Just in Time for the Green Encyclical





Pope Francis is releasing his global warming encyclical on June 18.  Right on schedule we have further evidence that the global warming scam is falling apart:

Science mag is publishing a blockbuster paper today, on June 4.  Oh boy!  Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists.  Is there a “pause”?  Did global climate really stop warming during the last dozen years, 18 years, or even 40 years – in spite of rising levels of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide?

The renowned National Climate Data Center (NCDC), a division of NOAA located in Asheville, NC, claims that the widely reported (and accepted) temperature hiatus (i.e., near-zero trend) is an illusion – just an artifact of data analysis – and that the global climate never really stopped warming.If true, what a blessing that would be for the UN-IPCC – and for climate alarmists generally, who have been under siege to explain the cause of the pause.

This paper is turning out to be a “big deal.”The publisher of Science has even issued a special press release, promoting the NCDC claim of continued slow but steady warming.

Of course, NCDC-NOAA and Science may end up with egg on their collective faces.It does look a little suspicious that NCDC arrived at this earth-shaking “discovery” after all these years, after “massaging” its own weather-station data, just before the big policy conference in December in Paris that is supposed to slow the rise of CO2 from the burning of energy fuels, coal, oil, and gas.

Now watch the sparks fly — as there are two major constituencies that have a vested interest in the pause:

Go here to read the rest.  Hmmm.  In the past when data didn’t fit a theory the theory had to be adjusted to reflect the data.  Now, the data is adjusted to fit the theory.  This is the type of transparent fraud that the Pope is apparently about to put the prestige of the Church behind.

More to explorer


  1. Perhaps the sorriest thing our dear Pope supports is the religion of climate change, probably in an effort to make the Catholic Church relevant, relevant mostly to folks who don’t believe in God, but who do believe in abortion, and who do believe in totalitarian economic control. Like evolution there is no truly scientific evidence for the climate change theory. Why would Pope Francis engage himself in this nonsense besides the temporary applause he will receive from those who oppose what he claims to represent? I can only ascribe it to a profound loss of faith and hope in God and his Providence along with a failure of courage to carry the message of the Cross. Let us pray that Pope Francis soon recovers from his profound spiritual blindness.

  2. The USCCB and its funding source CCHD have been fully committed to this hoax even claiming that global warming and particularly power generating facilities affect the poor. Bishop Wenski can doublespeak for himself when he urges the EPA to take greater control of our society.

    “The USCCB recognizes the importance of finding means to reduce carbon pollution,” Archbishop Wenski said. “These standards should protect the health and welfare of all people, especially children, the elderly, as well as poor and vulnerable communities, from harmful pollution emitted from power plants and from the impacts of climate change.” The letter can be found at http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/environmental-justice-program/upload/letter-to-epa-from-archbishop-wenski-on-carbon-emissions-standards-2014-05-29.pdf.

  3. There is no scientific proof of any kind that CO2 causes significant global warming. There is no scientific proof of any kind that global warming, if it is occurring, is harmful. There is satellite evidence that the earth is greening, likely enhanced by increased CO2. There is data showing global crop yields at record levels, likely enhanced by CO2. There is satellite evidence that there has been no significant warming in 18+ years as CO2 has steadily increased. There is ice core data which indicates CO2 is caused by global warming not vice versa. Man caused CO2 is a very small part of total natural CO2. CO2 is a trace gas (0.04%) of the atmosphere and is unlikely to have any significant thermal effect. That the clerics of our church would ally with baby killers to promote the AGW agenda gives one pause to wonder whether their faith in our faith is specious as well.

  4. I think that….call it the “human influenced climate change” crowd needs to acknowledge a fundamental truth…..the goal of getting the entire Earth behind the substantial cuts is not going to happen. My whole life, the campaign has been going on. And it’s failed! Getting an entire planet with various competing interests…..including dictatorships…..to sign onto this was perhaps always a pipe dream. Perhaps the cuts were as well. The proponents of HICC will never convince the majorities they would need to make the cuts they claim are needed to….reduce the inevitable rate by which the climate changes to a slower level less detrimental to humanity. If those who are convinced HICC is a problem are right, it’s over. It cannot be changed. Its happening and cannot be stopped. Only endured.

    I’d recomend they stop talking about the idea and focus on the specific effects. My understanding is that the ice at the poles is actually melting at a dangerously accelerated rate. So without talking about what the causes might have been, just go to costal areas and say “the ice caps are melting at an accelerated rate, that will in time cause increased flooding”, and focus their recommendations on what can be done to endure these changes without loss of life…measures like trying to convince people to move further away from the waterfront, or investing in infrastructure preparation. Areas further inland? Empazise the risks of greater drought.

    If HICC is real……we are too late to undue what has been done. Endurance and science are what will save us (materially speaking).

  5. I think I may go with the hope-against-hope that they actually did a decent job and stuck to guiding prudential judgement, without any poison pills.
    I know it’ll be abused no matter what, so it’s not like that’s new…..

  6. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and man generates but a trace of the trace. There is much fossil evidence that an increase in CO2 is a result of a warming trend. I can cite personal evidence for this phenomenon as well. If you make beer or wine, you will observe how the area in the crock above the fermenting must or wort fills with CO2. It will quickly extinguish a lowered burning match. When the fructose or maltose ferments, the action of the yeast converts into equal parts of alcohol and carbon dioxide until the fermenting liquid reaches about 14% alcohol which causes the yeast to go dormant. Another thing that makes the yeast less active is a lowering temperature in the room where the crock is located. It doesn’t take a leap of intellectual understanding to realize that a similar thing happens in the global biosphere. Decomposition, fermentation, putrefaction and the like are temperature sensitive. That’s why we put food in the refrigerator or freezer, and that is also why CO2 is a byproduct of global warming cycles. It also seems obvious that achieving a significant reduction in man’s trace contribution to this trace gas would require measures of devastating impact on the seven billion people who inhabit the earth. Before the Industrial Revolution, there were only about one billion of us. If we were to eliminate all the smokestacks and tail pipes of our modern machinations, we might eliminate something less than a tenth of a percent of atmospheric CO2, and we will also eliminate most of the six billion human beings presently inhabiting the planet. There are a few crazy loons, and some in high places, who would relish such a prospect. Population control has long been a fixation of the political Left, people for whom, ” “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” is anathema.

  7. @Michael Dowd: Thank you for your incisive succinct summaries.
    As regards the Encyclical, though the Pope has given us cause for caution even in his area of competency [Faith & Morals], I believe it is better we wait for the actual Encyclical.

  8. I agree with William P Walsh. And any replacement for fossil fuel that isn’t useless and worthless like solar and wind will be opposed with the same vehemence that fossil fuel is opposed, hence today’s anti-nuclear fission movement. Indeed, if fusion ever becomes workable, then that too will be opposed.
    By the way, have you ever noticed that the people with the biggest mouths opposing fossil fuel continue to buy gasoline and methane and diesel with complete abandon? Godless eco-wacko feminist liberal progressive nit wits.

  9. To the Pope, for his Brave New World Encyclical. “The comedy of man survives the tragedy of man.” GK Chesterton. This Popes need for popularity, exceeds his usefulness in fulfilling his obligation toward sustaining the Catholic Faith, but finds it more important in sustaining the continuance of the poor, by supporting a progressive political perspective that will make the entire world a poor and unhappy habitat. “An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered.” G.K.C And when that inconvenience is a hoax on mankind it is neither just wrong or right, it is just plain evil.

  10. What the company I work for is doing for carbon emissions reduction – will the Pope support such a technology?
    Browse the web site. Lots of videos. And the technobabble is made understandable to the layman.

  11. The image accompanying this blog post is misleading. It pairs an image of Pope Francis with a remark in quotes but the remark is not his.

  12. J S Person

    Relax, the poles are not melting. Antarctic ice is at record levels, Arctic ice has increased over the last few years. The thousand year ‘rise’ in the oceans continues at a barely perceptible rate. If people actually believed the things you cited there would be a lot of cheap beach front property for sale, including Al Gore’s?

  13. Don’t bother waiting for the encyclical. The mere fact that it is being addressed as a serious subject shows the influence of Satan.

  14. In France, it has been the Hard Left (particularly the Anarcho-Sydicalists) that has been most sceptical of Environmentalism: “Tracking, transparency, certification, eco-taxes, environmental excellence, and the policing of water, all give us an idea of the coming state of ecological emergency. Everything is permitted to a power structure that bases its authority in Nature, in health and in well-being… Those who claim that generalized self-control will spare us from an environmental dictatorship are lying: the one will prepare the way for the other, and we will end up with both… ”
    Sometimes, the protest achieves an almost lyrical quality: “There is no “environmental catastrophe.” The catastrophe is the environment itself. The environment is what is left to man after he has lost everything. Those who live in a neighbourhood, a street, a valley, a war-zone, a workshop – they don’t have an “environment”; they move through a world peopled by presences, dangers, friends, enemies, moments of life and death, all kinds of beings. Such a world has its own consistency, which varies according to the intensity and quality of the ties attaching us to all of these beings, to all of these places. It is only us, the children of the final dispossession, exiles of the final hour – the ones who come into the world in concrete cubes, pick our fruits at the supermarket, and watch for an echo of the world on television – only we get to have an environment. “

  15. “In the past when data didn’t fit a theory the theory had to be adjusted to reflect the data.”

    In the long run, yes, but usually the scientific community has been happy to espouse theories that is knows don’t explain everything under the methodology of “it’s good enough for now”. The small items of data that contradict the common wisdom are allowed to float out there until the better theory comes along. The layman needs to understand that these contraindications neither disprove exist theory nor do they relentlessly drive new theory. Unlike the development of new technology, new theories are more the child of inspiration rather than perspiration.

    “Now, the data is adjusted to fit the theory.” That has happened before too, and that has always been a bad thing. Look up the history of n-rays (not x-rays) for example. This usually happens when the data is, for a variety of reasons, marginal in quality or quantity, and egos get in the way. Sound familiar?

    BTW, as I have posted before, I am not a denier of human caused global warming. It is just that, given the fact of solar warming due to helium production in the sun’s core, I see it as irrelevant.

  16. Tom D.- It is just that, given the fact of solar warming due to helium production in the sun’s core, I see it as irrelevant. I think we agree. Man’s activity does contribute to global warming like spitting in the ocean actually does cause the level of the sea to rise.

  17. As to solar warming due to helium production, can we say NUCLEAR fusion? Dumb idiot eco wackoes.

  18. Not to worry Paul. We know who you meant. Besides, everyone knows I’m not an eco-whacko. I am a proud right-wing nut. 😉

  19. William P. Walsh wrote “Man’s activity does contribute to global warming like spitting in the ocean actually does cause the level of the sea to rise.”

    Perhaps. I myself can’t say for sure one way or the other. What I do know is that the technology required to save the planet from solar warming requires the infrastructure that creates human global warming, and so eliminating human global warming will not only impoverish billions of people but will also destroy our ability to save the planet in the near term from solar warming. Funny, isn’t it? Also, the cure for solar warming would actually allow us to not worry about CO2 at all. We’d be fine for the next 5 billion years, instead of a few hundred thousand.

  20. Tom D. Of course, my spitting in the ocean remark was hyperbolic. Nonetheless your reference to a “cure for solar warming” is interesting. Is it more than relaxing while increased plant growth converts the excess CO2 into oxygen? Shall we tell Al Gore that the Earth, praise God, is actually in balance after all?

  21. William, the ‘cure’ is to place shades in space between the earth and sun. Optimally the best way is to install a large number of spacecraft (300-1000) at the L1 Lagrangian point between the two bodies. Each would have a large shade or shades which could be rotated to alternately block or pass sunlight. Controllers on earth could then adjust the alignment of individual shades to manipulate the climate. As the sun warms more shades would be rotated to block sunlight.

    Once you can do this then CO2 levels no longer matter. If they rise a bit and the earth warms you just close a few more shades. In fact, an elevated CO2 level could be an advantage during Maunder minimum periods when the sun spots shut off and a “little ice age” sets in for 80 years or so. These apparently happen every 500 years or so, and there are signs that the next one may be only a couple decades away. A Little Ice Age starts? No problem! Turn up the heat, burn some more fossil fuels, and open a few L1 shades.

    The only downsides to these shades are, aside from the cost and the learning curve (“Too cold last year, can you do better?”) is that the solar observatories on earth are hurt a bit. But surprise! Several of the most important solar observatories are already located at L1.

    The biggest problem with the current views on global climate and ecology is that people have the idea that balance and stability are natural states. Nothing could be further from the truth! The climate on earth has never been stable, and never will be, unless we learn how to stabilize it. Letting nature take its course in the long term will fail.

  22. Actually, Paul, I’m not too sure about that idea for a few cost/benefit reasons. Also, the idea usually puts those satellites at geosynchronous orbit. The earth-sun L1 point is over four times farther away than geosynchronous; I’m sure you can imagine the impact that difference has on the microwave losses (inverse square law?)

    Both the solar warming problem and the asteroid threat require that, in the long run, we take over the inner solar system. At some point it becomes more cost effective to move some manufacturing to the moon, which means some nuclear reactors to power the smelters and, well, everything else. Want to go?

  23. “The earth-sun L1 point is over four times farther ” Oops, Meant to write “almost four times”. The moon is 400,000 km, the L1 point is 1,500,000 km away. The poor brain got in to ‘big’ mode and got stuck there.

  24. Bottom line: the common wisdom is really not wise. Hopefully the encyclical will be humble enough to allow us the room to make these arguments. Right now I fully expect to be able to continue to do so.

  25. To Tom D – I did want to go. That was the reason I became a submarine reactor operator – to become a spacecraft reactor operator. I am now 57 and am too old. However, if you have 40+ minutes of viewing time to spare, here is something more educational than reality TV. We did develop nuclear thermal rockets in the 60s and 70s. Because of fear they went nowhere.

  26. sorry guys, dont want to be a spoilsport, but all these science fiction ideas – interesting though they are – will not go anywhere.
    Because there is no time for it. The time is up. Few more decades and that is it. And those few decades? A period of wars, strife, squalor. You get the drift? Jeremiads? Prophet of Doom?well that is what the said in the years leading to 587 BC.

  27. In the old USSR, some Siberian towns received their heating fuel rations based on their reported temperatures. (Y’know; To each according to his need, and all that). After the collapse of the communist system, their winter temps miraculously went up. (Y’know; corrupt bribery and all that)
    If man gained control of the weather, as Tom D suggests, the corruption would be astronomical.

  28. cpola, I think you are right too. Also, perhaps Revelation 8:8 indicates that we will not do the responsible things to protect our fellow human beings on the earth.

    It is not science fiction anymore than, say, building dykes is. But it is a social fiction in this passionately neo-pagan age.

  29. “If man gained control of the weather, as Tom D suggests, the corruption would be astronomical.”

    I don’t necessarily agree, exNOAAman. It would be difficult to manipulate the climate to the benefit of one location and at the expense of another, especially from 1.5 million kilometers away. As long as all power over climate control is not centralized in any single government (or one world government) I don’t see it happening.

  30. Postscript on cpola’s comment: just because cpola may be right doesn’t mean it ought to be so. We should still argue in favor of the proper uses of science and technology, just as we do for democracy, liberty, capitalism, faith, and every other good thing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: