Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican Burns with Global Warming Enthusiasm
Crisis Magazine ^ | April 29, 2015 | William M. Briggs

Posted on 04/29/2015 1:53:00 PM PDT by BlatherNaut

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences had its one-day global warming conference yesterday. Not unlike a certain synod, it ended with the issuing of an anticlimactic pre-prepared climatic document “Climate Change and The Common Good: A Statement Of The Problem And The Demand For Transformative Solutions.”

Gist: we are soon doomed unless we “do something.”

More on that in a moment. First, the Big Question. Why? Why is the Catholic Church entering into the fray of doubtful global warming science? Why now and why with such shrill apocalyptic exaggerated rhetoric? Why strident calls for supranational government control at the same time the actual evidence for doom grows weaker and weaker?

Consider this. Used to be in the West when the Catholic Church spoke, people listened. Reporters and politicians would come calling before writing articles or making decisions and ask, “What say you, Mr. Bishop?” And the people, when they heard what the Church had to say, listened. They considered. Sure, they sometimes rejected, perhaps even more often than they heeded. But the Church was an influence. And it liked being one.

(Excerpt) Read more at crisismagazine.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; vatican

1 posted on 04/29/2015 1:53:00 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

I’m really curious what all those supposedly “infallible” cardinals were THINKING when they voted this insane boob in as po-po.

I’m not exactly seeing the Holy Spirit’s fingerprints on this...


2 posted on 04/29/2015 1:58:12 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (There is no "allah" but satan, and mohammed was his demon-possessed tool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

I agree. Pope Francis just appointed a progressive San Francisco native as Archbiship of Santa Fe. His initial remarks said he will focus on “social justice,” immigration reform and the poor. So far he hasn’t said anything about same-sex marriage or gay priests, but it probably isn’t far from his closet agenda.


3 posted on 04/29/2015 2:38:31 PM PDT by CedarDave (Bush vs. Clinton in 2016? If you have a 24-year old car, the bumper stickers are still good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut; Tax-chick; GregB; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...
Articles, such as this, need to be read in context. Notice the author, an authority on the topic, posts his position: The models are wrong. And have been for decades.

FULL TEXT

Ban Ki-moon meets Pope at Vatican summit (Osservatore Romano :Reuters)

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences had its one-day global warming conference yesterday. Not unlike a certain synod, it ended with the issuing of an anticlimactic pre-prepared climatic document “Climate Change and The Common Good: A Statement Of The Problem And The Demand For Transformative Solutions.”

Gist: we are soon doomed unless we “do something.”

More on that in a moment. First, the Big Question. Why? Why is the Catholic Church entering into the fray of doubtful global warming science? Why now and why with such shrill apocalyptic exaggerated rhetoric?  Why strident calls for supranational government control at the same time the actual evidence for doom grows weaker and weaker?

Consider this. Used to be in the West when the Catholic Church spoke, people listened. Reporters and politicians would come calling before writing articles or making decisions and ask, “What say you, Mr. Bishop?”  And the people, when they heard what the Church had to say, listened. They considered. Sure, they sometimes rejected, perhaps even more often than they heeded. But the Church was an influence. And it liked being one.

Not so now. The West has these past fifty or so years assumed an adversarial stance towards our ancient and venerable institution. The press, politicians, and people no longer care what the clergy has to say on designer babies (i.e. eugenics), abortion, homosexual acts, same-sex “marriage”, you name it. Not when a recalcitrant Church disallows female priests, divorce, and every other thing the secular salivate over.

This volte-face must sting, particularly for the old timers who lived during the Good Old Days of deference. The longing they feel probably accounts for why certain of our more mature clergy (and their recruits) work vigorously to steer the Church towards political shoals and away from deep spiritual water (who doesn’t love nautical metaphors?).

Now to the global warming conference. The reader should understand Yours Truly is a certified expert in these areas, a genuine climate scientist, with a specialty in the goodness and usefulness of models, the very kinds of models which predict our doom.

The models are wrong. And have been for decades.

How do I know this? Here’s a sentence from an open letter skeptics presented to the PAS (to hand to Pope Francis) at its conference (I am a signer of this letter):

[T]here has been a growing divergence between real-world temperature observations and model simulations. On average, models simulate more than twice the observed warming over the relevant period. Over 95% of the models simulate greater warming than has been observed, and only a tiny percentage come tolerably close.

It is a logical truth, and a fact once known to all scientists, that models which make consistently lousy predictions imply the theories underlying them are false. Since the models make lousy forecasts, we know the theories upon which the models are based are wrong. And since these theories are wrong, they should not be believed. And since they should not be believed, we should not base decisions on them.

Now you’d think these happy deductions would be welcome news to our political and spiritual betters. But they aren’t, because why? Because if there is no problem, there is no problem to solve. And if there is no problem to solve, there is no need to seek political power to solve the nonexistent problem.

But some in the Church and most politicians want something to solve. We’re reached the point where politics dictate science. This explains why Senator Barbara Boxer recently attacked scientists like Yours Truly for (her words) disseminating research designed to “confuse the public.”

Finally to the PAS document itself. There is scarcely anything in it that is scientifically accurate. Everywhere, it assumes what it seeks to prove, and uses model-based predictions of doom as proof the models are correct. The document is a dismal exercise in special pleading and is painful to read. It would take a small book to detail every mistake, so we’ll have to stick to the most curious.

The opening sentences of its “Declaration”:

Unsustainable consumption coupled with a record human population and the uses of inappropriate technologies are causally linked with the destruction of the world’s sustainability and resilience. Widening inequalities of wealth and income, the world-wide disruption of the physical climate system and the loss of millions of species that sustain life are the grossest manifestations of unsustainability.

Causally linked are powerful words in science. It means we know why things happen. But we do not. If we did, our models would make good predictions. Wealth and income are growing more inequitable, but is that caused by blundering governments or a “world-wide disruption of the physical climate system”?  Answer: there is no disruption. The claim that millions of species will turn in their dinner pails doesn’t even border on scientific malfeasance. It crosses over and enters into the sorrowful land of Deliberate Exaggeration.

It is a well trodden realm. PAS says “Global warming is already having major impacts on extreme weather and climate events.” This is false. Unless by “impact” they mean the observed diminution of extreme events? “Collectively, this warming and the extreme events it has brought in its wake, such as heat waves, intense storms, and forest fires….” Ah. They do not. What else can I tell you except that this statement is demonstrably false? The document contains many of its brothers.

Twenty years ago we were told there was still time, but only just. Action had to happen now, else the tipping point would be breached. We survived. But the PAS again says there is still time. If we act now. The call for action is proof of the theory bruited above: “The Catholic church, working with the leadership of other religions, can take a decisive role by mobilizing public opinion and public funds….”

How? By “reorient[ing] our attitude toward nature and, thereby, toward ourselves” and by recognizing “religious institutions are in a special position to promote” sustainability. As I wrote elsewhere, if you think global warming’s bad, wait till you meet sustainability. Sustainability is the fundamentalism that will replace all other environmental causes.  Global warming made itself vulnerable by exposing itself to verification. Sustainability is immune to testing. It is taken on faith.

As I wrote, “True Sustainability is a goal ever disappearing into the distance, one which can never be reached, but which must be pursued with ever increasing vigor.” The PAS document is suffused with sustainability; the word or its variants appears dozens of times. They say we are engaged in “unsustainable consumption,” that climate change will “seriously threaten global sustainability,” that we must “save as much of the sustainable fabric of the world as possible,” that we must celebrate “living together in comfort and sustainably,” that we must “develop a sustainable relationship with our planet.”

And what is the Pontifical Academy’s definition of sustainable?  You guessed it. They never give one.

Editor’s note: In the image above, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon meets Pope Francis to deliver the keynote address at a climate change summit at the Vatican sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and other groups. (Photo credit: Osservatore Romano / Reuters)


William M. Briggs

By

William M. Briggs is a consultant and adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell University, with specialties in medicine and the philosophy of science. He blogs at wmbriggs.com.

4 posted on 04/29/2015 3:29:00 PM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

.


5 posted on 04/29/2015 3:34:28 PM PDT by Coleus (For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

In matters of the environment, economics, immigration and many other secular political topics, Pope Chatty Cathy’s response should be: “Who am I to judge?” and then he should exercise moral judgment which IS his responsibility and condemn unequivocally sexual perversion wherever it may occur and among whom.


6 posted on 04/29/2015 3:37:17 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline: Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The models are wrong. And have been for decades.

If the "models" used to forecast "0.7 degC rise in the next century!" were right, they could be set to the conditions of 1915 and produce a 100-year forecast that matches the historical record from 1915 to 2015.

If they could do that, they would have, and they would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Since they're not shouting it from the rooftops, it means it can't be done, and the "models" are crap, to put it mildly.

7 posted on 04/29/2015 3:43:13 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

The only proven sustainable development is petrochemical based.

Sorry about that, Franky.


8 posted on 04/29/2015 3:43:37 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Doctrine doesn't change. The trick is to find a way around it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

The Vaticans should stick to what they are good at. Collecting expensive artwork.


9 posted on 04/29/2015 4:18:13 PM PDT by Old Yeller (Civil rights are for civilized people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“Sustainability” is UN double speak for overpopulation and population control. It is a word that, like the phrase “breeding like rabbits” should never, ever roll off the tongue of a committed orthodox Catholic churchman.
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/04/28/on-sustainability/


10 posted on 04/29/2015 11:42:58 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson