21, sustainable development, nationalized healthcare, social justice and national identification programs...think world government. But it is global warming that is presently the poster child being used to frighten everyone into giving up freedom in order to save the planet. Former governor of the state of Washington, Dixie Lee Ray probably summed it up best when she said,"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the UN. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to - compliance." Compliance to a communistic world governing body is the goal and the global warming deception is the "life threatening crisis" that the UN has chosen to get there. Picking and choosing what to believe in our faith does not include personal opinions. No matter who is giving them. Yes, we are to be stewards of this planet but not FOOLS. Catholics are to believe whatever is doctrine and everything that is taught us pertaining to faith and morals. That is where the infallibility of the Pope lies. Not in secular opinions. I encourage everyone to pull up the UN report on Agenda 21: Sustainable Development and read about what is happening to us and our freedoms. Then you can make your own "informed" decision regarding "global warming." God bless.

  6. jpaYMCA
    1 year ago

    This "catholic" website's (or its directors') inability to distinguish between "what the Church says" and an associated academic body that has use of Vatican property to conduct research, is, well, appalling. This is first-year theology stuff: distinctions about the so-called argument from authority, WHEN and HOW the Church can speak authoritatively, etc.

    Please, Kyrie eleison

  7. Lorna
    1 year ago

    As an astrophysicist, I had to study planetary atmospheres and the effects that gases within those atmospheres. I'd like to answer a few of the questions raised by other commenters.

    First of all, how global warming happens. We burn fossil fuels, which contain lots of carbon. As they burn, the carbon atoms combine with oxygen from our atmosphere, producing carbon dioxide. When the Sun's light reaches Earth, the CO2 in our atmosphere reflects away the infra-red light (heat). When the remaining light hits the ground, it gives it energy. The ground gives off this energy in the form of heat. Before we started burning lots of fossil fuels, this heat would radiate away into space. But CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb this heat and reflect it back to the ground again. It's like the inside of your car when it's left in the summer sun. The heat just builds up and up. This is known science and has been accepted for many years.

    Why were the scientists predicting global cooling in the 1970s? It was because of the presence of a lot of pollution in the atmosphere, from heavy industry and volcanic eruptions. These reflected sunlight away from the Earth before it hit the ground. Because the scientists hadn't taken the increased level of carbon dioxide into account, partly because the calculations are so difficult. As more information came in about the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate, measurements of solar activity and more accurate climate readings came in, climate scientists realised that far from cooling, the long-term trend was actually for warming. When you measure the CO2 levels from ice cores, add in the climate data from the ice cores, tree rings etc, you get a very good correlation.

    Previous ice ages and warmer periods were caused by long-term changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. These cycles were carefully calculated and correspond to the frequency of ice ages. The warmer periods were caused by CO2 in the atmosphere, caused by huge areas of constantly erupting volcanoes, these can be 200,000 square miles in extent. One that occured about 65 million years ago may have wiped out much of the sealife, before the asteroid impact took out the dinosaurs.

    Global warming doesn't neccesarily mean that the weather will be warmer where you live. It means that the world will warm overall, but the warming will be more extreme at the poles and least at the equator. However, all over the planet, the weather will become more unpredictable. Rain patterns will change, with many areas of the US experiencing drought. There will be more extreme weather events. It could even plunge Europe into a mini ice age, by turning off the Gulf Stream that warms it. For example, where I live in Scotland we get a few days of snow a year. At this latitude in Canada, there are polar bears. Having these problems means that the West could end up as the new "Second world" while countries like India and China become the new global superpowers.

    We can't afford a policy of "wait and see". We have to act now, because we are fast approaching a series of "tipping points", where easy reversal of a problem becomes impossible. If anything, the predictions made by climate scientists are conservative.

    What can you do to stop it? Reduce your impact on the enviroment. Don't use the car for short trips, walk instead. Drive a car that gets as many miles to the gallon as possible and don't leave the engine running when you're out of the car. Buy locally produced food where possible. Use energy efficent electrical products, including lightbulbs. Don't leave TVs, computers, lights, etc on when you're not using them. Unplug those electrical items (especially TVs and computers), don't leave them on standby The best bit about all of this is IT SAVES YOU MONEY! That's why climate change deniers don't want you to do these things, they want their companies to keep taking as much of your money as possible.

    Saving as much energy as possible is also a patriotic thing to do. If Americans stopped wasting energy - by leaving their car running, driving to places a few hundred yards away, leaving their computers and TVs on, etc - the US could be self-sufficent in oil and other energy needs. Because we do these things, the US has to buy billions of dollars of oil from Middle Eastern countries. A lot of those oil dollars get funneled into promoting an extremist form of Islam in poor countries, where there are no other facilities. For example, Saudi Arabia funds mosques, madrasas and the printing of Korans that teach the Wahabbist form of Islam. Remember that Osama Bin Laden was Saudi, as were 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.

    Our new Holy Father has said that all Catholics should be caring for the environment. I find it interesting that the very people who say that you can't pick and choose the bits of Catholic you want to follow, make excuses about "Satan" or "communists" taking over the Vatican when it says somthing THEY don't like.

    I hope that helps. If you have any questions, please just ask.

  8. Br. Joseph Murray, OSA
    1 year ago

    I enjoyed this article tremendously. I wish that our science was as up-to-date in areas of human anthropology. There, I'm afraid, we are sadly lacking.

  9. Bob
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately some of the same folks who want us to do "something" about global warming also want ZPG. I lived during and survived the 70's when "Zero Population Growth" was the "in" thing. I don't doubt our earth is warming, but I'm not sure what we can do about it, except to try and be good stewards where we can.

  10. Proteios1
    1 year ago

    Aside from invoking the conspiracy silliness in order to deny the reality that the Church has a strong scientific tradition...heck, we invented the scientific method (Bishop of Lincoln)...there is merit to climate change. As a scientist(not a mason or boogeyman, etc), my assessment is that humans are having an impact on the environment. It takes far too much denial to think otherwise. But is it overstated? Yes. Is it overpopulation? Not likely. It's like saying population leads to poverty and not exploitation of people. Similarly, it's poor practices, not numbers of people, I mean, look how few generate all the pollution. Climate change is likely due to our mining and energy consumption. A relatively minor volcanic event causes varying degrees of climate change, temp changes around the world. Good science supports this. Humans generate more than some of these events each year. So it isn't rocket science, nor is it a conspiracy or merely an opinion to link our output with climate changes.

    Denial is as useless as claiming the sky will fall. It's like me getting a report about nuns honoring a new age Wiccan as keynote speaker and then being in denial that it clashes with Catholic teaching and blame the Vatican report or the bishop involved. That's ignorance that permits a problem to continue.

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, First Samuel 1:24-28
When she had weaned him, she took him up with her, as well as a ... Read More

Psalm, First Samuel 2:1, 4-5, 6-7, 8
Hannah then prayed as follows: My heart exults in Yahweh, in my ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 1:46-56
And Mary said: My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord and ... Read More

Saint of the Day

December 22 Saint of the Day

St. Chaeromon
December 22: Bishop of Nilopolis, in Egypt. When the persecution was ... Read More