The Vatican’s global warming blunder

The Vatican released Pope Francis’s long-awaited encyclical yesterday.

Its take on global warming represents Rome’s greatest scientific blunder since Galileo was tried in 1633 “for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world.”

CFACT’s Marc Morano has been covering the details of this story as they break. He has already been quoted by a number of leading news outlets, including The New York Times, UK Guardian, Washington Times, UK Daily Mail, and Los Angeles Times, among others. You can watch his interview from earlier this week on FOX Business Network’s “Varney & Co.” here.

Be sure to check out ClimateDepot.com to keep abreast of developments.

In April, Marc joined a delegation of climate skeptics at a Morano at vaticanglobal warming conference in Rome. As we reported at the time, the questions and hard facts they raised truly stole the warming campaign’s thunder.

Marc had this to say about the Pope’s encyclical after its release: “The papal encyclical, no matter how nuanced it may read, will simply be used as a tool to support UN global warming ‘solutions’ that are at odds with most Catholic teachings on issues such as abortion, contraception, overpopulation, and helping the poor nations develop. The Vatican appears to be taking an unprecedented step by seemingly endorsing a specific UN climate treaty.”

Amazingly, the Vatican’s refusal to consider the mountains of scientific data that challenge the UN’s dogma on climate makes the comparison with Galileo’s trial remarkably apt. Books were burned and consideration of the heliocentric theory of the solar system banned. Today, for global warming pressure groups, censorship is a first resort.

Frustrated by the Churcgalileoh’s deliberate blindness to the facts revealed by telescopes about astronomy, Galileo wrote to Johannes Kepler, “what do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.”

Is it modern-day heresy to point out that the UN’s climate computer models project a warmer world than satellite observations record? That these satellites can find no meaningful global warming since the 1990’s? That the weather is historically normal and the incredibly painful and expensive “solutions” the UN prescribes would have very little impact on the climate, even if the UN’s models were correct?

In advocating for a UN global warming treaty, the Vatican has aligned the Church with radical secular leftists who despise traditional Catholic values and teachings. Indeed, yesterday’s Los Angeles Times quoted Morano as saying, “The irony is that the people who are lauding the pope’s position on climate disagree with just about everything else he stands for.”

A Pew research study reports that only 47 percent of U.S. Catholics believe that human activity is the main cause of the slight warming that occurred last century. If the Vatican veers off the path of sound science and continues down the global warming campaign’s slippery propaganda slope it risks alienating educated Catholics everywhere.

This is a sad development. Those in the Vatican need to reassess the facts.

We’ll keep on presenting the facts in the hope that they do.

________

 Marc Morano on Varney & Co.

Categories

About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is the executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

  • odin2

    If the Pope is concerned about the poor, he certainly has a strange way of showing it.

  • Ian5

    Where exactly are the “mountains of scientific data” that challenge the science of AGW?

    • groweg

      Here are a few:

      Nir Shaviv (Hebrew
      University of Jerusalem)

      http://www.sciencebits.com/Munich-2012

      Henrick Svensmark’s theory (Danish National Space Institute)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqBrML4nsc

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv06IyygoUs

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y87vLJrh2AY

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pRmbBsdhNE

      Summaries of recent results
      on Svensmark’s theory:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/04/svensmarks-cosmic-ray-theory-of-clouds-and-global-warming-looks-to-be-confirmed/

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/more-support-for-svensmarks-cosmic-ray-modulation-of-earths-climate-hypothesis/

      Willie Soon (Harvard –
      Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and David Legates (University of
      Delaware):

      http://itsrainmakingtime.com/drs-willie-soon-david-legates-true-inquiry-into-climate-weather/

      Richard Lindzen (MIT)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThVoO39cFT8

      Disproving
      Al Gore on the relationship between CO2 and temperature

      http://iceagenow.info/2014/05/video-great-global-warming-swindle-excerpt/

      http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/20/epica-ice-core-analysis-nowhere-do-we-see-temperature-lagging-co2/

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

      No
      correlation of ice ages and Co2 levels

      http://home.comcast.net/~pdrallos131681/CO2/co2.html

      Manipulated
      data

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

      absorption

      http://nov79.com/gbwm/prmr.html

      This information is readily available on the web. The above is but a sampling of what is out there.

      • traditionalguu

        False altered data sets is the only warming on this planet.

        If CO2 warmed any imaginary glass greenhouse covering the planet, then we would be spending the trillions of dollars for extra CO2 production because that would slow down true cooling threat that is upon us.

        The 97% consensus was and is 0.04% belief among scientists that ” greenhouse gasses” are dangerous.

        The men who are lying about the fake science that CO2 is pollution just to steal the wealth of the planet to fund a World Governance they plan to run are the ones that need to be jailed.

      • Denis Ables

        Here’s some simple issues:
        There is NO empirical evidence showing that co2 level has ever had any impact on our global climate. In fact, there is a very good correlation across geologic periods which show that temperature variation occurs first, followed hundreds (or more) years later by similar variation in the co2 level. (Gore demonstrated that, but didn’t have the time series correct.)

        The computer models play with the greenhouse gas theory, but the open atmosphere is hardly a greenhouse. Real greenhouses have no convection across their bounaries whereas in the open atmosphere satellites detect heat escaping to space. Also there is no such thing as ocean feedbacks within a greenhouse.

        Our current warming has been stalled (no additinal warming) for 18 years and 5 months according to RSS. If the mean of all 5 global temperature datasets is used in place of that satellite there has been no additional warming for 13+ years.

        NOAA and NOAA, without mentioning it, have been using only terrestrial data (over which they have “edit” control). They have been “correcting” that data by consistently lowering older raw temp data, and consistently increasing more recent raw temperature data.

        There are also considerable problems with the old surface temperature which requires revisions (but EVERY correction consistently down for old data and consistently up for newer data is more than a bit suspicious (in fact ridiculous).

        Meanwhile there is a new expert terrestrial data set, now about 10 years old. The stations in that dataset were set up to avoid having to ever revise the raw data. Guess what? That data set is consistent with satellite data, showing a cooling over the past 10 years for the US.

        Keep in mind that our current warming (such as it is) did NOT begin in the mid 1800s, but by definition, at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, which was in the 1600s. That’s 200 years of warming BEFORE co2 began rising – and it gets better – because even the most rabid scientist alarmists acknowedge that it would have taken until about 1950 for the co2 level to have had any impact on global temperature, so now the duration of natural warming expands to 300 years.. Almost ALL of the current warming has happened BEFORE co2 could have had any impact. And now, with co2 level at its highest in a very long time, there has been no additional warming. The computer models cannot explain this facet of their “settledl” science.

        • ninetyninepct

          We hope that the names of all the fear monger people and organizations are being recorded. When all this falls apart, there will HAVE to be massive lawsuits. Massive. Lawsuits in the multi- trillions, and the Catholic Church will be included.

          • nigelf

            And lots of prison time for those with great power and influence who knew this was a scam all along but couldn’t resist.
            Laws have to be put in place so scams like this can never get legs again.

      • Brin Jenkins

        Brilliant lecture from Israel. Thanks Groweg

    • Sam Pyeatte

      What science? AGW theory is based on computer model predictions, not observation. That they have failed miserably to remotely predict conditions indicates a fundamental problem. Fabricating and modifying historical observation data is not an approved method of honest scientists – it is a method used by those motivated by political agenda.

    • HealthyPlanet

      Yes. I’d like to read exactly what the writer, Craig Rucker (only please) means by this statement.

    • Brin Jenkins

      Mainly in the circular references quoting each others “work”, and adding to an ill informed consensus that is unable to explain simply how it all happens. When are asked to look at the particle physics of CO2 absorbing energy and re-transmitting it downwards only one must question just what difference could it really make, and why it’s only just started to occur after millions of years?

      Now Ian, are you able to be polite for a change?

      • Ian5

        >> What difference could it really make?
        A big difference as it turns out. The rising concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a significant climate forcing. NASA’s Earth Observatory explains the basic science here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php

        >> Why it’s only just started to occur after millions of years?

        The scientific mechanism hasn’t just started. The difference is that the concentration of CO2 has increased dramatically since pre-industrial levels; in a matter of centuries the concentration of CO2 has climbed to over 400ppm, thereby increasing the forcing.

  • AGWisFraud

    Thank goodness for Marc Morano and CFACT, voices of sanity in a world gone mad.

    I wonder if the Pope realizes that his stance on global warming could do untold damage to the Catholic church. When the CAGW narrative ultimately comes crashing down, what will the effect be on Catholics’ view of the Pope and their church?

  • moran

    For a faith-based instead of politically approached message, read: http://www.cfact.org/2015/05/04/the-Pope-embraces-the-religion-of-global-warming

  • Mervyn

    People who believe that catastrophic man-made global warming is happening, and that the small amount of human-activity CO2 is the key driver of climate change, are living a life of self-delusion.

    They are treating their mythical ‘climate change’ alarmism as religion and the destruction of the mighty global energy system as a religious sacrifice … and as in all fairy tales, they think if we sacrifice the industrial system, everyone will live happily ever after.

    Well, there would be no happy ever after … just far less wealth, worsening environmental conditions, declining health standards; declining food production; and ever increasing disease, poverty and death in poor third world countries.

    • nigelf

      Not to mention civil wars in countries like the US where most people if they don’t outright know it’s a scam, certainly don’t want to pay for it in higher taxes and fewer freedoms.

  • ninetyninepct

    We Catholics who have been following this Climate Change discussion can start supporting the Pope’s stand by not driving to any Catholic services, even weddings. Of course, this will mean a drastic reduction in attendance at mass with the corresponding drop in monetary contributions, but the Pope won’t mind, as it will be “saving the planet”, mainly for islam, as that bunch of hate book followers don’t give a pig’s butt about the environment. All they want to do is kill everyone.
    Pope could also order the disconnection of the Vatican and all church property worldwide from the electric grid and cancel all heating contracts. This would be easy get done in the next 6 months so he can suck up to the UN. Freezing cold churches would also provide yet another incentive for Catholics to stay home rather than waste gas going to church. The Church would also save money on holy water – not much you can do with Holy ice. Candles? – forget it, too much pollution.

  • FRANK

    THE POOP IS A NUT CASE. HE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.

  • Just by accident found this site – – cfact.org – – and was amazed about the total pseudo-scientific BOGUS on this site. Sponsored by the carbon industry? – – come hell or high water (literally) this, the carbon industry, obviously gives a damn about destroying, poisoning (Chemtrails/SRM, sprayng neurologic poison – – Aluminum, Barium, other toxins – – “to lay a shield against solar energy from reaching earth”, bringing it with such pseudo-scientific BOGUS closer to having the fifth earth extinction – – the PERMIAN, also methane-caused – – repeated due to oil interest-planted BOGUS arguments http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change and http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24 and http://www.ameg.me and
    http://www.Expertclick.com/NRWire/Releasedetails.aspx?id=71034

  • Pure, unadulterated science can – easily – explain Global Warming – GW – and the special interest blunders that have brought earth close to a PERMIAN-like extinction :

    http://www.worldhealth.net/forum/thread/100993/people-want-to-know-global-warming-th/?page=1#post-100993