Sunday, September 27, 2015
The Vatican’s Advisors: An Unholy Alliance with the UN Global Warming Agenda
In the preparation and promotion of its widely touted encyclical, Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home, the Vatican relied on advisors who can only be described as the most extreme elements in the global warming debate. These climate advisors are so far out of the mainstream they even make some of their fellow climate activists cringe. Many of these advisors oppose individual freedom and market economics and stand against traditional family values.
The Vatican and Pope Francis did not allow dissent or alternative perspectives to be heard during the creation and promotion of the encyclical. The Vatican only listened to activist voices within the climate movement.
Even more startling, many of the Vatican’s key climate advisors have promoted policies directly at odds with Catholic doctrine and beliefs. The proceedings of the Vatican climate workshop included activists like Naomi Oreskes, Peter Wadhams, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, and UN advisor Jeffrey Sachs.
Pope Francis’ advisors, and the UN climate agenda he is aligning himself with, are strong supporters of development restrictions, contraceptives, population control, and abortion. Despite these strange bedfellows, the encyclical is clear in condemning abortion, contraception, and population control.
There has been nothing short of an “Unholy Alliance” between the Vatican and promoters of man-made climate fear. The Vatican advisors are a brew of anti-capitalist, pro-population control advocates who allow no dissent and are way out of the mainstream of even the global warming establishment.
Here are profiles of some of the key radical voices with whom the Vatican has associated itself.
* UN Advisor Jeffrey Sachs
Jeffrey Sachs, a special advisor to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, participated in a 2014 Vatican workshop on sustainability as well as in the Vatican summit on climate that took place in April 2015. Sachs was reportedly the author of the Pontifical statement, Climate Change and the Common Good: A Statement of the Problem and the Demand for Transformative Solutions, issued on April 29, 2015.
Sachs, who is also the director of The Earth Institute, believes climate skeptics are responsible for the deaths of people due to alleged man-made, global warming driven, extreme storms. Sachs tweeted on November 10, 2014, that “Climate liars like Rupert Murdoch & the Koch Brothers have more & more blood on their hands as climate disasters claim lives across the world.”
Sachs is such a devoted salesman for UN “solutions” to global warming that he declared: “We’ve got six months to save the world or we’re all doomed.”
Many of Sachs’ views are at odds with Catholic teachings. Catholic activist Liz Yore detailed Sachs’ view on overpopulation.
“At a 2007 international lecture, Sachs claimed that ‘we are bursting at the seams.’ The focus of Sachs’ overpopulation mantra is primarily the continent of Africa. He argues that if only poor African countries would just lower their fertility rate, the world and Africa would thrive economically. This fear mongering is nothing new. Sachs is standing on the shoulders of Paul Ehrlich, architect of the ‘sky is falling’ deception perpetrated in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb.”
Yore concluded: It is “incomprehensible that the Vatican would be duped into thinking that the United Nations and its Millennium and Sustainable Development goals share common solutions for the world’s problems. The Catholic Church welcomes children as a gift from God. The UN Secretary General and Jeffrey Sachs want to limit children.”
In 2009, Sachs addressed the annual conference of the Party of European Socialists. He described the “profound honor” of addressing the far-Left Party of European Socialists and said they were heirs and leaders of the most successful economic and political system in the world — Social Democracy. Social equity, environmental sustainability, and fiscal redistribution are the successful elements in managing a just society, Sachs maintained. This is, he argues, in marked contrast to the U.S., whose taxes are too low and where the poor are ignored.
In 2009, in advance of the Copenhagen UN climate meeting, Sachs called for a carbon levy, claiming that millions were suffering because of drought caused by Western-induced climate change. Sachs has advocated for a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax, a global health fund, a global education fund, and a global climate fund. Sachs’ Earth Institute at Columbia has included members of an external advisory board such as George Soros and Rajendra Pachauri, former UN IPCC chairman. Soros has funded Sachs via his Open Society Institute.
* German climate adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who has called for the “creation of a CO2 budget for every person on the planet,” was appointed a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in June 2015 and was one of the four presenters of Pope Francis’ new encyclical on the environment. Schellnhuber was also a key player at the Vatican climate presentation in 2014.
Schellnhuber is an atheist who believes in “Gaia, but not in God.” In 2015, Schellnhuber boasted about having climate skeptics excluded from participating in drafting the Pope’s climate encyclical. The April 2015 Vatican climate summit in Rome banned a skeptical French scientist from attending because the organizers reportedly “did not want to hear an off note” during the summit.
Schellnhuber is a scientific activist who is mocked even by his fellow warmist colleagues. See: Warmist Ray Bradley trashes prominent warmist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber for “spouting bullsh*t”; Phil Jones says, “We all agree on that.”
At a meeting in Japan in 2004, Scientist Tom Wigley found prominent EU warmist Schellnhuber to be “a bit of a laughing stock among these people.”
Schellnhuber has also declared human society needs to be managed by an elite group of “wise men.” He referred to this idea as his “master plan” for the “great transformation” of global society.
Schellnhuber’s views on population also are at odds with Catholic teachings. Echoing the claims of overpopulation guru Paul Ehrlich, he has claimed that when the Earth reaches nine billion people, which is projected to occur soon, “the Earth will explode” due to resource depletion.
Schellnhuber also berates those who disagree with him, calling his critics “vicious liars” and mocking Americans as “climate illiterate” for being skeptics.
* Naomi Oreskes
Climate historian Naomi Oreskes has been actively involved in helping produce the Papal encyclical. Oreskes wrote the introduction to Pope Francis’ book version of the encyclical.
Oreskes is perhaps best known for her calls for placing restrictions on the freedom of speech of global warming skeptics. Oreskes believes climate skeptics who dissent from the UN/Gore climate alarmist point of view should be prosecuted as mobsters for their tobacco lobbyist style tactics. See: Merchants of Smear: Prosecute Skeptics Like Gangsters?! Warmist Naomi Oreskes likes the idea of having climate ‘deniers’ prosecuted under the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).
Critics of Oreskes fired back that it is Oreskes herself – not the skeptics — who uses the tactics of the tobacco lobby.
As a researcher, Oreskes’ body of work has not fared well among her peers. She has been criticized by warmist and skeptical scientists alike. See: Statistician from the U. of Mass Amherst performs very polite savaging of claims of Naomi Oreskes.
Warmist scientist Tom Wigley wrote that Oreskes’ work is “useless”. Wigley wrote: “Analyses like these by people who don’t know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes’ work.”
Warmist scientist William M. Connolley slammed Oreskes for “silly” and “shoddy” work. Connolley, a former UN IPCC scientist, wrote that he “eventually concluded that Oreskes was hopelessly wrong.” He explained that a high-profile Oreskes “paper seems to have been written around pre-arranged conclusions…it is unlikely that anyone outside the incestuous field of climate history scholarship will notice or care.”
Others have been equally uncharitable in describing Oreskes research. See: Warmist Naomi Oreskes taken down — “consistently misrepresents the meaning of statistical significance and confidence intervals” – “Oreskes, the historian, gets the history wrong”
Oreskes has been undeterred, continually ratcheting up climate alarmism to the point of silliness. See: Forget Polar Bears, cats & dogs to die! Warmist Naomi Oreskes prophesizes the climate deaths of puppies and kittens – Oreskes: “The loss of pet cats and dogs garnered particular attention among wealthy Westerners, but what was anomalous in 2023 soon became the new normal.”
Sadly, Pope Francis is allowing Oreskes, who equates climate change to a “Nazi atomic bomb,’” to write the introduction to the book-form of his encyclical.
More HERE (See the original for links)
On climate change, Pope Francis isn’t listening to the world’s poor
THE global elite has little idea what afflicts the poor, says Pope Francis. He’s right — but that observation sometimes applies to him, too.
In his US visit, the pope is already creating headlines about the urgent need to respond to climate change. Invoking the need to “protect the vulnerable in our world,” he calls for an end to humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels.
This comes after his June declaration that global warming is one of the pre-eminent problems facing the poor. The elite, he said, are out of touch if they don’t realise this: “Many professionals, opinion makers, communications media and centres of power, being located in affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact with their problems.”
But do the world’s poor believe that carbon cuts are a top priority? Since March 2013, the United Nations has sought citizens’ ranking of 16 policy priorities. More than 8 million people have participated, with nearly 3 million living in the least developed nations.
In fact, an education is the top priority for the world’s most disadvantaged, followed by better health care, better job opportunities, an honest and responsive government and affordable, nutritious food.
Both for the entire world and among the worst-off, climate comes 16th out of 16, after 15 other priorities. It’s not even a close race.
Poorly educated women from low-income countries are among the most vulnerable people on Earth, with the weakest voice in global discussions. Their top priorities are, again, health, education and jobs. Action on global warming ranks dead last. And in Africa, global warming also comes behind every other priority.
It’s only among those from the richest nations on Earth that global warming becomes more of a priority.
Even then, it ranks 10th. The world’s poor overwhelmingly say they want better health care and education, more jobs, an honest government and more food.
Pope Francis is right that the global elite often forget what the world’s poorest want. But it’s not action against climate change they clamour for, as he and many other well-meaning people claim.
Faced with this clear rejection, many climate campaigners somewhat patronisingly suggest that the poor don’t know what’s best for them. Warming, they note, worsens many problems afflicting vulnerable people — such as malaria.
Yes, rising temperatures mean malaria mosquitoes can become endemic in more places, possibly increasing infections, so not tackling global warming could worsen malaria.
But this is a blinkered way of looking at the world’s challenges, and leads us to the wrong responses.
Look at it this way: We could make a similar argument about malaria itself. If we don’t tackle it, millions will die — but a lot of other problems become worse, too. Lack of malaria treatment disrupts development, as sick children get fewer nutrients and their schooling suffers. Malaria-endemic societies have lower economic growth rates, so millions will be left in poverty longer.
What’s more, climate-change policies such as the cuts on fossil fuels are a terribly inefficient way to help malaria victims. The Kyoto Protocol’s carbon cuts could save 1,400 malaria deaths for about $258 billion a year.
By contrast, just $716 million spent on direct anti-malaria policies could save 300,000 lives. Each time climate policies can save one person from malaria, smart malaria policies can save more than 77,000 people.
This is true for a wide range of issues. Carbon campaigners are right that climate change could reduce agricultural yields. But helping directly with more research, better crop varieties, more fertilisers and less biofuels will cost much less and do much more good, faster.
The spectre of worse hurricanes is often raised as an argument for cutting CO2. But extreme weather mostly hurts the poor because they’re poor. When a hurricane hits Florida, few people die; a similar hurricane in Honduras or the Philippines can kill thousands and devastate the economy. Helping people out of poverty directly is thousands of times more effective than relying on carbon cuts.
Those who claim to speak for the poor and say that climate change is the world’s top priority are simply wrong. The world has clearly said it is the least important of the 16 priorities the UN focuses on.
And when those campaigners suggest the poor don’t know what’s best for them because carbon cuts will stop global warming from making all other problems worse, they’re wrong again. The poor are typically much better helped directly rather than via climate aid.
This doesn’t mean we should ignore global warming. It’s a real problem, and our advanced civilisation can address multiple problems at the same time. But we need to tackle warming much more smartly, with fewer resources and more impact. And we should truly listen to the world’s poorest, and focus much more on their real priorities.
Silence of the scientists: how the global warming RICO letter backfired
by Thomas Richard
As reported here last week, we exposed how 20 scientists sent a letter to President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, which urged them to jail climate skeptics using provisions in the RICO Act. Today, three more climate scientists have chimed in on the affair at the popular climate site, NoTricksZone, and their responses to the now-infamous global warming RICO letter are both shocking and revealing. wegener
The letter, dated Sept. 1, argued that the "systemic efforts to prevent the public from understanding climate change resembles the investigation undertaken against tobacco" and called for jailing individuals and organizations involved in providing more balanced coverage in the climate change arena. After the letter was outed by both Politico and Climate Depot, a firestorm on both sides of the climate debate quickly erupted. Here is what three climate experts had to say about the silencing of the scientists:
Professor Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech who once argued for the disbandment of the IPCC, shared what she thought of the letter at the websiteNoTricksZone: "I am astonished by the naiveté of these scientists, who are damaging their reputation by their naive meddling in a complex policy debate." Noting that the U.S. would be picking a new president in 2016 and who could very well be Republican, she seemed amazed they didn't "realize that the tables could easily be turned on them if the political winds change."
Not only that, but those political winds would affect the "green advocacy groups and the scientists that engage with them." As a climate scientist, Curry also writes that the "science is sufficiently uncertain to allow several rational narratives for what has caused 20th century warming and how the 21st century climate will evolve." Aside from the damage they are inflicting on their own reputations, they are also damaging the public's "perception of scientists as trustworthy sources of information."
Her biggest concern, though, is that the "coercion of scientists implied by this letter will discourage objectivity in scientific research and will discourage scientists from entering/staying in the field of climate research." She also writes on her blog that what these scientists did with this letter is the "worst kind of irresponsible advocacy, which is to attempt to silence scientists that disagree with you by invoking RICO. It is bad enough that politicians such as Whitehouse and Grijalvi are playing this sort of political game with science and scientists," she says, "but I regard it as highly unethical for scientists to support defeating scientists with whom you disagree by such methods."
Another climate expert, Dr. Sebastian Lüning, considers the whole affair to be unprofessional. He writes that, "Rather than criminal lawsuits, we urgently need an objective 'scientific court' where arguments of both IPCC and skeptic sides are technically and open-mindedly discussed." Dr. Lüning thinks it is "undemocratic and unprofessional to silence scientists by legally threatening them if they do not subscribe to the official interpretation / party line."
He also writes that history is rife with examples where the pioneers in science, "such as Galileo Galilee or Alfred Wegener would have ended up in prison." The former, Galileo, did end up "sentenced to formal imprisonment" during the Inquisition. One day later, his sentence was commuted to house arrest, "where he remained under for the rest of his life."
The latter, Wegener, first advanced the theory of plate tectonics and was ridiculed by the scientific community for not being part of the "consensus" that the oceanic crust was too firm for the continents to move. Other geologists considered him an outsider, and a symposium was "specifically organized in opposition to his theory." As any fifth grader looking at a map of the world will tell you, it's pretty obvious that South America fits quite nicely into Africa, like two puzzle pieces on the same board.
And last but not least, Professor Nicola Scafetta of Duke University provided a succinct comment: "Let us hope that this evident politicization of science ends soon."
Strong evidence that Svensmark's solar-cosmic ray theory of climate is correct
by Magnus Cederlöf
Increasingly respected climate theory that cosmic rays impact global temperatures due to influence on cloud formation is given a real boost thanks to new evidence. svensmark
Swedish climate researcher, Magnus Cederlöf has performed a detailed analysis of climate data relating to cloud formation and found that there is strong correlation in favour of the theory of Henrik Svensmark (pictured). Svensmark is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen.
Magnus Cederlöf reports:
In the comments to my last post, led the signature "Slabadang" me on an interesting track. He claimed that the clouds varied in tune with the solar radiation. If this would be the clouds would have a negative feedback and thus balance the climate. I downloaded the satellite data from CERES to check his data.
Below is how the global cloud cover varies with the global solar radiation. The reason that solar radiation varies over the year is that the Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun. When we in the northern hemisphere has winter, we are therefore closest to the sun. However, it is the angle to the sun which means we have winter.
The global cloud cover and solar radiation variation over the year. The cloud cover is an average of the years 2000 to 2014.
So it is a poor correlation between cloud cover and solar radiation if you look at the Earth as a whole. However piling a completely different picture up if you instead look at the two hemispheres:
For the two hemispheres, there is thus a very good correlation between solar radiation and cloud cover. The reason that you can not see any correlation globally is likely that these variations are so much less that they drown out the noise of the large variations in the hemispheres.
It is thus clear that cloud cover increases when solar radiation increases. Then the sun's rays do not reach the earth's surface and then counteracts the clouds changes. The same must therefore apply to the carbon dioxide effect. When it increases, the clouds that counteract the temperature change. Here we have again an example that there is a negative feedback and not a positive feedback that the whole scare propaganda in climate science based.
Note also that the clouds are much larger in the southern hemisphere than it is in the northern hemisphere. The reason for this is that there are more clouds over the oceans, and there's a lot more sea in the southern hemisphere.
It is thus more clouds in the southern hemisphere, and the temperature is also lower. Looking at 1000hPa level (near surface), the average temperature of the southern hemisphere 14.4C and for the northern hemisphere 16.5C. After millions of years of energy storage in the oceans of the southern hemisphere, then the temperature is still much lower.
One can not interpret it otherwise than that the oceans hold temperature. A major reason for this must be that the clouds in the southern hemisphere allows the sun's rays do not reach the earth's surface.
In the southern hemisphere, the average cloud cover 65.5% and in the northern hemisphere 57.6%, according to CERES-date. If the average solar radiation is 237W / m2 can then southern hemisphere approximately 7.9% of 237W / m2 = 18.7W / m2 less sun than the Northern Hemisphere. Now this is probably a little high counted for even if the cloud cover is 100%, the clouds themselves to radiate towards the Earth's surface.
The difference in temperature between the southern and northern hemisphere is thus 2.1c and the difference in solar is about 18.7W / m2. It allows every Watt / m2, equivalent to about 0.11 degree. A doubling of carbon dioxide levels will provide approximately 3.7W / m2, it therefore corresponds to approximately 0.4 degrees (climate sensitivity).
Now I have probably figured a little low, since the change in insolation probably figured a little high, and there may also be other reasons that the temperature between the hemispheres differ. But it is still very far from the many degrees of climate sensitivity horror forecasts suggest. I have previously calculated the climate sensitivity of about 0.3 degrees by looking at seasonal variations (here).
Scientists Debunk Arctic ‘Death Spiral’ Claims
Current conditions in the Arctic are completely within normal climatic variability, according to peer-reviewed studies. Any ‘meltdown’ linked to climate change is not shown in the scientific evidence. arctic sea ice melt
Western mainstream media has been giving prominence to the claims of a team of global warming alarmist researchers who have alleged the Arctic is showing the first signs of dangerous anthropogenic climate change. Articles have been written outlining "tipping points" in the region that together form a chain reaction leading to apocalyptic consequences.
These alarmists have stated that “Global heating and climate disruption has already forced Arctic sea ice into a new state of 'death spiral' meltdown and it is anticipated to disappear in Summer months within a decade, or even a few short years, many decades ahead of previous estimates.”
They then go on to push an end of the world scenario of “The ALREADY accelerated escape of massive amounts of the powerful, heat trapping greenhouse gas, methane, buried in the frozen permafrost of northern Canada, Siberia and underwater ocean shelves, is of EMERGENCY, 'LIFE OR EXTINCTION'-SCALE CONCERN. (Yes, really!)”
This is the state of the hysteria that is based on global warming starting a chain reaction of positive feedback loops. Peer-reviewed scientific research highlighted below shows that the main drivers of these predictions all fail.
Arctic Sea Ice Variability
Research shows that the Arctic has a long history of temperature swings and of sea ice cover (SIC): “Grumet et al. (2001) used sea salt Na+ fluctuations in a 700-year ice core record from the Penny Ice Cap (southeastern Baffin Island) as a proxy for Spring sea ice concentration and found that there was an apparent near-doubling in [SIC] over the past century,”
Also the East Arctic was ice free and experienced greater warming than at present a few thousand years ago. In a respected research paper titled “Decadal-scale sea ice changes in the Canadian Arctic and their impacts on humans during the past 4,000 years: the authors quote that:
“Our data show that from ~6500 to 2600 BP, there were large oscillations in summer SST from 2–4°C cooler than present to 6°C warmer and SIC ranged from 2 months more sea ice to 4 months more open water. The warmer interval corresponds to the period of pre-Dorset cultures that hunted muskox and caribou. Subsequent marine-based Dorset and Neo-eskimo cultures correspond to progressively cooler intervals with expanded sea ice cover. The warming took ~50–100 years and lasted ~300 years before replacement by colder intervals lasting ~200–500 years"
Another example of an ice free arctic is provided by the historically documents event of the Danes and Scandinavians sailing through the arctic during the Medieval Warm Period in 1122 AD. This is corroborated in an article title “Variations in Climate” by Alexander Beck, ME linked below.
“…it is precisely at this time that we find the Danes and several Scandinavian nations going through the Arctic open seas. Colonies are established by them in the highest northern latitude of Greenland, and the upper part of North America…”
This history of variability in temperature regime and sea ice concentration in the Arctic puts the current warming of areas of the arctic into perspective. It cannot be said that current conditions are unprecedented.
But it is alleged that the planet will now be pushed over a tipping point because of the addition of anthropogenic CO2. The drivers of this scenario are now examined.
Positive Feedback of Melting Permafrost Mitigated
Melting permafrost actually results in peat lands becoming increased sinks for CO2. Active peat lands have been shown to be a net sink for CO2 and therefore any methane released by the melting of the permafrost and their re-invigoration is mitigated. As the permafrost degrades there is an increase in the amount of CO2 taken up by the peat lands which at the same time release some Methane. The overall effect is not one of a huge increase in greenhouse gases as one buffers out or mitigates the others effect on the atmosphere.
Maria Strack explains the net flow of CO2 in detail in the renowned book “Peat lands and climate change”. This free publication states:
“Several studies have documented increased rates of C storage as peat following surface permafrost degradation”. Also on page 13: “Currently peat-lands globally represent a major store of soil carbon, sink for carbon dioxide... “
The authoritative book adds: “Thus in response to permafrost degradation peatlands are likely to become larger sinks for CO2.” (see Page 59).
More HERE (See the original for links)
NOAA: Hurricane Drought Hits Record 119 Months
As of today, no major hurricanes, defined as Category 3 or above, have struck the continental U.S. in a record-breaking 119 months, according to hurricane data kept by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division (HRC) dating back to 1851.
Last year, President Obama warned that hurricanes will become “more common and more devastating” because of climate change.
But Obama is now the longest serving president (since the 1851 start of NOAA's data) not to see a major hurricane strike the U.S. during his time in office. He is also the first president since Benjamin Harris was in office 122 years ago to have no major hurricane strike during his term.
The last major hurricane to make landfall on the U.S. mainland was Hurricane Wilma, which came ashore on October 24, 2005.
That year was one of the most active hurricane seasons in recorded history, according to NOAA.
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma all wreaked havoc on the U.S. during an intense two-month period between August 29 and October 24 of 2005.
However, during the nearly 10 years since Wilma struck the U.S., no major hurricanes have made landfall and none are expected by the end of the current hurricane season.
According to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, major hurricanes classified as Category 3 or above have sustained wind speeds of more than 111 miles per hour and are capable of causing “devastating” or “catastrophic” damage.
The previous record was an eight-year span during the 1860's in which no major hurricanes struck the U.S.
The current hurricane drought is “a rare event” that is “unprecedented in the historical record,” according to Timothy Hall, a hurricane researcher at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Hall also said there is only a 39 percent chance that the current hurricane drought will end next year.
Researchers at the Centre for Marine Sciences at the University of the West Indies traced hurricane activity over the past 1,000 years by studying sediment deposits in Jamaica’s Grape Tree Pond, which gets very little precipitation outside of hurricane season.
“Our results corroborate evidence for the increasing trend of hurricane activity during the Industrial Era; however, we show that contemporary activity has not exceeded the range of natural climate variability exhibited during the last millennium,” according to a paper published August 5 in Nature.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here
Posted by JR at 12:36 AM