Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
June 17th 2015 print

John McLean

The Pontiff Buys a Bridge

No doubt inspired by the loftiest motives, Pope Francis appears poised to emblazon a document of blithering climate-change nonsense with the authority and endorsement of the Vatican seal. If only he had taken a moment to remind himself of those warnings about false prophets

cross keys smallIt’s more than a bit ironic that in the same week we celebrate the 800th anniversary of  Magna Carta, the document that took away arbitrary rule by a king, the pope should be announcing an arbitrary ruling on climate change. Worse, it seems the only voices Rome has heeded are those of climate alarmists, led by Hans Joachim (John) Schellnhuber, Alarmist-in-Chief of the notoriously alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

You might think Pope Francis would have more sense than to dabble in matters of physical science, given memories of that contretemps with Galileo.  You might also think that the Vatican would know a thing or two about spotting false prophets, not to mention having a keen ear for the bearing of false witness. Yet that wisdom seems to have been forgotten, despite some handy reminders:

…many false prophets shall rise and shall deceive many. – Matthew 24:11

...there will be false teachers among you … Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. — 2 Peter 2:3

Climate alarmists have made so many flawed predictions they seem almost over-qualified to be called false prophets. The latest IPCC report confesses that 111 of 114 climate-model runs predicted greater warming during the 15 years than the subsequent temperature data actually indicates. Indeed, there is no certainty that any warming whatsoever has occurred.

What of the millions of “climate refugees” who, by now, were confidently predicted to be on the march in quest of new, dry homes? What of the predicted sea-level rise, the one whose projected magnitude diminishes with every latest IPCC report? The dishonesty of the false prophets seems not far removed from witnesses lying in court.

Traditionally, bearing false witness involves making false statements about an individual, but the alarmists have extended that definition to include lies by omission.  So very often we have seen alarmists declining to release the data on which their predictions rest. They have also misled by concealing how much they don’t know about the forces acting on climate, what assumptions underpin various claims, and how unreliable their climate models really are.

The Bible tells us that we shall know false prophets by their fruit, in other words by what they produce.  And what climate alarmists have shown to date is an appalling lack of honesty and ethics.

To the credit of their authors, some chapters of IPCC assessment reports do state the situation honestly, but when it comes to the pivotal chapters it can be a very different story, with baseless claims being more the norm than the exception.  The IPCC has no evidence of any substance, its so-called evidence amounts to opinions, a theory and the output of flawed climate models, none of which is worth anything when the data shows otherwise.None of that has stopped its fanciful claims about the magnitude of a supposed human influence and the headline-winning scare stories they pump out on what is very nearly a daily basis.

Popularity and credence are the characteristic goals of false prophets, and it can’t be denied that climate alarmists are popular with the more gullible and ideological sections of the media. Consider, for example, Tim Flannery’s unbroken litany of dud predictions — dams never again filling, floods and fires being symptoms of an overheated planet — and wonder why the ABC and Fairfax newspapers still showcase his nonsense as credible.

Another characteristic of the false prophet is the focus on personal advancement, and here, once again, we see alarmist ranks are replete with those who have built very nice careers out of nothing but hot air. Close behind them come the rent-seekers, building their obscenely subsidised wind farms and the like on foundations of scare stories and faux “facts”.

In choosing to insert his spiritual authority and reputation into climate matters, and in doing so by listening only to one side of the debate, Pope Francis has demonstrated a very serious error of judgment. Perhaps the reason can be found in Matthew 24:24:

…false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect…

Yes, politicians are elected and so, for that matter was Pope Francis.

Rather than lending his papal seal to the cause of charlatans, Francis would have better to take a deep breath and remind himself that honesty and integrity are the greatest virtues. He will find little evidence of those qualities among his new friends, the prelates in the Church of Climate Catastrophe.

John McLean was co-author with Chris de Freitas and Bob Carter of a paper that became the centre of controversy when submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research. Their experience with the censors of science can be read here.

Comments [7]

  1. pgang says:

    This is what happens when Christians allow their intrinsic understanding of total reality to be infected by popular, reductionist secular ideologies. In the Vatican’s case a combination of naturalism and socialism.

  2. Egil says:

    It can be argued that Pope Francis may well just be expanding his business model.
    His church, like other churches/religions/sects, after all rely on
    an unseen, unproven, speculative future scenario of HELL to come unless one sees The Light and signs up to for the good ride.
    So for Pope Francis to join forces with the similarly modelled Church of Climate Catastrophe,
    makes sense both philosophically and from a business angle.

  3. Bill Martin says:

    Pope Francis has been a monumental disappointment right from the start. The first indication of his distorted world view was when he spurned the trappings of his high and exalted office, obviously failing to see the difference between the man and his rank. Then hes’s been constantly attacking capitalism as the source of all evil in the world without any appreciation between pursuing a profitable enterprise and dishonesty. And now he supports the AGW scam. Many of his public utterances indicate that he is a Marxist at heart. It would be interesting to know what was his stance when “Liberation Theology” – which was soon eradicated by John Paul II – was raging in South America. As a Jesuit, he is highly educated, so he must be aware of the falseness of of the climate change fraud. He would also know that the underlaying agenda has nothing to do with the climate, that it is a manufactured excuse for the redistribution of wealth, taking it from the developed nations and transferring it to the third world. That fits perfectly with Marxism!.

    Bill Martin.

  4. Patrick McCauley says:

    Yet … if the Pope is fallible… he cannot be Pope – because he has lost connection to the one true infallible God.

  5. wstarck says:

    Now that projections from all the most advanced computer models and predictions by an overwhelming consensus of experts have failed it appears the alarmists have retreated to the final bastion of infallibility.

    • LAPW says:

      The Church Heirarchy changes tack
      Having plummeted into the self inflicted mire of scandal inherent in the Heirarchy’s conspiratorial and arguably criminal concealment of its extensive priestly paedophile set across the western part of the world, and seeing its credibility and its relevance trashed amongst a great mass of the faithful laity, with church attendances and accompanying financial support dropping dramatically, the Heirarchy now seeks to lift itself from the morass with a sharp and vocal diversion into the politics and science of the climate change debate.

      An old and well proven tactic – change the subject, and go populist – or so it imagines, as its path to recover relevance, and control. And stamp the change of position as being of urgent moral imperative – the next step, one might even go as far as to predict will be at the least to imply its declarations in this arena touch into its ‘papal infallibility’ dogma which it claims for ‘faith and morals’, in order to draw the unaware and naïve into believing it must be so.

      Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, and Copernicus would be delighted to learn that their sad experience is no longer the greatest debacle in the never ending battle between church dogma and science.

      There are several biographies now available on Pope Francis – one I read recently ‘Pope Francis – Untying the Knots’; the Knots referring to quite a bit of baggage he had acquired and which he has to some degree acknowledged as not being too favourable – a poor record of dictatorial management when at a very young age heading the Jesuits in Argentina, allegedly aligning too closely with the fascist regime during the ‘Dirty War’ era (justification – protect the Church at all costs – sound familiar?) when 30000+ people disappeared (some priests and nuns presently in gaol for involvement), suppressing some of his priests working in the impoverished slums (who had liberation theology links) but later acknowledging their motives were validly in support of the Preferential Option for the Poor which he now supports strongly. Worth a read to understand the man as he presents today.

      As to his Climate Change Debate Encyclical – it seems his ears were open only to the alarmists and closed to alternative science based evidence and this suggests he is a man whose mind is locked on this – and perhaps on many other controversial issues of Church dogma too – time will tell.

      As to my personal position – I’m a practising catholic who leans somewhat to the right on some Church issues and a little left on some but I’ve long ago stopped blindly accepting Vatican pronouncements as ‘gospel’; regrettably far too many still do whilst being largely ignorant or apathetic of the substance of issues and follow the party line blindly, as they will with this pronouncement.