Friday, 9 December 2011

The dangers of a new and false "dogma"

Graphic borrowed from "Woody's Place" blog.

What is the new "dogma"? - Anthropogenic global warming. Now we have Cardinals disagreeing with each other over this and, it seems, someone advising the Holy Father to accept it. Few people deny the signs of climate change, but there are quite a few - many scientists included - who deny the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Anyone who wants evidence of the false science which is being pushed down our throats should get hold of a copy of December's "Spectator" in which he/she will find an article by Nils-Axel Morner entitled "Rising Credulity". Morner is described as the former head of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University (1991-2005), president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), leader of the Maldives sea level project (2000-11), chairman of the INTAS project on geomagnetism and climate (1997-2003). His article focuses mainly on the suggestion that the sea level is rising or is likely to rise alarmingly throughout the world. The President of the Maldives has been famously claiming that his country will soon be submerged. Morner's studies dispute this. Not only that, but in the article he explains why such claims are bad science. He has little time for the IPPC. Referring to that body's Fourth Assessment in which sea levels are supposed to have risen over the last few decades and suggesting that satellite evidence backs up their assessment and predictions, he says "Almost every word of this is untrue". It is one of the best articles I have read on the subject of climate change.

There are other, very worrying, aspects to this "new dogma" of anthropogenic global warming. In the event of greater financial control being surrendered to the great banks (some of them being called "federal" or "national" but which have never been anything of the sort), the forthcoming carbon taxes will exert further unconstitutional or undemocratic control over the finances of the general population. There are even likely to be taxes on all products that can be classed as "carbon related" and even a tax on farm animals - and this may be difficult to believe for some although it has already appeared in print as a probability - because of their "emissions".

Further, since the "dogma" that human beings are responsible for what has been claimed as a serious world crisis, there are real dangers that Third World or Developing Countries will suffer as their industries are gradually wound down through lack of serious investment in necessary technology. We also need to face up to the threat of attempted depopulation through further campaigns of contraception and greater availability of abortion (with all the expected propaganda encouraging these things).

There are now some very good books warning of such things and analysis not only of what has happened but suggesting - on hard evidence - what is likely to happen. One of them is Brian Gail's third volume of his trilogy, "Childless". Another I have mentioned before, "The Hope of the Wicked" by Ted Flynn. I am still trying to understand all this myself. It seems, at first glance, to be crackpot stuff, but the research that such writers have done is extensive and impressive. Wherever there are some so-called facts that may be no more than odd conjecture, there are others that look alarmingly genuine. The new orthodoxy of man-made global warming is a scam that will cause much suffering and even if you believe in it, you should do your own research and read both sides of the argument rather than just accepting what some of the biased media empires are telling you.


  1. This may sound simplistic, but once again, in starting to regularly pray the rosary, my whole 'stewardship' role (as given by God) took on a more mature outlook. For example, regarding wasting food and other closer at hand to manage type of resources. Our Lady is a great house and bookkeeper! I can't fathom truth from error regarding scientific stuff, so it is hard to know who to trust. I am fascinated by tsunamis and earthquakes, I used to have nightmares as a child, very vivid scenes of earthly destruction. I can still recall a recurring one, where the moon is so close to the earth, it's almost touching.

    God is ultimately in control, of course. It's His universe, after all.

  2. It is sad when Catholics accept the extremist views of the Right as promulgated in the Spectator rather than the considered statements of the Holy Father. He has clearly pronounced on man's responsibility for climate change and has called for an effective solution at the current talks in Durban. In this he is drawing upon the views of the world's best climate scientists. We have a duty to look after the world which is not ours but has been lent to us by God. In Mrs Thatcher's words "we don't have this world freehold but on a full repairing lease". As one of the few politicians who are also scientists, she saw that human beings were causing Climate Change and that's why she demanded action at the first Rio conference, twenty years ago.

    To believe in man made climate change is not a dogmatic position but one based on the best science there is. Of course there are some few who think otherwise but they are propounding theories that have long been discredited. They expect us to believe that pouring unprecedented amounts of alien gases into the atmosphere is safe. They can't prove it is. Instead they demand that the rest of us prove it is dangerous. What a weird reversal of the normal expectation.

    With the evidence before us, no prudent father would not seek to protect his children just on the say so of a few deniers. That's why the Holy Father has spoken out. If I have to chose between him and the American Coal industry that funds the deniers, I know whose side I'd choose.

  3. Fred, the Spectator did not produce the article but a leading climate scientist. They are not "right wing" views. The number of scientists who disagreed with the prevailing view regarding anthropogenic global warming doubled from 200 to 400. I downloaded the extensive report that was presented to the US Senate last year. Also, the IPPC has been shown on several occasions to be seriously mistaken in its analyses and predictions. These are not right wing views. I have two books arguing against the usual view and both are written by top climate scientists one of who worked not for any industry but for the American government. I could say more but I also want to point out that on this issue the Holy father relies on advisers and it has already become clear from what we know of the Vatican over the last century that some papal advisers get things wrong.

  4. Father, if your brother were catching an airplane and 90% of the expert commentators said it was likely to crash, would you side with the 10% of the doubters or would you advise him to take a later flight?

    If your doubters are right and moving to a low carbon economy is not necessary to stop climate change, if we act unnecessarily to combat climate change then we have cleaned up the atmosphere, reduced air pollution, created millions of green jobs, and reduced our use of scarce resources enough to feed clothe ad shelter the 9 billion people we are going to have in 2030.

    If they are wrong and we haven't acted on the advice of the vast majority of climate scientists then we will have made this world a desperately difficult place for future generations. The risk is all on one side but the money of coal and oil magnates is being poured into campaigns to make people believe it is safe to pollute. No wonder the Holy Father has taken his stand and to belittle his position by quoting two discredited books is like arguing against catholic biblical scholars on the basis of two Protestant theologians.

    The evidence is such that all three political parties have been convinced. The leaders of all the major Christian denominations have called for urgent action. The Chief Scientist, the President of the Royal Society, and the major figures in science in Britain have all highlighted the problem. They may all be wrong but if so there's no harm done. If they are right and we follow you and your deniers, then we have destroyed our children's future. Frankly I'm acting like a prudent parent as His Holiness asks.

  5. Fred, I respect your intentions and I know how you feel. I have not the time or space to go into that, but I was once a convinced environmentalist going back some years. To get an idea of the "other side" I suggest you try reading Brain Gail's books or taking a look at Christopher Booker's book. You talk about money being spent, but you need to know where most of that money will go. Many of the anti-carbon methods will not work anyway, and there have been studies done on that too. If carbon taxes come into play a great deal of that money will not go to governments but to banks. This is not a conspiracy theory, the facts are already available. Not only that, but there are cases of scientists being sidelined or afraid of losing their jobs because they will not tow the party line. You are also making a mistake in assuming that I am against action on climate change. I am not. I am not denying climate change, but I do not believe in anthropogenic global warming theory which says that man produced carbon and CO2 gases are mainly responsible. There is simply no evidence except through computer models. If there is knock-down evidence on this, where is it? As I have said, the IPPC have consistently presented inaccurate figures and bad science. Also, truth is not a number game. The fact is that a great many of those scientists who accept the man-made carbon theory are not climate scientists - this is also well-known. I appreciate your genuine concern, but you are already categorizing me as a "denier" according to your own understanding. it is not helpful to use phrases like "you and your deniers". In fact it is disrespectful. They are not "my" deniers in any sense.

  6. Christopher Booker's book is utterly discredited, page by page and point by point. You ask for the knock down evidence. That is my question to you. We are now putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate which is entirely unprecedented. It is for those who support such an exponential change to prove that it's safe. Their evidence is not only not knock down, it is so unconvincing that, were evidence of a similar quality to be presented to get permission for a new drug, the regulatory authorities would throw it out without delay. Surely, father, you ought, too, to recognise the precautionary principle. Relying on the least accuratebof non-scientists - Christopher Booker - is frankly like offering insights from Renan.

  7. I would be interested to see this demolition of Booker. Where can I read that? I am going to put up another post which may help the debate. The "precautionary principle" does not apply in this case, in my opinion, but even so, as I have said, I am not against action on climate change. Most of the procedures and suggestions put forward will actually not work. This is another aspect of the problem. Watch my next post.

  8. I know very little about this subject, only what I have heard via the media---- but on tv I saw somebody who might be the person you mention-he was very charming and plausible and I think genuine, he was somebody with a title but it's while since I saw it and he was ultimately more or less discredited. But good for him to challenge. Its like the Holocaust deniers if I dare make a comparison,--you simply cannot query the exact number,horrid though it is even if one--- you canot even question it--that is to the exact 6 million--without breaking the Israeli Law--now I need not expect for one minute that the Holy LAND become a subject of discussion HERE but have really studied this, and frankly it answered, more queries about the entire situation . Also I have received copies of the Christian Order magazine which has some very interesting articles.Also Ommerganu passion plays have been messed up for as to toe Bible have said anything said to the Jewish situation is wrong. As I understand it, there are no Jews of the line of the Tribe on Judah around anyway, just European converts, nt blood line, like my Jewish friend who is noy Jewish cos she is C of E anyway and enjoys her pork chops !

    sorry to have meandered somwhat!


  9. Is Booker the man? He was most charming and plausible on the TV programme --I dont mean that in a bad way. It is good that we have people who are courageous enough to take on the Establishment, even from my small world of Calderdale, where mysterious things take place and have to be challenged. It seems to me that once a thing, whatever it is , gets some, probably worthless seal of approval from some weirdy government quango, you are truly going to have a near mission impossible to make your small voice of reason have any effect. I speak from experience, regarding a certain local history project I worked on with much dedication, to the problem of my faith--or to be exact, my Roman Catholicism. I am extremely interested in our history and also the OT AS TO HOW everything turned out as it did in the NT.

    Anyway Father, I don't know if you have read the Chistian Order magazine or if you have what you think of it. I am not academic enough to critique it, but I have enough grey matter to study historical sources though sadly second--third hand--- as I dont speak the lingo.

    I am presently on a WEA course---so presumably not heretical--- about church history--academic.