The comments by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See’s observer at the United Nations on global climate change got a lot of attention in the press and blogosphere.
The archbishop threw the Vatican’s weight behind the climate change “consensus”, including that “the scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable.”
The only problem is that “evidence” is a lie because it is based on the lies in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s false reports. As I blogged in March, Orson Scott Card debunked this report as myth at length.
Here’s a story you haven’t heard, and you should have.
An intelligence source, working for [the IPCC]. He’s not a spy, he’s an analyst. He uses computers to crunch numbers and at the end of his work, out pops the truth that was hiding in the original data. Let’s call him “Mann.”
The trouble with Mann is, he has an ideology. He knows what he wants his results to be. And the original numbers aren’t giving him that data. So the agency he works for won’t be able to persuade people to fight the war he wants to fight.
Well, that’s not acceptable.
[…]The Hockey Stick Hoax should be a scandal as big as the discovery of the Piltdown Man Hoax. Bigger, really, since so much more is at stake.
But because the media are dominated by True Believers, they are doing everything they can to maintain the hoax, to keep the public from learning the truth.
[…]All this can be checked. I didn’t even change the names. “Mann” is Michael Mann; his co-writers on that hockey stick report are Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. “Steve” is Stephen McIntyre, and the writer of the report I’m working from is Ross McKitrick, who is a climate scientist. Their report is a chapter in Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by Patrick J. Michaels.
It’s sad to see Archbishop Migliore being taken in by the falsehoods of the IPCC. It’s sad that in a time when we have to be wary of an ecumenism that verges on irenicism and syncretism, that the Vatican’s top diplomat the international body appears to have conceded as true the teachings of the fundamentalist modern pseudo-science religion of “climate change.”
Technorati Tags: climate change | global warming | hoax | IPCC | United Nations |
Listening to Vatican Radio they also have many Global Warming related stories that have zero skepticism in them. It is just taken for granted and that is the general attitude in Europe.
It’s not only the experts on the IPCC who say that recent global warming has a significant human cause, it is the scientific establishment, including the following national science academies:
Royal Society (UK)
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
(French) Académie des Sciences
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
(US) National Academy of Sciences
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742
The following learned societies concur with the IPCC
American Meteorological Society
(US) National Research Council
American Geophysical Union
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on_Climate_Change
The only sceptical learned society I could find was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Surely a conspiracy to get more funding would stress the uncertainties in order to suggest funding for more research.
All concurring with the same lies found in the IPCC report. Consensus does not make something fact, especially if the consensus is based on bad evidence.
I guess I don’t see anything persuasive enough in this analysis to go so far as to label some data as “lies.” I know for certain that the Vatican’s position on climate change has been consistent since 1997, well before the IPCC documents (there are currently four) came out. Even Pope John Paul II took for granted that humans affect global warming, so I suppose he bought into other “lies.”
The Holy See’s Position on Climate Change
John Paul II on the link between humans and global warming
Would you submit that John Paul II, like Migliore, has bought into “pseudo-science” produced by other bodies besides the IPCC (e.g. Pontifical Academy for Sciences)? Why is your analysis so ideological rather than scientific? Is the data in front of you “better” than what the Vatican has been looking at for the better part of a decade?
There is no reliable data. That’s the point. There is only the “consensus” that’s been bandied about since the 1970s when it wasn’t global warming but global cooling that was the big danger.
If there was actual data to prove that human beings are causing global warming by reversible actions then we wouldn’t need “consensus” because there would be proof. They also wouldn’t need to falsify data.
Pope John Paul II was not a scientist of the physical sciences. He had to rely on others to tell him what they knew. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to put the Pope’s opinion on this above any other.
For a summary of the scientific data by the UK Met Office see
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/index.html
Especially Natural factors cannot explain recent warming http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/index.html
Recent warming can be simulated when man-made factors are included http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide28.pdf
Climate is a multi-causal system, where models have to be used. A model is a quantified hypothesis which can be tested against observations. The proposition that natural factors alone explain recent climate changes is falsified by the above models and observations.
If climate models can be made to produce any desired result, then all a sceptical scientist need do is produce an alternative model to show that natural causes alone explain recent climate changes. If this has been done I would like to know.
And if the UK Met Office study you cite is based on the same falsified data in the IPCC report?
According to the IPCC website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.
The fabrication would have to be of the data in the papers published by the peer-reviewed journals. This would require an international conspiracy by those who do the research, an international conspiracy by those who peer-review, and an international conspiracy by leading members of the scientific establishment listed above who are capable of evaluating the evidence.
Too many conspiracy theories for me.
You have apparently not read Card’s analysis, in which case I have nothing more to say to you because it would be pointless until you do.
Card is a novelist—he writes fiction for a living.
You readily dismiss John Paul II’s opinion, which is based upon the research of the 80 in-resident scientists at the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, on the grounds that he is not a “scientist of the physical sciences.” Yet, you dogmatically embrace the analysis of a novelist (who likewise is no “scientist of the physical sciences”), even going so far as to tell Leo that it is pointless to discuss the issue with him until he reads this analysis. The novelist trumps the Pontifical Academy and IPCC. You don’t find anything irrational about any of this?
Card is not just a novleist, he is also a journalist. And he is not doing science, but reporting the debunking of IPCC report done by actual scientists and mathematicians.
Which you would know if you’d bothered to read the column I linked instead of questioning my rationality.
And he is not doing science, but reporting the debunking of IPCC report done by actual scientists and mathematicians.
Ah, so he is merely “reporting.” See, at first you told us Card was giving us an “analysis.” So which is it? If he is merely reporting, why does he not provide us with the scientific data on which such a report would be based? It seems to me that Card is doing what you originally said: analyzing. And if his is not a scientific analysis, then what sort of analysis is it? Well, the article is fairly clear…it is an ideological analysis that uses science and mathematical models as ideological ammunition. And ideological analyses, for all their fun, do not touch on the real science. Again, using Card for a post that is attempting to discuss climate change in a rational fashion is plainly absurd. My suggestion to you, Domenico, is to get your hands on the data reports rather than relying on the distillation process that passes for journalism these days.
Michael: Look we’re obviously not going to agree. You don’t know what I have or have not seen because it wasn’t the point of my post to be exhaustive in that regard.
It seems to me that if I disagree on pretty much any sbject with any bishop who happens to work for the Vatican, even on matters of prudential judgment, you’re going to defend him no matter what, so we’re not going to ever agree in these situations.
There many outright inaccuracies in Card’s article. The main one being the allegation that Michael Mann faked the data in his 1999 paper which shows that the earth’s temperature is the highest it has been for the last 1,000 years – the ‘hockey stick’. Card is in a minority of GW sceptics who still deny that the earth is warming.
Card claims that Mann’s faked results are the primary premise upon which the entire Anthropogenic Climate Change case is based. It is not.
Surface temperature has been directly measured by instruments for only about the last 150 years, and have to be inferred by ‘proxies’ for earlier periods, this is the reason for the 1860 baseline not some conspiracy. The instrumental readings show a general warming.
One of the ways that scientific fraud and poor methodology is detected is by an inability to reproduce the results. But there have been about a dozen studies using both similar and different methods which overall confirm the general conclusion of Mann’s original work, even though there are differences in detail. http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg
Even D’Arrigo’s 2006 study, which excludes the disputed bristlecone data, shows warming.
New Scientist Magazine Climate Change a guide for the perplexed http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462
Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646
The US National Academy of Sciences http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html report to Congress on Mann’s results did criticise some of his methods but found his conclusions reasonable. Who should I trust to evaluate Mann – a SF writer or the National Academy of Sciences?
McIntyre and McKitrick’s work seems to leave much to be desired http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
Even if Mann’s findings are excluded the primary premise of the AGW claim has not been refuted as other studies have confirmed his conclusions.