James Delingpole

In being suckered into climate alarmism, the Pope risks backing policies that hurt the world's poor

I thought he’d just been lobbied heavily. Now it’s starting to look worse than that

20 June 2015

9:00 AM

20 June 2015

9:00 AM

In his latest encyclical Pope Francis will apparently describe global warming as a ‘major threat to life on the planet’. If the leaked reports are accurate, his Holiness is absolutely right. Here are some examples of the havoc ‘global warming’ has wrought in the past decade:

Honduras:US-backed security forces implicated in the killing of more than 100 peasant farmers involved in disputes with palm-oil magnates.

Kenya: Teenage boy shot in February this year while protesting against a ‘wind park’ in Nyandarua.

Mt Elgon National Park, Uganda: According to a newspaper report, more than 50 locals killed by park rangers and 6,000 evicted to make space for a ‘carbon offset’ plantation.

Britain: According to a report in the Independent, as many as 15,000 people may have died unnecessarily last winter because they could not afford to heat their homes.

Even allowing for media exaggeration, every year around the world thousands are dying, and many hundreds of thousands (especially in the developing world) being immiserated, because of ‘global warming’.

But what appears not to have occurred to the Pope is that it’s not ‘global warming’ itself that is responsible. Rather it’s the measures adopted to ‘combat’ it: from green taxes forcing the vulnerable into fuel poverty to renewable energy and carbon-offset and palm-oil projects helping to drive up food prices, lay waste to the world’s virgin forests and disenfranchise those native peoples whom this crusading, progressive pontiff has hitherto professed to place at the heart of his ministry.


This is worrying, for papal encyclicals are a serious business. They comprise letters sent out by the Pope to his bishops, usually in order to clarify his personal credo on Catholic doctrine. Pope Francis’s predecessor Benedict XVI, for example, issued three: one on Faith, one on Hope and one on Charity. And while they may have flirted with hand–wringing leftiness, they were unfailingly erudite (ranging from Virgil to Nietzsche), judicious, cautious and ultimately apolitical. Not so this bombshell, which — if it comes out as predicted — simply couldn’t be more contentious, more loaded or more thoroughly irresponsible. The familiar phrasing — ‘consistent scientific consensus’, ‘numerous scientific studies’, ‘above all due to human activity’, ‘urgent and compelling’ need for policies that reduce carbon emissions and ‘replace fossil fuels’ — suggests that Pope Francis has swallowed every last dubious assertion of a corrupt, self-serving global climate-alarmist establishment that looks less and less like the disinterested guardian of empirical truth and more and more like science’s answer to Fifa.

If this encyclical were some dodgy thesis tossed off for an environmental studies PhD at the University of East Anglia, it wouldn’t be such a problem. But it’s what his flock of 1.2 billion now ‘officially’ believes; and it’s what their more greenie-lefty priests will be assiduously promoting every Mass from now on, with endless bidding prayers invoking ‘sustainability’, ‘future generations’ and the need to ‘combat climate change’ through ‘renewable energy’ and ‘fossil fuel divestment’. For the more sceptical, old-school Catholic who stubbornly prefers God to Gaia, Sundays are about to get very tedious indeed.

Why would the Pope do such a thing? The charitable explanation is that he has simply been got at by the powerful and persuasive lobby that decided it needed a bit of religious heavy firepower in the run-up to the latest (still almost inevitably doomed) UN climate conference in Paris this December. That was my assumption when I reported on Ban-Ki Moon’s visit to the Holy See last month: ‘UN parks its tanks on Vatican’s lawn.’

But I now suspect it might be worse than that. The Pope has an advanced diploma in chemistry (from the University of Buenos Aires), which has led environmentalists to crow that he must know whereof he speaks. In my experience, though, this often means the opposite. Quite the most aggressively ignorant figures on climate change — such as the Royal Society’s Nobel prize-winning president Sir Paul Nurse — come from strong scientific backgrounds. Too readily do they trust the integrity of their colleagues in the Lysenkoite field of global warming; too arrogantly do they assume that this is a matter only trained scientists can comprehend — which blinds them to the social, economic and political ramifications and encourages them to make pronouncements well above their actual knowledge base.

Add to this the fact that this particular Pope has a regrettable tendency, in his public conversations, to shoot from the hip. Perhaps he feels he is being spontaneous and real — the people’s Pope. But the fallout can be disastrous — as it was, for example, when he suggested that the Islamist massacre of the Charlie Hebdo journalists was a bit like the punch you’d give to someone who’d insulted your mother.

You can get away with sort of thing when you’re a right-on South American cardinal. When you’re Pope, though, it’s different. You have responsibilities not just to your flock but also to the ongoing existence of your religion. A religion, let’s not forget, which has survived and thrived for centuries not by embracing whatever groovy cause happens to be flavour of the month but, on the contrary, by sticking to the high religious principles which are what make it distinct from the secular world. As the Church of England has already discovered, lose that distinctness and you lose your congregations. Is the Mother Church on the verge of committing the same cardinal sin?

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • bufo75

    When Sir John Houghton was allowed to preach in Great Malvern Priory on “Christianity and Global Warming” I knew that the church of MY forefathers was doomed.
    We were told – “you listen, ‘e very ‘oly man !”
    The antics of the Reverend Oilwelwelby has left me in no doubt.
    It seems that the Catholic Church is now in the hands of the same Eco-zealots.

    • balance_and_reason

      COE 17% of population and falling…smell the congregation money…its got to be the noo rligon.

  • Jean de Valette

    So, so absolutely right in every respect.
    I rate most of your work highly JD but this piece truly hits the nail on the head.
    Well done.

  • Observer1951

    I have a PhD in chemistry and have read very widely on climate change and the science behind it. Here’s my conclusions. Yes the Earth’s temperature has increased by around 0.8 degC since 1880. Human activity does contribute to temp. Increase but the science is still so poorly understood that there is no basis to say that global warming is primarily a anthropogenic driven event. The temp. Records have been highly corrupted. There is no good evidence for the storage of heat energy in the deep oceans. Climate modelling is very poor and should not be used to assess future temp. Increases. The climate sensitivity factor is poorly understood but appears to be more likely to be s low number than a high number ie more likely to be 1 to 2 degC than 4 to 6 degC. Finally scientific sceptics are not climate change deniers, climate has changed always will. What we scientist sceptics are are people who carry out science as its meant to be, we look at data, we build theories and we challenge everything!

    • Ingenjören

      And I have a degree in physics, yet I understand that climate science is better left to actual climate scientists and not commenters who have no knowledge about the actual science of climate change but proclaim wild theories based on blog posts from random conspiracist blogs.

      • Observer1951

        I actually read the papers people publish. The basis of climate change is structured within chemical physics. If you feel unable to critique the scientific claims behind climate change that’s your decision, it’s not mine. Bye the way there are no climate scientists there are physicists, chemists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists etc. what part of my comments do you think are wrong?

        • Graham Thompson

          According to the above, if you have a ‘strong scientific background’ then you’re probably ‘aggressively ignorant’ on climate change.

          • Observer1951

            What a strange reply? So what comments I have made do you disagree with? Stick to facts not ad hominem

          • Graham Thompson

            OK, this bit is wrong (all of it) –

            “the science is still so poorly understood that there is no basis to say that global warming is primarily a anthropogenic driven event. The temp. Records have been highly corrupted. There is no good evidence for the storage of heat energy in the deep oceans. Climate modelling is very poor and should not be used to assess future temp. Increases. The climate sensitivity factor is poorly understood but appears to be more likely to be s low number than a high number ie more likely to be 1 to 2 degC than 4 to 6 degC. Finally scientific sceptics are not climate change deniers”

          • Observer1951

            Pathetic, no attempt to address any of the science. Tell me what the latest data says on the climate sensitivity factor and it’s possible ranges. I doubt if you understand the question

          • Graham Thompson

            There are papers claiming it’s likely to be towards the high end of the IPCC range, and papers claiming that it’s likely to be at the low end of the IPCC range.

            I’m happy to accept both as contributions to our understanding. You, on the other hand, accept the ones that fit with your prejudices and reject the ones that don’t.

            It’s probably that approach which has led you to be so consistently wrong on this issue.

          • Observer1951

            The claims to high sensitivity are based on the long tailing effect observed in the data. Recent simulations have clearly demonstrated that the highest proportion of the temperature range is liable to be in the lower temperature range with the long tailing effect significantly reduced. i don’t accept data without reading papers and making a judgement. What do you do believe the hockey stick and Mann?
            Time to call an to this discussion have to get back to work

          • Soosoos

            “What do you do believe the hockey stick and Mann?”

            This has nothing to do with climate sensitivity! It’s purely a temperature reconstruction [and one that is robust].

            Dear oh dear: you’re really not convincing me with your claim that you read primary scientific literature.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Strange, but there have been about a dozen “scientific” reports into “scientific” controversies in climate change, such as the Hockey Stick, most of which never get discussed.
            Even more strangely, when they are discussed, they are all claimed to scientifically support man made global warming.
            But the strangest thing of all is that if you actually bother to read them (they are not full of impregnable equations, but verbal assessments, and the shortest is only about half a dozen pages long) they all come to the same conclusions.
            Despite the fact that they come from bodies which have benefitted from the “scientists” carbon tax funded man made global warming grants, or at least have supported the theory, and would be embarrassed for it to be proved a steaming pile of bovine excreta
            They all say they, on the evidence they have actually bothered to look at (ie not all the evidence) they couldn’t find any hard proof (even though it might have suggested so) that the “scientists” deliberately (but it might have been accidental result) tried to con the public and defraud the scientific establishment.
            Worse, what most, if not all, go on to say is that Climate “Science” is actually very hard statistics and, oops, the Climate “Scientists” don’t appear to have a sound enough grasp of it to do a proper analysis.
            And maybe next time they should get someone in who actually knows what they are doing.
            Rather than accidentally confusing the public, and the scientific establishment, with a load of bovine excreta!

          • Soosoos

            “most of which never get discussed.”

            Perhaps it’s because none of these mysterious reports seriously challenges anthropogenic climate change…?

          • Mr B J Mann

            You really should read posts before you reply to them!

            None of them, despite assertions from the man made global warming believers, supports, seriously or otherwise, anthropogenic climate change.

            The fact that they don’t challenge it either is irrelevant.

            They don’t, despite the man made global warming believers claims, have anything to say about it, which is strange considering who produced them.

            But, as I’ve already pointed out, what they DO do is point out that the global warming “scientists” haven’t got a clue when it comes to analysing THEIR OWN “statistics”.

            Which are the whole basis of climate “science”!

          • Soosoos

            “They don’t, despite the man made global warming believers claims, have anything to say about it, which is strange considering who produced them.”

            I have no idea what you’re going on about.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yup, comprehension doesn’t seem to be your strong point!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Is that the one where they try to do a temperature reconstruction from ancient tree ring proxies (which don’t actually tell you what the temperature is), which they have tried to correlate the variations in growth rings between different trees, hoping they guessed right, but swear blind they tell you what the temperature has been to a scientific accuracy for several millennia.

            But then, ooops, claim that modern trees, cut down at a known date, so that you can accurately count back the years, can’t give you accurate figures for modern temperatures because, errrm, they don’t show global warming.

            And so they have to switch from tree rings they can actually accurately date for a change, and replace their non global warming confirming proxy data for “actual” temperature which actually do show global warming.

            When they’ve been “corrected” by the global warming “scientists”.

            But, surely, if there is global warming.

            And the actual modern temperature readings are right.

            And tree rings are an accurate proxy.

            THEN THE MOST RECENT, AND MOST RELIABLE, TREE RING PROXIES SHOULD GIVE THE SAME RESULTS AS THE TEMPERATURE READINGS.

            *SO* *WHY* **DON’T** *THEY* ?!?!?!?!?!?

            Or does “robust” mean something different to climate “scientists” and the global warming believers?!?!

          • Soosoos

            You’re alluding to divergence which affects a subset of proxies, and which has been heavily discussed in the scientific literature.
            I don’t think any scientist would ‘swear blind’ that they are accurate throughout history, but they are the best information we have.
            If you can prepare a coherent, plausible and independent alternative to reconstruct temperatures on a millennial timescale I’m sure climate scientists would be more than grateful!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:

            YOU are alluding to divergence which affects a subset of proxies, and which has been heavily discussed in the scientific literature.

            Which climate “scientists” would ‘swear blind’ are accurate throughout history.

            But suddenly become inaccurate when we can actually accurately date them.

            At which point we are expected to ignore the fact they indicate no global warming, even though we are expected to accept as gospel ancient ones from pre-history which we can’t date accurately.

            And accept in their stead “corrected” temperature readings.

            The originals of which not only do the climate “scientists” refuse to divulge.

            But which they secretly conspire to destroy if there is any chance of them getting into the public domain.

            But you feel free to believe them!

          • Soosoos

            “Which climate “scientists” would ‘swear blind’ are accurate throughout history.”

            This is obviously not true. There have been multiple papers on the exact subject you’re alluding to.

            Like this:

            Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes Briffa et al. (1998)

            So please tell me: how does this translate into scientists ‘swearing blind’ that proxies are accurate throughout history? It obviously doesn’t. Any other fictions you’d like to invent?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Can you not read?!?!!?

            Or did you simply not bother reading what you posted?!?!?!

            Or is it that you do not understand the difference between now and history?!?!?!?!?!

            Just reading the title of the link you provided tells us that the paper referred to is probably trying to explain why climate “scientists” think we should believe proxy data from hundreds and even thousands of years ago.

            But shouldn’t believe the current proxy record.

            That doesn’t show global warming!!!!!!!!!!

            I can’t wait for your next conclusive link:

            Reduced sensitivity of recent thermometer readings to temperature at high northern latitudes

            O. K. Boffo, F. U. Schweinhunt, et al. (2016)

            Nose-ring chronologies that represent annual changes in the density of wood formed in the skull cavities of man made global warming believers provide a proxy for local hot air temperature. Here we undertake an examination of large-regional-scale wood-density/discussion-temperature relationships using measurements from hundreds of shills at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. When averaged over large areas of northern America and Eurasia, nose-ring density series display a strong coherence with debate temperature measurements averaged over the same areas, demonstrating the ability of this poxy political cult to portray mean policy changes over sub-continents and even the whole Northern Hemisphere. During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in school leaver and graduate density and summer debate temperatures have increasingly diverged as the public’s density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of pupil and student density to “educational” changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in MMGW climatic reconstructions, past IPCC claims could be overestimated. Moreover, the recent reduction in the response of still thinking voters to hysteria-temperature changes would mean that estimates of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, based on carbon-cycle models that are uniformly sensitive to high-latitude warnings, could be too high.

          • Go easy. There is a difference between sounding out the letters and comprehending what the the resulting words would mean if you connected the sounds together, which too many denialists have not yet fully comprehended.

            Reading denialists claims, I am frequently reminded of Monty Python’s brilliant bookshop sketch (OMPQOTD).

          • Ambientereal

            If you don´t know it already (I strongly suspect you do) I´m telling it to you now. O……1951 is a FAKE scientist.

          • Paul A

            It is strange, but I think he has read Delingpole’s article and you haven’t.

    • Soosoos

      Unscientific nonsense: it looks suspiciously like you have read climate change denial blogs rather than actual peer-reviewed papers.

      • Observer1951

        Read my post I don’t deny climate change, that would be nonsense. What I say is that the science of a non-linear chaotic climate system is too complex to make definitive statements that say the increase in mean global temperatures is everwhelmingly driven by anthropopogenic produced carbon dioxide. I am sure humans do make some contribution I just don’t think the scientific data justifies the primary anthropogenic proposal. I do note that no one here talks about the science

        • Soosoos

          “the science is still so poorly understood that there is no basis to say that global warming is primarily a anthropogenic driven event”

          “The temp. Records have been highly corrupted”

          “There is no good evidence for the storage of heat energy in the deep oceans.”

          “Climate modelling is very poor and should not be used to assess future temp. Increases.”

          These statements aren’t from someone who has read the literature and understands the science. They’re from someone who gets their ‘science’ from climate change denial blogs.

          • global city

            you’ve really been at the koolaid.

          • Moa

            You get your position from the eco-Marxist blogs that are denying the observations, that the temperature rise has been since the end of the Little Ice Age and has *nothing* to do with human activity.

            In fact, if you can follow the advanced mathematics why don’t you look at this lecture from the guy who literally wrote the (post-graduate) textbook on climate atmosphere physics and hear his explanation for what we observe:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc

            Then go an look at the ice cover data for the Arctic and Antarctic.

            It is the alarmists who have to deny the existences of the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods (you know, those vikings who called it ‘Greenland’ because it was *warmer* back then), and the Little Ice Age from which we are still emerging.

            Yes, CO2 plays its part, but it is a diminishing non-linear effect. Go and look at what CO2 does in the lab – because at the moment it is YOU who denies the observations and the science, all in favor of badly flawed iterative computer simulations of a chaotic system.

            Climate Alarmists are Flat Earthers who have to deny history and the satellite observations while clinging to the biases that some unethical researches have been injecting into **estimated*** surface measurements.

          • Soosoos

            “the temperature rise has been since the end of the Little Ice Age and has *nothing* to do with human activity.”

            Peer-reviewed science says something quite different. I wonder why that is?

            Tell me: if modern warming is recovery from the Little Ice Age, how do you propose to explain how since a) the LIA was not a coherent global cooling event (PAGES 2K) http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

            and b) this supposed ‘recovery’ from something that didn’t really exist has anyway overshot so spectacularly that it is now warmer than for 1400 years?

            “you know, those vikings who called it ‘Greenland’ because it was *warmer* back then”

            Dear oh dear. I suggest you read Eiríks saga rauða, the Saga of Erik the Red. Maybe this is ‘eco-Marxist’, like Nature and other premier scientific journals?

            In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, “Because,” said he, “men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.

            Well done on being so uninformed and in such spectacular fashion!

          • Mr B J Mann

            >>”Tell me: if modern warming is recovery from the Little Ice Age, how do you propose to explain how since a) the LIA was not a coherent global cooling event”

            Maybe it’s like this:

            Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at low and southern latitudes Deffo et al. (1998)

            Oh, and if rising CO2 causes rising temperatures (even though the rise in temperatures preceeds the rise in CO2), how come temperatures always FALL as the CO2 continues to RISE?!?!?!

            And please don’t come back with any “models” or even “theories”.

            Provide PROOF of what, historically, and pre-historically, kick started previous global warmings, and what kick-started previous global coolings in the absence of 4x4s.

            Otherwise you HAVE to assume it’s the same thing causing it now.

            Or you’re not a scientist!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrmmmmmmmmmm

            That only explains why he didn’t call it Eiriksland or Newfoundland, or New Norseland.

            If you actually had a counter argument you would have presented it.

            As you haven’t then your post was just like Eiriks:

            Marketing BS!

            Or pr0paganda, as it’s sometimes called.

            Or “L!es”!

          • Moa

            Yes, there was variation (that’s the whole damn point, yet you fail to grok this), but from your Science article:

            but all reconstructions show ****generally*** cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880

            and b) this supposed ‘recovery’ from something that didn’t really exist has anyway overshot so spectacularly that it is now warmer than for 1400 years?

            Stop denying the Little Ice Age. It was a *general* effect, with some regional variation.

            It certainly existed in the West where the surface temperature measurements are being conducted.

            STOP. DENYING. REALITY.

            It was warmer eight decades years ago. Then then Arctic really did melt and the US was a Dustbowl. And the drought in the Continental US was far worse than seen today (with California’s deliberate water mismanagement directing the Colorado to the sea).

            “you know, those vikings who called it ‘Greenland’ because it was *warmer* back then”

            So you are saying the Vikings were unable to farm back then? and that Britain was not suitable for viticulture and viniculture back then?

            And much before that Britain was warm enough 700,000 years ago that hippopotamus roamed as far north as Leeds.

            Well done on being so uninformed and in such spectacular fashion!

            Several ice sheets in Antarctica are melting at a rate of 84 gigatonnes per year. Given that Antarctica has approximately 26,400,000 gigatonnes of snow and ice please calculate the time for Antarctica to melt down. Note that the time taken is longer than historical melt times, that is, Antarctica is melting *slower* that has been observed in the past when transitioning from Ice Age to Interglacial – the melt rate is not unprecedented. And life survived. (nb: I’m not saying we are transitioning from an Ice Age, in case you are confused by this – just that vastly higher melt rates did not kill us).

            So you see, you haven’t even done basic calculations to check for reasonableness. Instead you have simply parroted the dominant eco-Marxist scare memes (which are saturating you from all directions).

            Well done on being so uninformed and in such spectacular fashion!

            Physician heal thyself !

            The sky is not falling Henny Penny. There is no need for immediate Marxist wealth distribution to “heal the planet”. All the computer models have utterly failed and the ‘end of snow’ bs has been destroyed by reality.

            So stop being so arrogant and start THINKING for you own damn self.

          • The Bad Reverend

            The generally cold conditions between 1580 and 1880 occured as a result of the previous 5000 years of natural and gentle cooling. http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png Globally, the 1930s were no where near as warm as today and the arctic certainly did not melt! That is pure fiction. https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/walsh.jpg You are talking of regional variations; of the US only. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
            Britain has 600 industrial vineyards today compared to just 40 during the medieval period (as recorded by the Domesday Book).
            Nobody is predicting that the entire Antarctic ice sheet will melt in the near future! The fact that it is melting together with the Greenland ice sheets at a rate of 500 cubic kilometres each year, ( http://www.dw.com/en/greenland-ice-melting-at-record-speed/a-17869513 ) does contribute to sea level rises. This will cause an expensive and massive headache for many include the U.S Navy who will have to relocate their Norfolk base. https://www.americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Military-Basing-and-Climate-Change.pdf
            The observed global temperatures are withing the margins of error as projected by all the computer models, (to say otherwise is, again pure fiction), http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2015a.png

      • alleagra

        If you’re going to shout ‘nonsense’, at least provide some kind of reason for us to believe that you have a point if not an argument. Your comment is mere name-calling. Let’s hear your view on the currently published estimates of climate sensitivity, for instance.

        • Soosoos

          “Let’s hear your view on the currently published estimates of climate sensitivity, for instance.”

          How there hasn’t been a dramatic shift in estimates, despite efforts to spin some recent papers by certain unreliable sources?

    • WarriorPrincess111111

      I am a Physicist. My son is a Professor of Chemistry. He claims that there is Global Warming and it does have severe detrimental effects.
      I undertook a thesis on climate for one of my degrees. Since back in the beginning of time there was no hypothetical electronic modelling – I relied on World Geography – how countries were formed, how gulf streams were created, the oceans history and movements, World History – settlements, social movement, etc., World Archaeology, buildings, people’s diets, migration, Biology – early plants, animal life and food chains. Ship’s logs, dendrology, Volcanoes, Earthquakes etc., etc., – in fact, every possible factor that may be caused by or have an affect on the World Climate. My studies were exhaustive and very detailed.
      The result – the weather changes are no different now to what has occurred in the past. The Earth experiences various random changes in climate and it has since the beginning of time. No human endeavour on Earth can affect Climate! But it is a great excuse to increase taxes!

      • Graham Thompson

        So you did climate modelling without the proper kit, and therefore your climate modelling is more reliable?

        I think you should listen to your son.

        • balance_and_reason

          a chemist…methinks you give bad advice

        • Caractacus

          You do realise that computer models of climate are, by their very nature, wrong.

          No of course you don’t.

          • evenminded

            Of course all models of reality are “wrong”. That does not mean that they are unable to provide useful information or insights.

          • Tom M

            The phrase “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. springs to mind.

          • evenminded

            “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Asimov

          • Mr B J Mann

            Not to mention a little garbage in = a lot of garbage out!

          • Soosoos

            “You do realise that computer models of climate are, by their very nature, wrong.”

            That does not mean that they don’t show skill, i.e. they are superior to no model at all.

          • Mnestheus

            Computer models of climate are as unsophisticated as the programs that run the silicon foundries libtards once touted as future sources of ‘microprocessors’ that would magically enable ‘home computers ‘ to deliver comments to a so called “internet.’ which proved to be the greatest hoax since global warming , witness how Caractacus had to send his slave to the Spectator office with the wax tablet bearing the comment preceeding this.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So not even an assertion then.
            Just ridicule.
            So no argument.

      • Soosoos

        If you’re a physicist and your son is a professor, then you’ll understand the need for independent verification of your [bold] claims, seeing as they directly contradict the overwhelming body of scientific literature (and, indeed, the laws of physics).

        If your studies really are as exhaustive and detailed as you claim, then they’ll survive peer review in an appropriate scientific journal, correct?

        I look forward to seeing you publish your disproof of anthropogenic climate change.

        *cough*

        • balance_and_reason

          laws of physics…methinks you are a trifle over the mark there.

          • Soosoos

            WarriorPrincess111111 claims that “no human endeavour on Earth can affect Climate!”

            That definitely breaks a some laws of physics.

        • Tom M

          Ahh!! peer reviews.
          “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community…..I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events which led to the IPCC report….if the IPCC is incapable of following it’s most basic procedures it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process.”
          Quote: Professor Frederick Seitz when discusssing peer-reviwed “evidence” submitted by the IPCC.

          • Soosoos

            Chuckle: this is the typical argument of someone faced with an overwhelming scientific consensus.

            We see exactly the same from creationists.

            Frederick Seitz, dead for more than 7 years now, and previously a shill for the tobacco industry, for whom scientific evidence and peer review were evidently also awkward.

            He published one paper on climate change. In 1991.

            Really: is this the best appeal to authority that you can muster?

          • Tom M

            “…dead now for more than seven years”. Does that make his point any less valid? (Remember he made the point immediately after the publication of the IPCC climate report and he was a very respected scientist after all).
            “…a shill for the tobacco industry…” Clearly can’t be trusted then. It is as well to recognise that there are many who are “shills” for the green industry as well.
            “…publishes one paper….” So? There are many more who corrupt the “published paper” route and “create” published reports as I pointed out when I quoted the Climate Change editor’s activities (to which you did not reply).
            Anybody who has read both sides of the climate argument cannot conclude anything other than a complete lack of integrity in the whole process and doubt anything that derives from these bodies (especially when politicians drive the argument).
            The current level of untruths or just plain lies in climate science, if associated with any other branch of science, would rightly render it a laughing stock.

          • Soosoos

            Seitz was never a respected scientist.

            Any chance of that disappeared with his shilling for the tobacco industry (do some research). More importantly, he published a single paper on climate science, in 1991. He obviously didn’t have much expertise.

            Why can’t you cite some actual, active scientists with real expertise? Is it because the vast, vast majority agree that AGW is happening?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Shilling for big baccy, eh?!?!

            What about shilling for Big C?!?!?

            Cancer Fraud Case Stuns Research … – Oxford Journals
            http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/6/374.full

            Peer review and fraud : Article : Nature
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/full/444971b.html

            Breast Cancer Research 2010, 12 … and detecting fraud. …
            http://www.breast-cancer-research.com/content/12/S4/S13

            Mayo Clinic Finds Massive Fraud in Cancer Researchhttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/15/mayo-clinic-finds-massive-fraud-in-cancer-research.aspx

            What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994041/

            “But is it peer reviewed?” – Fraud and Science
            http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=22052

            Science Journal Pulls 60 Papers in Peer-Review Fraud
            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/science/science-journal-pulls-60-papers-in-peer-review-fraud.html

            Cancer Fraud Case Stuns Research Community
            http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/6/374.extract?cited-by=yes&legid=jnci;98/6/374

          • Tom M

            Thanks, saved me from digging it up again.

          • Tom M

            My thanks to Mr BJ Mann below who has taken the time (and saved me the bother) of presenting you with further evidence of the complete lack of integrity in the peer review process in particular and climate science in general. (and I’m still waiting to here from you about the editor of Climate Change.)

      • Robert

        Your thesis should be in the uni library so a call number and address for requesting an interlibrary loan?

    • Andy Bowdler

      So, those who suggest that climate change is an important issue with at last some anthropogenic causes, which needs to be addressed, are charlatans? Many of them are highly-respected and well-known scientists who ‘carry out science as its meant to be , who look at data, build theories and challenge everything’.

    • Dan

      Here’s my conclusions. Yes the Earth’s temperature has increased by around 0.8 degC since 1880.

      The temp. Records have been highly corrupted.

      Please then explain how you get from your conclusion to your second statement. 😉

    • wudyermucuss

      Heretic!
      Heretic!

  • scott_east_anglia

    Climate change in the past impacted developing human civilisations – in particular by affecting the food supply. In warm periods, when there was a glut, civilisations thrived and blossomed as in the medieval warm period when our cathedrals were created.

    Cold periods led to hardship and destruction as in the Dark Ages. People grabbed what they could from neighbours to survive. Empires such as the Roman empire perished when a warm period ended. It was the Roman Empire that spawned the church of which the present pope is the head.

    What is certain beyond any doubt is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the climate. The IPCC’s ‘science’ was actually an unprovable fairy story based of faked up mathematics, so empirical evidence to support it was never a possibility, and none has ever been found.

    The field was abandoned by mainstream science about ten years ago, which is why there has been nothing new – not even refinements – from that camp for a long time. Then they were caught out fiddling the books to keep the show, and the money, on the road.

    The anti-west political movement underpinning the continued momentum of the ‘CAGW due to CO2’ scam has been reduced to spouting fallacies – especially the argument from authority. Suckering the pope into it is a coup for the UN, with the added bonus (from the viewpoint of the west’s enemies) of discrediting the head of one of the world’s major religions.

    In more recent times a slight warming occurred as the world recovered from the LIA a couple of centuries back. It was helped by Asian cloud pollution which saturated at the end of the last century (the only MMGW on record).

    Ominously, however, that warming has stalled as the sun’s magnetic field weakens again, and we could be on the cusp between the last LIA and a new one, this century.

    Making a fool of leading world figures isn’t going to affect the climate a jot.

    • Ingenjören

      “What is certain beyond any doubt is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the climate.”

      Except for the theoretical underpinnings and the data that is.

      • scott_east_anglia

        There is a computed sensitivity of around 1 degree per doubling of CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere. But it doesn’t happen in reality. If it is there then negative feedback must reduce it to insignificance. So much for theory.

        Data on their own say nothing about their causes, correlation is not the same as causation, and since computers only deliver what they are programmed to, citing their output as real evidence is only a dishonest circular argument. The IPCC has nothing else.

        So far no-one has produced any real (empirical) evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate. If you can then you will be the first ever, and the IPCC would be very interested (and relieved). They couldn’t find any which is why there is none in any of their publications.

        Do you have any such real evidence?

        • Mr Mojo

          “Do you have any such real evidence?”
          Yes. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

          • scott_east_anglia

            Groan. Not this again.

            Surface energy balance is not the same thing as climate, which is not addressed. Your submission therefore does not provide any empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the climate.

            We know there is CO2 in the atmosphere and that radiation from an extremely cold sky arrives at the Earth’s surface, where it achieves nothing, because net heat transfer cannot occur from a cooler to a warmer body.

          • salt_peter

            We have a very low quality of trolls today.

            One cannot even understand that a computed sensitivity that does not appear in practice is consistent with the non-existence of empirical evicdence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate.

            Disappointing.

          • scott_east_anglia

            This ad-hom rubbish is what passes for rational debate in the troll world.

            They are unable to offer any empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of the earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration have ever affected the climate, because the IPCC never found any.

            It’s just not there in the propaganda web sites no matter how hard they try to pretend it is. Maybe they just cannot believe that they have been spoofed by the hoax.

            All they do is recycle all the energy budget and discredited computer model stuff of yesteryear.

            It’s all old hat, because mainstream science recognised the hypothesis was a dud and ditched the field over a decade ago.

            Nothing new has appeared since.

          • balance_and_reason

            Just follow the money…how many governments are paying handsome livelihoods to climate deniers?….none, or very limited…how many dollars are being handed out round the globe to ‘experts’ to pontificate and measure stuff..( and the experts are then becoming even more expert and handing each other professorships and such)….mucho dinero….the result is a foregone conclusion.

          • Mr Mojo

            Wrong. The energy radiated toward the surface cannot “achieve nothing” as energy cannot simply disappear. It is absorbed by the surface and therefore reduces the net heat transfer from the warmer surface. This reduction in cooling, given that the heat source (sun) remains constant, causes warming.
            Pretty basis stuff this.

          • salt_peter

            Right.

            The submitted ‘evidence’ did not provide any empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the climate.

            Regardless of the wittering that you pasted from the propaganda web sites, that is remains the case. There is no empirical evidence. Nada, Zilch. Period.

          • Mr Mojo

            Pure denial.
            The Nature paper has empirical evidence that as a result of increased levels of co2 there is increased levels of down welling radiation. The most basic laws of physics say this can only result in warming. The warming has been empirically measured.

          • salt_peter

            “The warming has been empirically measured.”

            Pure denial.

          • Soosoos

            “Pure denial.”

            Now you’re just being stupid.

            There are multiple independent datasets that show unequivocal warming of the planet’s surface, atmosphere, and oceans.

            Science denial doesn’t get any more extreme than claiming we can’t even measure temperature.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Are these the “independent” datasets that their gatekeepers in the MMGW clique emailed each other about destroying if there was any danger of them falling into the public domain?!?!?!

          • balance_and_reason

            down welling radiation….back to science school me lad.

          • Soosoos

            “There is no empirical evidence.”

            Rofl: Mr Mojo cited one such paper above! http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Climate change denialists make me laugh: they’ll happily proclaim that there’s no scientific evidence regardless of what you offer.

            It’s such an intellectually impoverished world that they force themselves to live in.

          • balance_and_reason

            yes but water vapour is much more prevalent than co2 and you can hardly ban that can you?

          • Soosoos

            Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing. That’s not just a semantic distinction, it has extremely important implications for the attribution of climate change.

            It’s a condensing greenhouse gas with a lifetime of just a few days: its very existence in the atmosphere depends on the GHG scaffold from non-condensing (and therefore long-lived) GHGs. Like CO2.

            By arguing that water vapour is a more potent GHG than CO2 (and quantitatively it is), you’re actually arguing that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are extremely significant. Control CO2 and you control water vapour, too.

            Here’s a great paper that explains this in more detail:

            Lacis et al. (2013) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la06400p.html

          • balance_and_reason

            No i’m not…and its residence in the atmosphere is due to solar warmth acting on water bodies and evaporating water. The more heat, the more evaporation. So if the sun is nearer to earth or has an expansion phase in its radiation we get more vapour.

          • Soosoos

            If you remove all atmospheric CO2, water vapour content would collapse by ~90% (snowball Earth).

        • Paul A

          That didn’t take long. Your statement –

          “There is a computed sensitivity of around 1 degree per doubling of CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere.”

          directly contradicts your previous statement

          “What is certain beyond any doubt is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the climate.”

        • The Bad Reverend

          Actually the IPCC has measured all the known forcings. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigSPM-5.jpg
          Since 1950 nobody has found any natural forcing which could account for the observed global warming http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigSPM-3.jpg
          As one can see from this graph, the natural and internal variability contributions to the post 1950 warming are zero.
          http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigTS-10.jpg

          • salt_peter

            So no empirical evidence, as usual (look it up). Don’t bother any further with the IPCC – they haven’t any.

            We haven’t had the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy for a long time. It quite takes you back.

      • WFB56

        Not the data, the forecasts.

        Both the inputs and the models have been proven to be comprehensively wrong.

  • SuffolkBoy
  • Graham Thompson

    “Quite the most aggressively ignorant figures on climate change — such as
    the Royal Society’s Nobel prize-winning president Sir Paul Nurse — come
    from strong scientific backgrounds.”

    Weird that, isn’t it?

    One might almost think…. nah, let’s stick with the conspiracy theory.

    • David Glen

      Evolutionary science, vaccination, men on the moon, the denial of the efficaciousness of homeopathy – all correlated with the scientifically literate, therefore likely bunkem.

      • Hermine Funkington-Rumpelstilz

        What, homœopathy doesn’t work? Let’s rename it ‘integrated medicine’ then. Problem solved.

        • John Thomas

          Hermine F-R: It’s already called “Complimentary Medicine”, didn’t you know?

          • συκοφάντης

            Complementary, old sport.

    • henna_immonen

      ✻☃☄✺THE SITE PROVIDE BEST JOBS…@mk2

      ⚩☄☄☄☞ https://www.NetCash Here/internet.c0m

      ◆◇✔◆◇✔◆◇✔◆◇✔◆✔◇✔◇✔◆◇✔◆✔✔◆

    • wudyermucuss

      The multi billion dollar carbon trading/green industry is not a conspiracy theory.

      • Gilbert White

        Not according to a very rich Al Gore and his housemaid.

    • Perseus Slade

      Modelling is not science.
      Crystal ball needed.
      When they can predict the weather next week…

      • Graham Thompson

        sigh

        I do not know whether tomorrow will be warmer or cooler than today.

        I do know for certain that in eight months time it will be cooler than today.

        See how that works?

        That’s the differnce between climate and weather.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Brilliant!

          You know that in our climate the weather is warmer in the summer and colder in the winter.

          Unfortunately, the MMGW scientists told us that the climate would change to the weather being hotter in the summer than the weather used to be.

          But it wasn’t.

          They said the weather would be dryer under the new climate than the dryess of the old climate.

          But the climate didn’t change like that.

          They said that with the change in the climate would lead to it being warmer in certain altitudes and latitudes than under the unchanged climate.

          But they proved to be wrong again.

          Then they said that under the climate changes the weather would change to more wetness and more dryness and more hotness and more coldness and less of them too.

          AND THEY *STILL* GOT IT WRONG.

          SEE HOW *T_H_A_T* WORKS ? ! ? ! ? ! !

          Yet more MMGW B S !

          The CLIMATE is the TYPICAL WEATHER!

          *T_H_ A_ T_S* “the differnce between climate and weather”!

          They tell us how the typical weather is going to change.

          AND THEY GET IT *W_R_O_N_G* *E_V_E_R_Y* *T_I_M_E* ! ! !

    • St Ignatius

      So, here’s a thought. Let’s say there is going to be a major warming of the Earth. So what? A bit of catastrophe did the Earth no harm in the past. Why would you care?

      • Graham Thompson

        Because I live there.

        • St Ignatius

          So your personal comfort is your overriding concern. I don’t see that as compelling grounds for anyone else caring. You’ll have to do better than that. This is the problem: the science might be “settled” but it’s not clear why anyone should be bothered about the consequences.

          • Graham Thompson

            I wouldn’t necessarily expect anyone who didn’t live on Earth to care – just the local residents.

            I guess it’s a NIMBY thing.

          • St Ignatius

            6 billion people all with competing interests, and you are just one of them: your view is far too simplistic. In reality, AGW could be a great thing and one could argue it should be encouraged. But strangely, supposedly impartial scientists only give us one side of the argument. How does that work?

          • Graham Thompson

            Not only that, but how much did you hear about the positive impacts of ebola, or the Nepal earthquake?

            Scientists are part of a global conspiracy to try to smear catastrophes as being ‘a bad thing’.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrmmmmmm, but we wouldn’t be better off with Ebola.

            We could, or even would, be better off with more CO2 and more warmth.

            CO2 is plant food, and more CO2 (and, generally, more warmth) means lots more food.

            Also, global cooling would be much worse than global warming, in fact global cooling would be devastating whilst only the, discredited, worst case scenarios, of global warming MIGHT cause a problem.

            Worse, even if there is MMGW, and even if it is at the worst end, we don’t know if we can do anything about it, and would be better off investing resources in surviving it rather than wasting them trying to stop it.

            But the other side of the coin is that if there is MMGW it might be the only thing protecting us from global cooling, so if we “fixed” MMGW it could destroy us!

            And not even the argument that cutting CO2 will save the planet from pollution even if there isn’t MMGW doesn’t hold water.

            The MMGW fanatics insist that CO2 is such a major problem that we throw everything at it.

            That means, eg, we use up all our resources on carbon
            capture, leaving none to reduce or clean up real pollution.

            It also means we switch to new technologies like solar power, wind turbines (with rare earth magnets) and batteries which could lead to vastly more, and vastly worse pollution than from coal, oil, gas and nuclear.

            Worse as they are supposedly so important (and relatively expensive) “we” will accept corner and cost cutting to get “renewables” on stream, making the pollution problem even worse.

            This is why it is not just stupid, but suicidal, to listen to the “science” of the politically motivated MMGW “scientists” and their acolytes:

            They don’t understand their own “science”.

            They don’t understand the economics.

            They don’t understand the politics.

            They don’t understand the consequences.

            They don’t understand the risks.

            They don’t understand the dangers………

          • St Ignatius

            Good effort but you are trying too hard there. If you think that the consequences of AGW are that clear cut you certainly are not a scientist. Even diseases like Ebola in the long term, on evolutionary scales, probably benefit mankind. In any case a dispassionate scientist has no business deciding in advance what is a “catastrophe” – that’s emotive and loaded language in the realm of politics.

          • Graham Thompson

            Yes, who started using that emotive and loaded term, ‘catastrophe’?

            Hmm, let me think. Oh yes, it was you, here –

            “A bit of catastrophe did the Earth no harm in the past.”

            I don’t really have to try at all, do I?

          • St Ignatius

            Okay so if I had put it in inverted commas it would have helped you understand better? Nah, you just thought you’d found an easy way out of answering the question. Let me make it simple for you: is there a benefit to AGW?

          • Graham Thompson

            No, I’m sorry, I’m far too intimidated by your laser-like intellect to risk any further humiliation.

            Cheerio Stig.

          • St Ignatius

            Ah there we go, a wee insult and evading the question. Brilliant! You just proved you had no answer because it doesn’t fit your prejudice. Being clever is about getting quickly to the answer, not hiding behind obfuscation. At least in my field – physics – it is.

          • St Ignatius

            PS your sophistry does you no credit. You know fine well I could use the word because I’m not bound to your claims. If it was a catastrophe for me, it would imply I had some special view of mankind. Which I do. However as a claim that AGW should be stopped, an empirical scientist has no business using such rhetoric. But then you knew that of course.

  • Gilbert White

    We know all the Science that is the easy bit. The Climate Change lobby however like the devil has all the best tunes and corporate sponsors. How can one realistically fight this?

  • James

    How does the author look at himself in the mirror knowing that the educated, rational thinkers of the world dismiss his name and reputation as being worthless?

  • “… it’s what his flock of 1.2 billion now ‘officially’ believes”

    No, it is not. Not even unofficially. It is merely what the Pope believes.

    “… it’s what their more greenie-lefty priests will be assiduously promoting every Mass from now on…”

    Well, most priests won’t and are under no obligation to do so.

    “… endless bidding prayers invoking ‘sustainability’, ‘future generations’ and the need to ‘combat climate change’”

    Nah. There won’t be. (Try going to Mass and listening to the bidding prayers. You may be pleasantly surprised at how uncontentiously charitable they are.)

    This encyclical is Pope Francis’s personal opinion and nothing more, notwithstanding that he thinks it important enough to write about. He may be right. He may be wrong, even grossly wrong, as I happen to think he is. Either way, this document is binding on no-one.

    Incidentally, Popes only very rarely make ‘infallible’ declarations (Pope John XXIII and Benedict XVI, like most of their predecessors, made none) and may only do soon on a vanishingly small number of qualifying topics. ‘Global warming’ does not qualify.

    Everyone agrees in principle that humanity has a duty to be good stewards of the earth but deciding how we go about that in practice is a political (and not even a scientific) matter open to political dispute. Popes can opine but not define.

  • fubarroso

    Sky Pixie believer also believes in Warble Gloaming shocker!

  • balance_and_reason

    Yes, just for a minute imagine the feeding of the 3 billion without the benefit of those petro sourced fertilizers…erk

  • rtj1211

    Perhaps you and your like-minded brethren should invoke that market solution of seeking spiritual guidance elsewhere?

    Not sure Islam would be your cuppa, but the CoE run by an ex oil executive?

  • polistra24

    No surprise. The simple fact is that all centralized Western institutions have gone over to Satan in all possible ways. Everything they do is explicitly and comprehensively planned to squash and starve the poor and enrich the rich. The “climate change” scam starves the poor; Free Trade and globalism starve the poor; and the war against culture and police squashes the poor.

    Poor people need industrial jobs, a firm unconfused culture, strong police, and fossil fuels. Aristocrats don’t need any of those things.

    Centralized institutions are working AMAZINGLY hard to remove everything poor people need, leaving only the aristocrats on The Planet.

  • Shorne

    Simple question, why are so many apparent right wingers climate change deniers?

    • jeffersonian

      I don’t accept the premise of your loaded question.

      • Shorne

        Then I can only assume you don’t read newspapers, watch television or read books.

    • Mc

      It could have something to do with the fact that conservative (small C) voters don’t like it when governments blow vaste amounts of debt-financed public money on an issue which is distant (in terms of people’s life expectancy) and whose impact is by definition unknown (being an event in the future).

      Conservatives are also skeptical about governments’ ability to deliver. Conservatives have also observed that when the Left becomes hysterical about an issue, the issue is almost always overhyped and involves coercing the majority of voters (forcing people to pay higher energy bills and taxes) in the absence of a referendum on the issue.

    • Mr B J Mann

      Maybe because the left wingers have a monopoly on guilt-inducing, wishy-washy, bleedin-heart, do-gooding, immature, infantile, irrational, hysterical, emotional-blackmailing shroud-waving?!?!?

      • Shorne

        Ah the usual calm, reasoned, thoughtful reactionary response. As you think doing good is wrong presumably you are in favour of doing bad?

        • Mr B J Mann

          Ah the usual calm, reasoned, thoughtful “progressive” response.

          Makes a change from evil, planet-destroying, child k!lling “Denier” I suppose?!

          As YOU think ad hominem attacks on stated facts ISN’T wrong presumably YOU are in favour of doing bad!

          • Shorne

            More of the same, and random capital letters as well, dear me.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Well spotted that I’d commenced my reply in the same vein as yours.

            Pity you then failed to spot that the capital letters were very carefully positioned.

            Perhaps when you grow up, and maybe even mature, you’ll be able to progress to reading posts and responding to the points raised.

            I wouldn’t bet on it though!

          • Shorne

            OK tell us the basis of your detailed,empirical, peer reviewed research that entitles you to deny climate change. I prefer to go with the large scientific consensus that has used such research to conclude that it is real, it probably won’t affect me, or perhaps you but I am concerned for my grandchildren. You have been taken in by, or are a paid shill, for this,
            “Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economics policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions, and has been described as the “denial machine”. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks.’ People like you exhibit the psychological defence mechanism of denialism defined as
            ‘ the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial. In this way you seek to avoid cognitive dissonance.

          • Mr B J Mann

            It’s probably exactly the” same detailed,empirical, peer reviewed research” that you believe entitles you to deny climate change sceptics.

            Except that I look at it critically.

            Elsewhere on this thread I’ve posted a lot of links demonstrating that
            the whole peer review process has fallen into disrepute.

            And yet one of the sceptic deniers favourite tricks is to knock non peer reviewed “denier” science for being published on the net, in full, complete with all data, for anyone and everyone to review, rather than in “peer” reviewed journals.

            That’s especially ironic given the revelations in the Climategate emails that the man-made global warming supporting clique of
            climate “scientists” mutually reviewed each others work, and bullied journal editors into not giving their work to sceptics to review, not publishing sceptics’ papers, not publishing sceptics’ comments on their pro MMGW “science” papers, and where they had got to the editors too late, and they had already published sceptic papers or letters, bullied the editors into always giving them or their mates the final say in “scientific” debates.

            Then there’s the programme code comments and notes also revealed in Climategate in which the pro MMGW “scientists” admitted their models weren’t working, didn’t work, couldn’t work.

            And the admissions in the emails that they were planning to destroy all the data on which their “research” was based if there was any danger of it becoming public.

            Not to mention all their claims that its the hottest since 18whatever or the driest since 17whenever.

            ie that they are always admitting that it was actually hotter, or whatever, long before 4x4s!

            And don’t forget all those “independent” reports into MMGW science scandals which their supporters claim prove MMGW.

            When non of them even exonerate the scientists.

            What all the reports actually say is that their schools or departments or universities, or institutes, or their scientific bodies that had been backing their claims, or the governments that had been using their claims to justify tax hikes:

            On the evidence THEY HAD LOOKED AT they HADN’T SEEN any CONCLUSIVE proof that the MMGW scientists had DELIBERATELY TRIED to DEFRAUD the public or the scientific community.

            More importantly, they went on to say that MMGW “science” is mainly very very complicated statistical analysis, and that the MMGW “scientists” were not up to the required standards to do the analyses, it wasn’t their fault they kept making major mistakes, and maybe next time they should get someone in that actually knew what they were doing to do the analyses!

            By the way, quoting some sociological mumbo-jumbo which applies even more to the MMGW cult undermines your position even further!

          • Shorne

            The Koch brothers have donated $79048951 (£50271681.56) to climate change denial groups since 1997.
            In November 2009, anonymous hackers illegally obtained and disseminated thousands of personal emails from climate scientists housed on the server of the University of East Anglia. The emails spanned 13 years of correspondence and a handful of selected emails were taken out of context by a number of climate-denier organizations. These organizations, many part of the Koch Web, claim the emails prove a “conspiracy” of scientists and cast doubt on the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.
            This incident, dubbed “ClimateGate” by climate-denier groups, has been distorted and repeated many times by conservative media and blogs since late November 2009. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

            A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading. But of course the deniers are saying what you want to hear so you believe them.
            It’s psychological by the way not sociological
            Still can’t resist those capitals can you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            The only noteworthy thing about your Kbro assertion is that it pales into insignificance against
            MMGW funding.

            Strangely I can only recall ONE Climategate email being used as “evidence”, and not very convincing evidence at that, by the senders themselves, and their followers, of the emails supposedly being taken out of context.

            And I have demolished their “arguments” already on this thread

            And obviously nothing in the emails affects “our” understanding:

            The climate “scientists” haven’t got a clue.

            And the Climategate emails confirmed they haven’t got a clue.

            Oh, and unless it’s one I haven’t read, the report(s) have confirmed that they don’t have a cle.

            As I’ve already outlined.

            By the way, have you ever read a scientific report, or any kind of one?

            It’s been many decades sinct computers were limited to one single sized font.

            And even long before the invention of printing scribes used formatting to emphasise text.

            If you feel the need cast aspersions about my emphasising certain words as your only chance to win the argument, then that is surely psych0logical (not to mention s0ciopathic).

          • Shorne

            The Koch brothers have donated $79048951 (£50271681.56) to climate change denial groups since 1997.
            In November 2009, anonymous hackers illegally obtained and disseminated thousands of personal emails from climate scientists housed on the server of the University of East Anglia. The emails spanned 13 years of correspondence and a handful of selected emails were taken out of context by a number of climate-denier organizations. These organizations, many part of the Koch Web, claim the emails prove a “conspiracy” of scientists and cast doubt on the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.
            This incident, dubbed “ClimateGate” by climate-denier groups, has been distorted and repeated many times by conservative media and blogs since late November 2009. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
            A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading. But of course the deniers are saying what you want to hear so you believe them. In the end for the deniers lobby this is all about money, the Koch brothers don’t want to lose any and people like you don’t want to pay so-called green taxes and s*d the planet
            It’s psychological by the way not sociological
            Still can’t resist those capitals can you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I’ve answered most of this in my reply to your post of your(?) original version.

            Notwithstanding I’ve already covered all the same points already earlier in the thread.

            As for your pathetic and ridiculous point about funding, it might have carried a microscopically small amount of weight if all those “scientists” and their acolytes who sw3ar bl!nd that “the science is settled” told governments to stop wasting money funding further research as it’s settled science.

            Told governments to stop funding international IPCC jollies as it’s settled science.

            And reinstate the slashed funding for coastal protection, flood defences and dredging.

            As for s*d the planet, have you ever considered what the harm to the planet would be if you were wrong?

            For example, cutting CO2 does NOT (EMPHASISED for the hard of thinking) help the planet.

            It cuts plant food.

            Which cuts carnivore food.

            Not to mention right-on veggies food.

            But if, say, you’re cutting it with very expensive carbon capture:

            You’ve no money left to clean up real pollution.

            If you’re doing it by introducing highly inefficient “green” alternatives made with highly toxic and polluting raw materials, not only have you fewer resources to clean up real pollution:

            You are producing lots more real pollution!

            Now THAT’S “psych0logical”!

          • Shorne

            Yes you have been taken in haven’t you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            By reading the actual reports of the actual scientific bodies that actually investigated the actual claims of the actual MMHW “scientists”?!?!

            As opposed to you being taken in by the claims of the MMHW “scientists”, especially their claims about those reports which you clearly haven’t read.

          • Shorne

            For those who you agree with it’s ‘actual’ for those you don’t it’s ‘claims’.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrrrrrrmmm, no:

            1) MMGW “scientists” make claims.

            2) “Deniers” make counter claims.

            3) MMGW “scientists” academic institutions and professional bodies which have benefitted from their fame and carbon tax funded grants and government bodies who have benefited from the carbon taxes and all of whom have supported their claims and would be embarrassed if they turned out to be frauds hold enquiries into allegations and report that on the evidence they bothered to look at they didn’t find any conclusive proof of deliberate fraud.

            Just that they couldn’t do the math.

            4) People like you claim the enquiries (by experts in the field) proved MMGW.

            5) People like me actually read the actual reports.

            6) And find that people like you are trying to c0n us too.

            Not really complicated, is it.

            And I’ve explained several times now.

            So what’s you agenda as?!?!

          • Shorne

            “So what’s you agenda as?!?!”
            It seems you are getting overexcited if your syntax is anything to go by. If I understand your question this sums up my understanding of the issue
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrrrm, you seem to have posted the wrong link.

            Or, more likely, being the closed-m!need, pr3jud!ced b!g0t that you are, you, yet again didn’t bother to read what I’ve been posting.

            And just submitted some more of your usual carp!

            Don’t bother wasting any more of my time cutting and pasting your pr0paganda!

          • Shorne

            Ah can’t handle the truth…weird ‘house style’ as well.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Explanation of why you refuse to read other people’s contributions but insist on “replying” to them with random, unrelated, comments and links acknowledged and accepted.

            Unfortunately your problem seems to affect all your fellow believers.

            You all have my sympathy.

          • Shorne

            OK lets see you refute the 176 responses from ‘Skeptical Science’ and do try and be comprehensible.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Why should I try to refute any of them?
            I have made a point repeatedly that you have repeatedly refused to address, possibly because you haven’t even bothered to read it.
            And which, incidentally, shoots any “response” you care to come up with out of the water.
            Whatever it might be.
            Which might suggest you have actually read it at least once.
            And daren’t address it because you know you would just be shooting yourself in the foot.
            And admitting there is no case for MMGW.
            Regardless of whether you can come up with 176, or 175 million, “responses”!
            So stop wasting my time with your silly attempts at spreading pr0paganda.

          • Shorne

            So you can’t then, I rather thought so. This shows that basically all you can do is bluster.

          • Mr B J Mann

            No, it shows that believers in MMGW like yourself can’t reason and can’t even read.

            Or at least dare not read.

            Can I suggest you go back and actually read what I’ve been posting rather than continually sh00ting yourself in the foot and making an fool of yourself.

            Then you could try reading the supposed MMGW supporting enquiry reports I’ve been referring to which effectively (in both senses of the word) shoot down what you think are such clever myth busters.

          • Shorne

            I have read what you said then I read the log list of refutations by people who know what they are talking about It is perfectly clear who is right, and it isn’t you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Sorry, but what “log list” of which “refutations”?

            If you are referring to your link to and list of 170 odd (very) supposed Mythbusters you repeatedly refer to:

            They have absolutely nothing to do with the point that I have repeatedly tried to explain to you.

            So it’s perfectly clear you have not read what I said.

            And it’s perfectly clear that you have not, and could not have, read a list of refutations.

            So it’s perfectly clear who is actually right.

            And it clearly can’t be you.

            So stop wasting my time with your pointless pr0paganda posts!

          • Shorne

            Should have said ‘long’ prove just one refutation wrong (the ‘climategate’ one will do) otherwise lose all credibility.

          • Mr B J Mann

            C_A_N – Y_O_U – N_O_T – R_E_A_D ? ? ? ?

            N_O_N_E of them have A_N_Y_T_H_I_N_G to do with the issue I raised.

            So where does refuting all or any of them come into it?!?!?!

            Clearly you have actually read my point, realised you can’t even begin to refute it, and so are trying to put up straw men to insist I try to knock down as a diversionary distraction tactic!

          • Shorne

            Dear me, I’m sure you regret not being able to type in a green font.
            You have railed against ‘Climategate’, this is what Skeptical Science says

            ‘A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.’
            ‘The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU’s results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data.’

            Likewise the ‘hockey stick’
            ‘Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.’

            I know I’m wasting my time you will not be dissuaded from your conclusions and clearly you can’t really cope with being disagreement.
            If you are right in the face of the vast body of scientific thought my Grandchildren will be OK, sadly I don’t think they will.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Dear me, I’m sure you regret not being able to type in an invisible font.

            What does “You have railed against ‘Climategate'” even mean?!?!

            >> ‘A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing.’

            If you’d bothered to read what I had written (or the actual enquiry reports) you would have found they all “report” along the lines of:

            On the evidence THEY HAVE LOOKED AT.

            They could find no proof of DELIBERATE attempts to defraud the science community or the public.

            But they then go on to point out that they should get some statisticians in who know what they are actually doing next time to avoid the same accidental “errors”.

            >>’ Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.’

            It’s you, and they, who are doing that.

            There is a proof in the emails that they were up to no good.

            And proof in the “model” codes that they were up to no good.

            And if proxies from thousands of years ago are scientifically acceptable, then proxies from now should be even more scientifically acceptable.

            But they have to switch the last few decades of proxy data that doesn’t “fit” with “actual” data which, surprise, surprise, does “fit”.

            And then try to excuse the whole of climategate by claiming that that isn’t a cheating type “trick”, but a “scientific” one?!?!?

            >>’The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU’s results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data.’

            You’re on another planet!

            What “primary data sources”?

            They are held by the climate change “scientists”.

            And “corrected” by them.

            And there are models where you could put in figures from the phone book and STILL be “able to replicate CRU’s results”.
            THAT’S THE POINT!!!!!

            >>’Likewise the ‘hockey stick”!!!

            >>’Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.’
            But they have to use THEIR “actual” temperature figures for recent times because THEIR proxies don’t work.
            And even THEY admit that EVEN THEIR “actual” temperature data has stopped showing global warming!!!!

            I know *I’M* wasting my time you will not be dissuaded from your conclusions and clearly you can’t really cope with any disagreement.

            If YOU are right in the face of the vast body of scientific AND FACTUAL evidence my Grandchildren WON’T be OK, because we’ll have global warming regardless, but they won’t have the resources to survive it!
            So STOP WASTING MY TIME!

          • Mr B J Mann

            PS

            >>”Dear me, I’m sure you regret not being able to type in a green font.”
            Is that because, as well as being short-sighted, you are colour blind, and can only see things that have a green bias?!

          • Shorne

            “Green ink is the traditional format used for hand-written Letters to the Editor of British newspapers that claim that the day’s events are secretly stage-managed by a Cabal of hidden forces…The development of the era of modern computing has made the practice more difficult.”
            or
            “In British journalism, Green Ink is supposedly a major identifying characteristic of written correspondence from self-aggrandising, pedants, cranks, charlatans and eccentrics. Writers and correspondents who fit this general profile are referred to as Green Inkers or as members of the Green Ink Brigade (GIB).”

          • Mr B J Mann

            I think you’re paraphrasing:

            http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Green_ink

            Even more of a joke than you are!

          • Shorne

            Still accurate in your case.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I’m happy to accept that as your concluding killer riposte.

          • Mr B J Mann

            As for the syntax, it was the not so smart phone’s while out and about, now corrected.

  • trace9

    There was a Delingpole
    Who was a Climate Hole
    His brain was sick
    Just like his dick
    & He lived without a Soul.

    (Signed, Francisco +).

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      “I’m a poet
      I now it
      Hope I don’t blow it.”

  • zanzamander

    I am a nuclear physicist, an oceanographer and a biologist. I have worked with NASA, jet propulsion laboratory and various space agencies around the world. My wife is also a scientist and works for UN in Geneva as are my three sons and daughter. My great, great, great uncle, twice removed and once buried was a Pope, or something.

    I have written many papers on climate change and have audited many research data.

    I can categorically say that global warming is a man made phenomenon. No wait…or is it the other way…no, I think farting has something to do with it as well.

    Let me come back to you on that.

  • Robin Whitlock

    Ah James Delingpole, he wouldn’t be himself without constantly uttering an unending stream of absolute, and absolutely incorrect, drivel.

    • van Lomborg

      What happens when Sheik Putin’s funding dries up?

    • Battlestar Galicia

      All those who have walked the Camino of Saint James the Belieber will never look back.

  • Giuseppe Cappa

    Trying to change the world is blasphemous [Qo 1:4] and the starvation of the poor caused by anti-climate change policies is only a side effect. If you do not believe the Bible (in case, this is your problem), science itself clearly shows that the theory of man-made global warming is laughable. Such flawed theory, anyway, is used by collectivist powers within governments to impose taxes and restrictions on the masses and to increase the state’s control on the individual citizen — soon there might be forced abortion and euthanasia to save on CO2 emissions.

    • Soosoos

      “science itself clearly shows that the theory of man-made global warming is laughable”

      What rot. It’s science that shows us that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

  • jeffersonian

    ‘Is the Mother Church on the verge of committing the same cardinal sin?’

    Too late. Vatican II took care of that.

  • Dominic Stockford

    Its a ‘statement of faith’ and encyclical, so it is worrying that the man has gone this way.

  • The PrangWizard of England

    The man adopting these views and using his position is dangerous. He blames we in the West for the ‘evils’ that he sees and suggests the rest are entitled to restitution, many may see it as justifying acts of revenge. Those who kill us or threaten may claim to be doing it in his name along with any other cause they claim to follow. Does he wish to bring about the end of our civilisation and our progress? For what? I know the Catholic Church is big into guilt as a mechanism to control its followers, but it shouldn’t impose it on the rest of us.

  • Ποια είναι αλήθει

    The current global terms of trade hurt the poor, and the technology that supports it damages the environment. The poor have little to fear from change.

    • mrsjosephinehydehartley

      A good précis ..obviously since the poor have little to fear from change, the rich, in the usual craven manner, will invent ways to make big issues ( ie money) out of change. Without the invention of more and more change, all this money sloshing about in the world will become one , big economic doldrum. which would be no good for global concerns at all..

      The poor might have nothing to fear from change, but it would be wrong to expect us to swallow any change that gets forced upon us by dint of so-called science, for example by some international body empowered to impose what the Pope calls ” sanctions” in his encyclical.

    • Mc

      The cure for poverty is Communism. That way almost everyone becomes so miserably poor that their government has to prohibit them from escaping abroad, in order to ensure that the ruling class has a population over which it can rule.

      • Ποια είναι αλήθει

        Obviously it is not, but there are choices other than the status quo and Communism

        • Mc

          Human nature and abuse of power (including by idealists) always gets in the way of creating a “fair” system, whether that be Communism, theocracy, environmental sustainability, Democratic Socialism, or whatever “-ism” blows one’s hair back.

  • Ποια είναι αλήθει

    The climate doesn’t vote

  • captainkirk

    Oh God, please don’t let Delingbore write another bloody article about global warming. I know that something is up and I’m prepared to admit that I don’t know if it’s natural or mad made, but what I do know is that I’m sick to death of reading Delingpole’s articles about it. He could be – once was – a good journalist but constantly harping on again and again about the same subject doesn’t do his reputation any good and it doesn’t do his readers any good either.

  • BlackArrow

    STILL into environmental holocaust denial, are you James? You do realize that when things become desperately worse your kind may be held (legally even) responsible and hoisted by your petards if not necks, don’t you?

    I like Frank! … and he is as absolutely right about the environmental
    holocaust as he is about the inequity of wealth on the planet.

    Now, will the Vatican finally come out for birth control, as one basic solution to the overpopulation helping to drive these problems?

    Lou Coatney, Presbyterian by upbringing (We’re the Jesuits of the Protestants.)

  • Precambrian

    Apparently the solution to climate change is higher taxation. Wow, isn’t that convenient for an issue dominated by the left….

    • Ποια είναι αλήθει

      At least you haven’t denied the science just because you dislike the policy response. A foolish stance.

      • Precambrian

        I’ve seen the ice core data. The medieval warm period dwarfs the so-called ‘hockey stick’.

        The climate has never been fixed, its always changed, and I see no reason to presume change will be catastrophic. Any spikes in the past are ironed out when we see the data is averaged over decades and centuries, whilst modern data is year on year. If you present modern data in the same way as historic data, the hockey stick vanishes.

        Perhaps you could show where the sea level has risen around the UK?

        • Ποια είναι αλήθει

          Obviously climate constantly changes, but has been fairly stable for a few millenia. The question is whether changes to atmospheric and oceanic conditions associated with human activity and the population explosion of recent centuries will stimulate a ‘flip’ in the climate into a new status. And no one knows the answer to that today , but all will be revealed during the course of this century.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Had to laugh when I watched a couple of Beeb/OpenU type progs on the trot that insisted the sky was about to fall in.

            The first one, basically on current climate change, insisted that the degree or so change over the past century was unprecedented and we were all doomed if we didn’t immediately prostrate ourselves before the god of MMGW.

            The other was about prehistoric man, but, as with most “science” programmes, insisted the fact that prehistoric man had nearly been wiped out by a climate change involving a temperature change of several degrees that happened over a few decades, possibly even a few years, should be taken as a warning to believe in MMGW (ie that we are experiencing an unprecedented degree or so warming over a century…..)?!?!?!?!

            You couldn’t make it up.

            But they manage to!!!!!

          • Soosoos

            If you could point to a paleo warming event of a comparable rate, I’d love to see it.

          • Mr B J Mann

            As opposed to the paleo warming event of an incomparably higher rate that I’d just pointed to.

            If you want further details see the Beeb.

            Or are you claiming that they are spreading hysterical scaremongering l!es ?!?!?!

          • Soosoos

            Can you please provide a citation for this supposed decadal temperature change of several degrees?

            You’re not confusing cooling (e.g. from a profound volcanic eruption) with warming?

            A ‘degree or so’ over a century is a significant change in global temperature, at a rate much, much faster than happens for example with Ice Ages. Orders of magnitude faster.

            Tell me: does the extinction event associated with the PETM – probably the closest thing we have to a carbogenic hyperthermal – give any cause for comfort?

          • Mr B J Mann

            No. In fact though little remained with me apart from the ridiculous juxtaposition of the two programmes and hysteria about climate change, I seem to recall the “supposed decadal temperature change of several degrees” was being blamed on paleo man made climate change caused by, errrmmmm, evil paleo man affecting his paleo climate, let that be a warning to us………!?!?!

        • Soosoos

          “I’ve seen the ice core data. “

          Let me guess: this is the GISP2 ice core data that ends in 1865?

          Yes: let’s show that the MWP is warmer than the present by a) looking at a single location and – even better – deleting the most recent 160 years of history.

          Haha.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Shock, horror.

            Scientists deleting current data because it’s not as reliable as the ancient proxy stuff.

            Now, where have I heard of that happening before?!?!?

          • Soosoos

            “Scientists deleting current data because it’s not as reliable as the ancient proxy stuff.”

            Tell me: do you think citing an ice core from one geographical location that ends in 1865 – i.e. 160 years ago – provides any indication whatsoever of modern global temperatures?

          • Mr B J Mann

            You’ll have to ask the climate “science” “experts”.

            Isn’t most of their p0xy tree ring data based on one single incredibly old, incredibly long lived tree from one incredibly freakish location with incredibly unusual growing conditions?

            Then, of course, there’s all their carefully adjusted temperature readings.

            From unusual highly urban settings that were once incredibly rural.

            Oh, and “evidence” like Atlantic hurricane records that are claimed to show incredible growth.

            Even when they don’t.

            Or even things like soaring Florida storm damage insurance claims.

            That leapt from a shack blown down onto an alligator a century ago to devastated 5* hotels, beachfront mansions and gin-palaces now……

          • Soosoos

            “Isn’t most of their p0xy tree ring data based on one single incredibly old, incredibly long lived tree from one incredibly freakish location with incredibly unusual growing conditions?”

            No. It isn’t.

            You’ve obviously been reading some dodgy climate change denial blogs, haven’t you? Let me guess: WUWT for this particular piece of dubious scholarship? Or maybe something more benthic, like Jo Nova?

          • Mr B J Mann

            No idea what you’re talking about!

          • Soosoos

            “Then, of course, there’s all their carefully adjusted temperature readings.”

            Ah yes: because it involves long words and lots of numbers it has to be nefarious.

            I guess you can’t be bothered to read the readily available scientific papers that describe both the rationale and methodology of adjustments?

            Of course not. Heavens, why should someone make the effort to read about and understand a topic when it’s so much easier to pontificate from a position of ignorance?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Have you bothered to read the several MMGW backing scientific body reports on scandals in MMGW “science” yet?

            Mainly short words and no numbers.

            All basically saying the MMGW “scientists” weren’t deliberately trying to defraud the science community and the public.

            They just weren’t up to the statistics required and next time they should get someone in to do the analyses who actually knew what they were doing?!?!?

            I guess you can’t be bothered to read the readily available scientific body papers that describe both the rationale and methodology of the climate “scientists” failings?

            Of course not. Heavens, why should someone make the effort to read about and understand the reality behind a topic when it’s so much easier to pontificate from a position of ignorance?

  • Mnestheus

    What’s really alarming id Deingpole’s willful scientific ignorance– the cumulative impact of radiative forcing is so obvious that even a Pope with a chemistry degree can understand it.

    Last month’s Vatican climate circus recalls an earlier skirmish. Three decades ago, Cosmos star Carl Sagan and his Steve Gould, of ‘separate magisteria’ fame led a posse of bien pensant scientists, Nobel laureates and peace activists on a pilgrimage to the Vatican Observatory seeking endorsement of an Apocalyptic hypothesis ballyhooed by the Nuclear Freeze Movement.

    Their timing was less than perfect- the science advisors of Ronald Reagan and the new Polish Pope proved too shrewd to swallow ‘nuclear winter’ leaving Steve , Peter Raven, and sundry other past and future AAAS presidents to beat a reverse Canossa back to their respective campuses.

    The rejection of nuclear winter did not stop the survivors of the 1985 venture from reforming their ranks for a 21st century replay. This time they met with better success. Instead of a “sophisticated one dimensional model ” they were pitching a fifth generation IPCC report, and instead of encountering a finger wagging anticommunist on the throne of Saint Peter, they got a warm reception from an unreconstructed Liberation Theologist, witness Laudatio Si

    Many seem to have missed the action of the decades in between, which saw the Vatican become nominally carbon neutral by doing a dubious offset deal orchestrated by Russ George, an operator now better known for fishy ocean carbon sequestration deals , having moved from sowing acorns to throwing rust and ferrous sulfate over the transom of a trawler in hope of a loaves and fishes multiplication of salmon stocks.

    The perverse thing about this encyclical is that the pope’s acceptance of the policy baggage on offer along with the science reflects the dismal failure of the right to get its act together in time to articulate a quatitative scientific case for moderation instead of iindulging in the rejection of science that is allowing the left to win its policy battles by default.

    Unlike Delingpole, the Pope seems to have grasped that , for better or worse, materialism has become too importnt to be left to the marxists.

  • Ambientereal

    Well I feel I must break a spear for the South Americans. In particular Argentine scientists are very well reputed and have won (in spite of the resource shortage) three Nobel Prizes. Radical ambientalists are a new branch of leftists (radical socialists) and are always looking for political influence through the prediction of ecological disasters, and they surely have strongly influenced the early Cardinal Bergoglio as they mixed in the combat against poverty in the slums of Buenos Aires. As my nickname shows, I´m a scientist specialized in energy and ambient, but the particle “real” infers that I do not agree with apocalyptic forecasts and I´m more concerned with the actual state of the planet and the future possibilities.

  • Perseus Slade

    The Pope would do better to focus on population control.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Ain’t that the truth!

  • Mc

    The Pope’s climate concerns are a winner, as he doesn’t have to address the rats nest of issues in his church

  • teigitur

    ” Its what his flock of 1.2 billion officially believes”. No it is not. We are under no obligation to do so.

  • Partner

    One couldn’t possibly be the Pope unless one was a total crook.

  • “In being suckered into climate alarmism, the Pope risks backing policies that hurt the world’s poor”

    PART I of II

    The Vatican also refused to alert the world to the fake collapses of the USSR and East Bloc nations, proving…

    The Vatican was co-opted by Marxists at the top position in 1846 (with the election of Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti as Pope, taking the name Pope Pius IX), hence the embarrassing edicts on the (1) Immaculate Conception (1854); and (2) Papal Infallibility (1870), both edicts placing their respective subjects on an even level with God’s omniscience! In fact in 1858, just four-years after Pope Pius IX declared Mary to be without sin, Mary took time out from her busy schedule and came down to Earth, informing Bernadette Soubirous that she, Mary, was indeed the Immaculate Conception, born without sin! What marvelous timing, huh!

    Then in 1917 the Marxist government in Portugal, in co-operation with the Vatican, gave us the next fake Marian apparition where Mary tells ten-year-old Lúcia Santos that if everyone prays to her, Mary, then there won’t be an even more terrible war in the future…

    “The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI.”

    Anyone catch it? God isn’t omniscient in this Marxist drama, because Mary says there might be another war! That’s what happens when you leave it up to Marxists to write these scripts, they naturally get it all wrong due to their ignorance of theology, and in this instance God’s omniscience!*

    Mary continues, “To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”

    See where Mary says, “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted…”

    In other words, Mary is telling us there’s no need to wage war against the USSR because the Marxists who control the USSR will magically convert to Russian Orthodoxy! Cleaver, huh? And what happened on December 26, 1991? Marxist Mary was right! Bolshevism collapsed, and Marxists magically became Christians!

    The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848 thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly, so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. The Vatican’s co-option took place two years earlier. That’s why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The above means that the so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Schism…

    Marxists have planned schism for the Catholic Church. When schism does arrive for the Catholic Church, Marxists will naturally control both opposing entities. Marxists call this tactic of using false opposites the “scissors strategy”, in which the blades represent the two falsely opposed sides that converge on the confused victims, neutralizing true opposition. Now you also know what the pedophilia scandal within the Catholic Church is all about–a Marxist operation to weaken the moral foundation of the Catholic Church, thereby lessening its numbers and inevitably its influence.

    By the way, when did the Vatican alert the world that the “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc nations) is a fraud?! And when did the “liberated” Russians throw out the KGB agent Quislings placed within the Russian Orthodox Church before the “collapse” of the USSR! In fact, all religious denominations behind the Iron Curtain were so co-opted by Marxists, but those Marxist agents still control those religious denominations…

    http://sofiaecho.com/2012/01/17/1747052_eleven-out-of-15-members-of-bulgarian-orthodox-churchs-holy-synod-worked-for-communist-state-security

    http://www.novinite.com/articles/135799/Bulgaria%27s+High+Clergy+Infected+with+Ex-Communist+Spies

    For more on the general subject of Marxist co-option, see my blog…

    https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home

    PART II of II

    The following is a discovery I made only last month regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

    When Soviet citizens were liberated from 74 years of Marxist horror on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the “collapse” of the USSR is a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,** otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

    ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

    http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/12/20-years-since-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union/100214/

    For more on this discovery see my blog…

    https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/

    As for the Marxist-contrived economic sabotage operation known as “man-made global warming’, see my article for the real science (and a huge scientific scandal not covered by any media entity)…

    https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/throwing-cold-water-on-global-warming

    Conclusion:

    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.

    ————————————

    * Since 1981 there’s been an ongoing Marxist Marian apparition taking place in Međugorje, Yugoslavia (yes, I meant Yugoslavia). The scam is quite a money-maker for the Communists, it being estimated that 30 million pilgrims have come to Medjugorje since the reputed apparitions began in 1981…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252122/Virgin-Mary-sightings-Are-Bosnians-hoaxers-living-saints.html

    I love the fake photo of the six “visionaries” posing as thought they’re looking up at Mary(!)

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/22/article-2252122-169F56BF000005DC-511_634x423.jpg

    The small boy, however, doesn’t seem to be interested with what Mary is telling them!

    **The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…

    https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/now-you-see-me-now-you-don-t

    Now you know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The above means that the so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

    • Soosoos

      “The Vatican was co-opted by Marxists”
      Lol, etc.

      • ‘”The Vatican was co-opted by Marxists”
        Lol, etc.”

        Where precisely is the humor in…

        ‘By the way, when did the Vatican alert the world that the “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc nations) is a fraud?! And when did the “liberated” Russians throw out the KGB agent Quislings placed within the Russian Orthodox Church before the “collapse” of the USSR! In fact, all religious denominations behind the Iron Curtain were so co-opted by Marxists, but those Marxist agents still control those religious denominations…’

        …or the humor here…

        ‘The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.’

        In future, please read more carefully!

    • The Red Bladder

      Perhaps you would like to go into a bit more detail?

      • “Perhaps you would like to go into a bit more detail?”

        You can find all you need at my blog…

        https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/home

        • The Red Bladder

          My word you do think a lot don’t you. I hope you eat plenty of fish to keep the old brain ticking over.

          • “My word you do think a lot don’t you.”

            Wow, you keyed-in on it perfectly. My mind just won’t stop with that cognitive feature, especially once it latches on to any portion of an anomaly on a pressing subject; it won’t let go until the anomaly is totally discerned!

            “I hope you eat plenty of fish to keep the old brain ticking over.”

            Well, I do consume fish?

          • The Red Bladder

            Very good brain food – keep taking it. Halibut is one of the best I am told.

  • spiritof78

    Once again, the Spectator gives space to climate change deiers, who don’t even have to make a case, or rebut the case made by others.

    • Grant Melville

      Yes, I find that odd as well. There’s no balance whatsoever in the Speccie’s coverage of the issue. But, I suppose we’re readers of the Speccie because it chimes with our own views, not because we want to our preconceptions to be challenged. The same can be said for most other journals, magazines and newspapers.

      • spiritof78

        But surely journals which aspire to seriousness (?) have some obligation , especially when promulgating or supporting views which run counter to accepted scientific opinion, to acknowledge contrary opinion.

        • Grant Melville

          Absolutely! However, I don’t think The Spectator entirely aspires to seriousness in that way. Much as I enjoy the magazine, and I am currently a subscriber, on occasion one is led to suspect that the facts haven’t gotten in the way of a good story. I don’t think any publication of which Mr Rod Liddle is a regular contributor can really lay claim to being totally balanced.

          This climate change phobia is an odd thing, I don’t quite understand where that fits into the right-wing psyche. To be honest, I’ve never seen climate change as part of some left-wing agenda, but then again I’m not an expert on politics, nor a scientist. I’m an ‘environmental manager’ by profession, and I do think the possibility of man-made climate change is something that has to be taken seriously. Even if the climate isn’t changing drastically, and even if man’s activities aren’t affecting it, we still need to change the way we go forward to make progress environmentally sustainable. The uncontrolled generation and release of CO2 is a problem, in my view, for reasons such as the acidification of the oceans, which is definitely occurring, and most probably caused by heightened levels of atmospheric CO2 resulting from human activity.

          • spiritof78

            Yes its interesting why left and right have tended to take positions on climate change contrary to initial intuitions. One might expect the right to wish for conservation, for reduced emissions, lower patterns of consumption, and so on. And in the 70s and 80s the left tended to support economic growth. But increasingly roles have reversed, and the left favour controls on industry, pan-national coordination, cuts in emissions and investment in public transport, ‘green’ industry etc. The theme of Naomi Klein’s recent book is how pursuing climate change agenda accords with democratic and socialist imperatives also.
            And, yes you’re right about Rod Liddle

  • Grace Ironwood

    I had a look at the Pope’s constant twitter stream: Interesting.Weird.

    His tweets are structured by intertwining memes from Catholic doctrine together with any number of the highest principles of green cultural left.

    It’s quite hypnotic to read him weaving from Catholic thinking into fervent red/ green affirmations and back again..

    I believe I was reading a media and personal branding strategy to engage the post-Christian masses in their own community media.

    The same with the Encyclical. did the Pope not also write about the “respecting our human nature”, human ecology and connect it with environmentalism:Nature.

    He has also covering Natural Law and Caitlylnn Jenner. Has this been ignored by press/activists.? Can they damn a document written using this tactic?

    But who is influencing who is a question

    • Grant Melville

      It’s all too clear that “the age of this world”, “the ruler of the authority of the air” and “the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 2 v 2) are influencing the Roman Catholic Church.

      • Grace Ironwood

        Well, understandably, there would indeed be a gay lobby in the Vatican(formed by the relatively large percentage of gay priests in the West)

        Nevertheless, I would have thought it was well and truly obvious to Churchmen and everyone else what a devastating effect Modernity- but the sexual revolution in particular- has had on those Protestant Western Churches that have “embraced” it and been eviscerated of scriptural and even religious content. The decline and its proximate cause is abundantly obvious and these Churches are more like “Rainbow-Greenpeace at prayer” than religions these days.

        Francis must know this, the Pope Emeritus often enough discussed it.

        As I said, I suspect this is an effort to re-engage the Westerner through the only transcendental-type beliefs they hold now (Greenism, “human rights”))
        It is an interesting, risky strategy because it opens the Catholic Church to be devoured like the rest rather than encouraging more Westerners to engage with the Church’s doctrines of Life via a shared view on the stewardship of the Earth.
        The traditional Christian view of the environment seems to be one of dominion and husbandry rather than the Green, post-humanist view that mankind is no more significant than any other creature. So there’s only so much to be shared, however hip Francis sounds on twitter & his plane)
        The other path is to accept a position as an oppressed minority, the “mustard seed” path suggested by the Pope Emeritus: the persecution of Christians seems to be already taking place, ever bolder.

        • Grant Melville

          I absolutely agree. Ah, Protestantism, “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.” (Revelation 3 v 1). It’s a source of grief and shame that light as to the truth should be so neglected.

          It’s interesting that you mention the mustard seed, that came to my mind as well recently. “…but when it is grown is greater than herbs, and becomes a tree, birds of heaven come and roost in its branches.” (Matthew 13 v 32). I used to think that this parable was a positive one, but some time ago I learned its true meaning. I think it has never been more the case than it is today – Christendom is a place where persons can come and go as the please, dipping in and withdrawing to take what they want from Christianity, and building foul nests in its branches, the seasonal and passing constructions of the mind of man and the flesh.

          Although I fundamentally and deeply disagree with the doctrine and organisation of the Roman Catholic Church, I’ve always been thankful to God for the way that they stood firm on certain issues: for example, marriage, homosexuality, the traditional family. Recently, all that seems to be eroding more and more rapidly.

  • As we used to say in the good ol’ [pre PC] days of long, long ago: Right on, James … keep on truckin’ … and many thanks for your exuberant and eloquent words of wisdom!

  • The ‘climate change’ argument is divisive and unable to be ‘won’, at least until its too late. However most people agree that humanity cannot continue to pollute the air, sea, land and water at such an alarming rate. As most pollutants are the result of our fossil fuel based economy the solutions will be similar, and drastic. We must move beyond the climate change argument and enact real changes before we cause the biggest extinction of species ever; one of which will surely be humans.

    • Mr B J Mann

      “most people agree that humanity cannot continue to pollute the air, sea, land and water at such an alarming rate. As most pollutants are the result of our fossil fuel based economy the solutions will be similar, and drastic….”

      This is one of the biggest cons going!

      If we put all our funds and resources into “solving” supposed MMGW then we won’t solve the real problems.

      If, say, we invest 100% of our funds and resources into, say, carbon capture:
      WE DO *NOTHING* ABOUT *REAL* POLLUTION!

    • lindzen4pm

      CO2 is not a bloody pollutant, it’s plant food. Fossil fuels have given you the life your ancestors could only dream of, so stop parroting green drivel and enough of the end of the world schtick already. No warming for 18 years 6 months, remember. When the models can predict accurately, then we can take CAGW seriously.

      • Yeah, Einstein I didn’t say CO2 was a pollutant.

        • lindzen4pm

          I note you fail to acknowledge how cheap fossil fuels have brought us huge wealth in the last 150 years, and it is the same energy source that will provide the third world with that opportunity. It is wealth that will ensure pollution is tackled, and that is achieved through cheap, affordable and reliable energy. Misanthropic green initiatives will only drive up prices, keep the Third World in extreme poverty and increase the likelihood for more pollution, not less.
          As for the rest of your doomsday scenario, never mind Einstein, try Spielberg, or maybe even Disney, as anthropomorphism seems to be an issue, which is indeed news to me.

          • I note that you constantly change the subject to suit your agenda. Never did I discuss the possible solutions just the things that most people around the world can agree on (except you)

          • lindzen4pm

            97%?

  • Jacobi

    The Pope’s encyclical is a new departure in such documents.

    I have read it thoroughly, and it appears to be aimed, not at us Catholics either lay or clergy, but at the non-Catholic world. It is not , in my opinion I had better add, in any way an authorative document, and certainly in no way infallible, but rather an invitation to discussion and an attempt to introduce non-Catholics to the wisdom and certainty of Catholic Teaching.

    Ignore the science. That is rhetorical rubbish. Note, he does not offer even one scientific reference.

    But look at the message. The Commandments and a rejection of hedonism.

    Very profound stuff!

  • disqus_6IcHN2xX3A

    The pope is just as blind as the rest of the human beings THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES IN REVELATION THAT IN THE LAST DAYS THE SUN WILL SCORCH MAN ,AND WILL BLASPHEME THE NAME OF GOD AND WILL NOT GIVE HIM THE GLORY, namely the illuminati and all those behind the new world order including the POPE (sorry for leaking this information ) we in the comfort zone if global warming the worst is yet to come.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Fuck off. And I say this with all due respect.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Britisher pals, see you make of this:
    Julius Streicher: Publisher was hanged for “incitement to race hatred”. The Streicher case is remarkable in that nations which preach freedom of speech and the press should conspire with Jews and Communists to hang a man for expressing opinions which were not alleged to have been untrue.
    Specifically that, “The Jews are nothing but blood suckers and extortionists.” Back off Mods, I’m quoting.
    Julius Streicher: Publisher. Forced to ingest the saliva and urine of Black American GIs. Refused to confess. Hanged 16 October 1946.
    The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals were arguably the gravest miscarriage of justice since the witch trials of pre-Enlightenment Europe and colonial America (Salam witch trials). The US, Soviets, British and to a lesser extent the French were guilty of the very crimes that they accused the Nazis of. Or as General Montgomery said, “The only thing the Nazis was guilty of is losing a war”,
    Jack, Japan Alps

    • Soosoos

      Go away.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Why don’t you go away?

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Mods delete, then presumably in as fit of remorse, reinstate but under a different story.
      Hard to believe I realise.

      • You are a Japanese fantasist! Field Marshal Lord Montgomery had never said the things that you had alleged him to have said! You disrespectful foreign Troll!

    • That a Japanese like you would seek to defend Nazi Germany (a fellow Ally of the Axis as was Japan) is hardly surprising … and I don’t need to be a trained professional invigilator to spot that those were mostly not your words, but instead plagiarised from the Institute for Historical Review, so-called … and the rest from Stormfront! … And Monty had never said such a thing! … Don’t you (as a Japanese) dare blaspheme the memory of dead British war heros by making stuff up (as you have always done)!

      • EnglishPatriot

        There is no reason to believe that Jack is Japanese. As far as I could ever make out, he is an expat who lives and works in Japan. He is no more Japanese than the Poles working in Britain are British.

        • You obviously were not around when “Jackthesmilingblack” started to post the lyrics of “Rebel songs” on Irish-related articles; or his “large-intestinal” (thanks, Disqus!) act of complaining whenever anyone starts putting in an extra “l” into the surname of those notorious North-London Marxist brothers!

          That man, I think, is a Troll, a wind-up merchant and a fantasist (according to him, even Monty (of Alamein) had a change of heart about the Jerries … sometime that even David Irving wouldn’t making up) … and from the sound of it, he had gone to some boarding school as foreign child (and broader) sometime back in the 1990s; anyway, what kind of a person would always sign off about where he lives, like he likes the sound of his own voice and the only one who thinks he is funny?! A maniac, a blood native of that particular Country, or someone mentally ill, or some or all of the above?! Why do we need to not only know but be constantly reminded that he lives in Japan?! Who does he think he is?! Does it add something additional into the conversation?!

          Tell me, why would a normal British expat in Japan injects Japan into every single conversation like the way he does? He certainly doesn’t act or sound like one! I mean, that halfwit even complains about how easy it is to get a new Japanese passport in Japan than to get a new British passport (whilst living in that Country)! No proverbial, Sherlock!

          If you have Sky, you will find that there is a channel called NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai) alongside Sky (sponsored by Qatar Airways), the Beeb, Gulfie TV, Fox, Chi. Comm. TV and Revisionist (Putinist) TV! Plenty of yellow faces with American accents on that particular channel, you will find! A yellow-blooded Japanese defending the actions of the Third Reich … probably out of some very misguided Japanese sense of loyalty (to HIS OWN Country’s old allies in the Axis)! You’ve been had!

          • EnglishPatriot

            That man, I think, is a Troll, a wind-up merchant and a fantasist

            You said it, and I agree. And he has succeeded magnificently if he has managed to make you believe he is actually Japanese. If you had ever met any Japanese people (online or in real life) you would know how absurd the suggestion is.

          • Or that is what he likes you to think (as a sophisticated means of entrapment) … He knows that he can’t possibly entrap me … Maybe he is just simply not British, either way, just half-pretending to be one. He is a raving paranoid schizophrenic anyway (or maybe I am as well!)

        • Tory Boy

          He has Gone Native 🙂

  • disqus_6IcHN2xX3A

    The pope is the biggest fraud in the 21century,delivering blind souls to hell,with false Christian principles

    • tolpuddle1

      What are the true Christian principles then ?

      Blessed are ye that are rich ? Greed is good ? Worship Capitalism ?

      • disqus_6IcHN2xX3A

        True Christian principles are the gospel of Jesus christ, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, the ten commandments, Satan has deceived the whole world,when the pope Constantine converted to Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church corrupted god laws, that what is meant in the bible that Satan has transformed himself into a being of light,the pope is deceiving everyone,look at their history they fed the true,Christians to LIONS today they are the biggest pedafiles on the face of the earth, the church that deceived the whole world, they even launder money for the mob,they are the new world order opposing the true gospel of Jesus christ, or may I say corrupting the true gospel of christ,SORRY FOR LEAKING THE TRUTH MR.POPE christ is going to say to many depart from me,I KNOW YOU NOT, Thank the Roman Catholic Church for carrying out Satan mission, many will not be found written in the book of life

        • Soosoos

          As a general rule, people who can’t punctuate properly and LIKE TO SHOUT don’t have much interesting to offer.

          • disqus_6IcHN2xX3A

            Call it what you may,the truth still stands,

        • tolpuddle1

          There are bad guys in all the churches.

          • pobjoy

            All the fake ones.

          • tolpuddle1

            Well, no, because that would refer only to the Protestant sectaries and their false and conflicting views. Though there are many bad guys in that melee, certainly.

            Sadly, there have been bad guys in the Roman Catholic Church as well.

          • pobjoy

            ‘Well, no, because that would refer only to the Protestant sectaries and their false and conflicting views.’

            There are no Protestant sectaries or denominations, because not one denomination succeeds in following sola Scriptura. That’s because they are led by bad guys. One can be a Christian in a denomination, but, these days, most Christians are in independents and house churches, in the UK. And in a church, there is obedience to the very forceful command to ‘Expel the wicked person from among yourselves.’

            Whereas the Vatican leads a heretical cult, like Mormons, and it is impossible to be a Christian in a cult. Indeed, the cult actually ‘sanctifies’ its most evil members.

        • The Red Bladder

          Well blow me down! Without your assiduously researched “leak” few of us would have ever dreamed that the Pope is doing the work of Satan here on Earth. Keeps it to himself though, doesn’t he?

          • Grant Melville

            I’m sure the Pope isn’t even aware of it himself.

  • tolpuddle1

    Only suckers imagine the Jesuit Pope to be a sucker.

  • Mnestheus

    Mark Steyn’s latest collision with climate is even funnier than Dellngpole’s :
    He says the Vikings grew grapes in Greenland
    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/06/mark-steyn-and-grapes-of-wrath.html“>

  • Alpha Farnell

    climate change…global warming….let’s all shout at each other….aaahhh….you’re wrong you f*ker…no you’re wrong you m*ther f*ker… aaahhh….scream….shout….rage….I have the moral high ground….Noooo I have the moral high ground…. I hate you SOOOO much on the internet…

  • Infidelissima

    Why are we focusing on the Pope’s stance on Global warming?
    His stance on limitless islamic immigration, will lead to all our deaths, way before any impact global warming could have on humans.

    • zanzamander

      Pope wants to be in the good books of lefties that now rule over all of us and Obama’s, their high priest.

      • Infidelissima

        ….until their beheadings?

  • JOhn Mackie

    Excellent piece here James. Spot on.
    I’d expect such nonsense from thew trendy left wing ‘Rev’ Ben here in this parish, but had always thought the Catholic Church was made of sterner, more timeless stuff.

    • DennisHorne

      CO2 is an important and persistent greenhouse gas. If the level of a persistent greenhouse gas increases, one might expect an increase in the energy retained by Earth. The level has gone up from 270 to 400 ppm since the Industrial Revolution. Nothing “timeless” about a 40% change. Maybe time for a change of heart?

      • JOhn Mackie

        At least The Pope admits his modus operandi is RELIGION.

        The rest of you actually think it is scientific to declare “the science is settled”.

      • lindzen4pm

        Yep, and temperatures have risen 0.8c in the last 150 years. No statistically significant warming for 18 years and 6 months. As the great Professor Lindzen states, it is not outside natural variability.

      • Mr_Twister

        @0.3% of the Atmosphere? A trace gas? Plant food?

        Compared to water vapour or Methane from hydro electric installations?

        CO2’s gonna kill us?

        Idiot!

        • DennisHorne

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
          Contribution (%)
          Water vapour and clouds, 36–72%
          Carbon dioxide, 9–26%
          Methane, 4–9%
          Ozone, 3–7%

          • Mr_Twister

            Wikiquote! Great!

            Two can play at that game, but I won’t, I’ll go elsewhere.

            “Methane intially reacts with ozone in a ‘chain’ reaction that ultimately produces CO2 and water vapour.

            You could summarise the reactions into:

            (3)CH4 + (4)O3 = (3)CO2 + (6)H2O

            Oxidation of methane is the main source of water vapor in the upper stratosphere”

            “……CO2 AND WATER VAPOUR”

            Both above Methane in your Wikilist.

          • DennisHorne

            So what? Doesn’t alter the fact CO2 is an important and persistent greenhouse gas and the level has increased from 270 to 400ppm; 40%.

          • Mr_Twister

            Doesn’t alter the fact that “Green” (larf!) CO2 Munching (concrete) Hydro Electric projects are increasingly being built ..increasing the Methane either.

          • DennisHorne

            You seem very confused. And angry.

            You know what, I think I’ll go with the Royal Society and American Academy on this one…

          • Mr_Twister

            This Royal Society?

            http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/15/fellow-slams-the-royal-society-as-nothing-but-a-lobby-group-for-climate-change/

            Go ahead, you crack on…..Reality Denier! Go and play with your MODELS I’ll look out of the window, and remember all the scare stories (That always cost me) in my short(ish) life alone….that ALL have been proved wrong!

          • DennisHorne

            Michael Kelly. Warning the Royal Society against adopting a political position; complaining about the cost of mitigation. Fair enough. Doesn’t in itself weaken the conclusion burning fossil fuel thus producing CO2 will not alter the climate. In fact he talks about exporting the CO2-producers (aluminium) to China.

            He’s one voice. I still go with the balance of informed opinion.

            In common: We’re both from New Plymouth, NZ.

          • Mr_Twister

            NZ Ahhhhh my Favourite country IN THE WORLD after The UK 😉

            I even have a large Moko,
            Might not be jealous of your views….but am Jealous of your roots 🙂
            We’ve exported CO2 , yaay, pity it’s cost US so much!

          • DennisHorne

            Well, there you go, you see. I think the UK cutting CO2 is tilting at windmills…

  • Grant Melville

    This issue highlights a much deeper malaise which is increasingly affecting the Roman Catholic Church. Regardless of whether or not one believes in man-made climate change, this intervention is a stark example of the deep issues at the heart of an organisation which claims to be Christian. Any reader of the Bible can scarcely fail to notice the vast, yawning chasm between the principles and instructions recorded in the inspired Word, and the conduct and position of the RCC. While Mr Delingpole is referring to climate change as the Pope’s new religion, I would suggest that the new religion embraces a good deal more than that, and that it isn’t very new at all. It has been under construction for thousands of years, proceeding from the minds of various popes, clergy, and councils – a mode of development which it is not difficult to compare to that of Islam.

    In Exodus 8, Pharoah responds to the divine request to “let My people go” by telling Moses and Aaron to “Go, sacrifice to your God in the land.” (v 25). Moses’s reply to that suggestion was unequivocal: “It is not proper to do so; for we should sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to Jehovah our God” (v 26). In this Old Testament teaching for the Church, Egypt represents the world and Pharoah is typical of Satan – trying to keep the people of God in moral and spiritual servitude and oppression under the world’s system. Pharoah continually responds to Moses’s representations with suggestions of compromise, which weaken in the face of Moses’s faithfulness to Jehovah’s purpose. As most readers will know, the children of Israel eventually got out of Egypt, signifying the moral and spiritual separation of the Church from the world, in line with the desires of God. The Roman Catholic Church, in the state which it has existed for many centuries (a state never more clear and marked than it is today), shows the result of acquiesing in the compromises suggested by Pharoah. The RCC has attempted to sacrifice to God in the land, and the result is an abomination to Him.

    What does it mean to try to sacrifice to God while still in Egypt? It means an outward form of religion which falls completely short of the fullness of the thoughts of God. It means that the form of religion which is practised is shaped and influenced by the world – by the practices and ideas of Egypt, in figure. What does a professedly Christian organisation have to say about the science of the world? Why is the leader of a supposedly spiritual and heavenly organisation making it his business to comment on economics, politics, philosophy and science? That’s because the organisation is purely of the mind of man, rooted and founded in the world which it is meant to have separated itself from. Romanism even has a decadent earthly city, showing that its entire outlook is to Egypt, and not the promises of God of a heavenly city, a new Jerusalem. Are we surprised that such an organisation is swayed by the changing opinions of the world, and polluted by its vices? There’s no divine power in it, only temporal power which is allied to the world, a fatal admixture.

  • Edward Studor

    Whatever the Marxists that rule in the West today say. it’s bound to be the opposite.
    If you haven’t learnt that in the last couple of decades then it’s time to open your eyes. I would say from my experience of left-wing ideology that global warming is a scam concocted to make us pay more taxes for the commissariat to use on their global empire projects.
    But everything goes in cycles and there is a shift towards the right in Europe as people suss out the EUs real motives, and in the US where Obama’s nihilistic policies are shown for what they are. Hopefully in the near future all this climate change nonsense would have been put in the bin where it belongs.

  • barney

    Roman Catholic homo sapiens. Another sub species heading for extinction.

  • St Ignatius

    Hmm, if the Holy Father started doing science in his encyclical and trying to argue against scientists we might have a problem. However, isn’t your problem that there is actually some kind of consensus among scientists (you disagree with their conclusion) he has observed that and stated his thoughts on what should be the response. I can’t help thinking that you want the Pope to be reading your blog, following the Mark Steyn case and generally getting down and dirty with the denier community. That’s not going to happen because frankly he has more important things to be doing. However …. I think he is taking the right approach in that we should say to the climate scientists, Fine you say there is major anthropological climate change. So what? The minute the scientist starts arguing about political solutions then you stop doing science, so tell them to shut up and stick to their area of expertise. If global warming is coming, great bring it on. The scientists should at least in the interest of balance be forced to point out all the benefits.

    • pobjoy

      ‘if the Holy Father started doing science’

      Is the definite article a sign of mendacious, thug mentality?

      • St Ignatius

        Not you again!

        • pobjoy

          Apparently, the definite article is a sign of mendacious, thug mentality.

          • St Ignatius

            Yeah, you’re not making any more sense than you have on any other forum Pobby.

          • pobjoy

            Perhaps Señor Bergoglio would give us his judgement as to how holy that reply is.

          • St Ignatius

            Perhaps you have a complete misunderstanding about both the office of the pope and the meaning of the word “holy”.

          • pobjoy

            The Hebrew word for ‘holy’ means ‘separated’, ironically enough. One can readily understand how a man who made a fictional claim to a fictional office would be reluctant to get involved in places where his claim might be subjected to intelligent and informed scrutiny, rather than hide among ignorant, simpleminded and cowardly followers. Especially if it would mean defending a follower who knows that his claim is fictional, and whose own defence in a thread is that of a mendacious boor, not even acceptable in civil society. One can easily understand the embarrassment caused by that sort of thing.

            Of course, an invented office can be defined as conveniently as the inventor likes. Of course, an invented office can be defined as absurdly as the inventor likes, if the inventor has enough intimidatory, strong-arm support.

            Incidentally, there is only one word in the whole Bible that can be translated as ‘offfice’, and it occurs just once, in connexion with Judas Iscariot. Not an auspicious circumstance.

          • St Ignatius

            So by your own admission the office of pope no more concerns you than, say the office of the President of the USA. Jog on and make a contribution to your own religion or society or whatever it is does concern you.

          • pobjoy

            ‘So by your own admission the office of pope no more concerns you than, say the office of the President of the USA.’

            You can’t stop lying, can you.

            On the contrary. Obama is duly elected to a real office; and woe betide citizens of the USA, or visitors to the USA, who offend his jurisdiction.

            Whereas we know, because we are educated, that there is no office of pope. It is a coward’s fancy.

          • St Ignatius

            So the Vatican isn’t a recognised state? You fell into that one Pobby.

          • pobjoy

            ‘So the Vatican isn’t a recognised state?’

            It’s a state recognised by Mussolini, and by criminals of his sort.

          • St Ignatius

            Mussolini’s is dead so he isn’t recognising anything buddy.

          • pobjoy

            ‘Mussolini’s is dead’

            But you aren’t.

          • St Ignatius

            Like pretty much everything you post, this is meaningless and bears no relation to the previous comment. Get a life, son.

          • pobjoy

            ‘Like pretty much everything you post, this is meaningless’

            Odd that you keep replying to meaninglessness.

            ‘this is meaningless and bears no relation to the previous comment. Get a life, son.’

            Yet another irritated, boorish response. Evidence that the comment that stimulated it is, somehow, too close for comfort.

          • St Ignatius

            What church do you go to Pobby? I’d like to have a go at you for a change.

          • pobjoy

            Of course you’d like to have a go. That’s how the Vatican acquired it’s city state status, courtesy of a police state. Mussolini didn’t get to be Top Man without pistol packin’ polizia, y’know.

            Even Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons can read and understand the gospel when it says that nobody should be called ‘Father’ in a religious context. And remember that the remedy for rebellion in Israel was thrashing to an inch of one’s life, if not worse.

            So when you have explained why the Vatican is not a rebellious cult whose members do not deserve stripping and beating until they cannot get up for a fortnight, we can consider the position of those others who lay claim to Christian obedience. Even JWs and Mormons deserve more respect than Bergoglio and his nefarious gang, until then.

            It’s no use citing general usage, btw. It is corrupt and risible journalists who promote use of the ‘the Pope’ title. The church is not supposed to be part of the world, is it. So bon chance!

          • St Ignatius

            Let’s see … this comment of yours is very revealing. Not only do you feel free to update the words of Jesus (“in a religious context” – did He say that? No, but then that’s Protestants for you, following blindly Luther’s example of course.). Not only that but you side with the JWs and the Mormons. I wonder what your church would make of that! Remember: the enemy of your enemy is *not* your friend. They hate you too, and what’s worse they despise your weakness. It’s interesting isn’t it, all the little contradictions in your rants. For example, you use the term “Papist” in a pejorative sense without realising that “denomination” (i.e. every Protestant church), means “after that name”. Oops! if you think being a Papist is bad, what does that make a Lutheran? Yes, let’s follow the man whose theology led directly to the Holocaust. Dear, dear Jobby, you are very and possibly hopelessly confused. Flush away now like a good little Jobby.

          • pobjoy

            ‘you feel free to update the words of Jesus (“in a religious context” – did He say that? No’

            Yet Catholicism cannot exist without ‘updating! 😀

            ‘but then that’s Protestants for you’

            That’s very true. Protestantism is the application of intelligent honesty. Or of honest intelligence, an approach suitable for the modern world, either way.

            Protestants suppose that Jesus had no objection whatever to children referring to their male begetters as their fathers; and as he plainly allowed that children could disagree with their fathers, Jesus implied no mentorship in this relationship. He described Zacchaeus as a son of Abraham, because, like Abraham, he acted with honesty; not because Abraham was his mentor, or director. By the same criterion of exemplar, Abraham was described as the legitimate father of Israel, though many of the Pharisees were ‘bastards’ because they refused to live as Abraham did. Also, Protestants sensibly suppose that Jesus would not object to Euclid being called the Father of Geometry, because geometers after him read Euclid. So a generic sense of ‘father’ is plainly *not* Jesus’ sense of the word.

            Now reader, the poster is not a complete nincompoop. Having been an evangelical, he is well aware of all this, so he is maliciously evading giving a reply that respects your honour and intelligence. This is the truest mark of papists, now that they cannot summon brute force to ‘persuade’ you.

            Reader, the poster does not explain his practice of calling Bergoglio his ‘Father’, to whom he cannot in any meaningful sense be related to as his offspring, because he cannot do so. Popery is as squarely defiant of divine command as one can possibly get. The poster knows it, so gets vitriolic and mendacious when cornered in this way. It is not as though the poster necessarily takes any note of Bergoglio’s teaching, because few people are very sure of what it is! And he repeatedly refuses to explain or even admit Vatican teaching on Mass sacrifices. The poster is a desperate follower of Bergoglio only because he is terrified out of his wits of Jesus, and is terrified out of his wits by any who might be, or become, followers of Jesus. Converts from evangelicalism are often the most fervent examples of this phenomenon.

            Bergoglio may with good reason be called a son of the Father of Lies, in the true biblical sense. 🙂

          • St Ignatius

            Yes, this is exactly the kind of confusion and bitterness extreme Protestantism leads you in to. Luther when challenged on his own unique interpretations of Scripture – which included adding words to the Bible and attempting to remove canonical books of the NT – replied, “Tell him Luther would have it so”. This kind of arrogance goes well beyond Papal authority. Seems like Pobjoy would “have it so” also, and just make it up as you go along. You just made yourself your own Pope, which is ironic, but also sad you cannot see it. Eventually your own interpretations will lead to contradictions. You’ll have to do better than this to convince anyone else though, because your interpretation is just that: *your* interpretation. Your well developed divisiveness is shining through here. I never stopped being evangelical: I’m evangelical and Catholic, which is exactly what the Fathers (oops, there I go again) of the Church were, and the Apostles. St Paul appears to be on our side too: he said, “I have become your father through the gospel” (1 Cor 4:15). You are way out there on your own, with your own brand of Christianity, Pobjoy. I’m afraid it is joyless, and tragic in its lack of grace and ultimately – even if you think you are right – its not going to win any converts. (And by the way you can stop referring to Protestants as if they are united in their theology. There are many Protestantisms, numbering in thousands of denominations and they all disagree with each other on something significant.)

          • pobjoy

            Paul was using the generic sense of father in that case, as the poster well knows. There are many evangelists who have been ‘fathers’ to converts, but every one of them would completely oppose any idea of themselves being called ‘Father’. The aim of the evangelist is to give people opportunity to have ‘the mind of Christ, who cannot be taught’. ‘Popes’ do the devil’s work.

          • St Ignatius

            That’s just your assertion. The fact you presume to speak for St Paul and update his teachings to match your prejudice says it all. You don’t have the first clue what St Paul would have thought about a priest being called “Father”. Your whole argument here is very fundamentalist, legalistic and – frankly – autistic.

          • pobjoy

            ‘That’s just your assertion.’

            It’s the view of every non-Catholic published commentary that takes a view at all, and presumably has been since the Reformation, when even Lutherans hit that pagan idea on the head. Either you are lying, or you were a pretty half-baked evangelical. Not that any professional authority is required; one does not need to have passed English Comprehension in order to realise that Paul makes generic meaning clear enough in the same passage, without any hermeneutics. It’s risible, childish cult ‘theology’ that grips the minds of those who would flee their own salvation.

            ‘You don’t have the first clue what St Paul would have thought about a priest being called “Father”.’

            Temple priests were never called ‘Father’. Korah might well have thought it a good idea for himself, but look what happened to him.

            If you know where to look.

          • St Ignatius

            There is no unified “non-Catholic” theology so you can knock that idea on the head. You will find that all sects and denominations develop their own titles:”Pastor” – where does that come from? Are you happy with that? “Rabbi”, “Reverend” … the list goes on. What about “Lord” as a secular title! You must be raging all day long if you worry about honorific titles. Let’s get real here: this is a non-issue. It’s interesting that you say “half-baked evangelical” as if there was some objective standard for an “Evangelical”. Of course there’s not, there’s just lots of Pobjoy’s running around making up their own doctrine, founding their own “churches”, which in my experience become personality cults founded on one leader’s ideas or charisma. They all disagree with each other as much as they disagree with Catholics (perhaps even more so). Except your internecine arguments are so particularly vicious because there’s so little at stake. The fact is because Catholics have real and visible unity we can focus on issues that matter instead of wasting our time in petty arguments over religious dogmas like titles.

          • pobjoy

            ‘There is no unified “non-Catholic” theology’

            Nobody even suggested that there is. Quite the reverse. What an evil comment.

            ‘so you can knock that idea on the head’

            A sign of demon-possession, borrowing like that. Mind how you go.

            The slimy poster has been told that all other cults and denominations, however absurd, however vile, are not so foolish as to call Bergoglio ‘Holy Father’. It is precisely *because* the cult of popery is so obviously disobedient to the clear words of Jesus that these other crazy cults are found ‘necessary’. Many Eastern Orthodox describe any ‘pope’ as ‘as great a heretic as it is possible to be’. And those are the people *closest* to the papist cult, in terms of the rest of theology.

            ‘Catholics have real and visible unity’

            That’s precisely what Bergoglio wishes was true. There are rich Catholics, and there are poor ones, and what he wants is hand-outs from the wealthy Western world, that his predecessors fought so bloodily to suppress, so that his rich followers don’t have to support the poor ones when global warming hits them. And he wants the cash distributed via his own paederasts and their organisers.

          • St Ignatius

            Well stop referring to “non-Catholic” theology in the singular then! There is no such thing. There’s just individuals living according to their own lights and as you demonstrate adequately it leads you up all kinds of blind alleyways. The more I read of what you write the less convinced I am you can be a Christian.

          • pobjoy

            ‘Well stop referring to “non-Catholic” theology in the singular then!’

            When did I start? You really are of an Augean nature, unless you need to visit an optician. I referred to non-Catholic published commentaries, all of which take Paul’s sense of ‘father’ as generic, which Jesus also allowed. Where they mention it at all.

            ‘The more I read of what you write the less convinced I am you can be a Christian.’

            So how could those who tell Bergoglio that he is a sinner in need of conversion be Christians?

          • St Ignatius

            So, help me here: lay out for me exactly what you think I need to do to be sure I am a Christian.

          • pobjoy

            Surely you can tell anyone what evangelical teaching is, having been an evangelical.

          • St Ignatius

            Obviously, given your previous comments you must think something was lacking in my conception of evangelicalism so why won’t you put me straight?

          • pobjoy

            I don’t necessarily suppose that there was anything lacking in your conception. Just that you misrepresented evangelicalism, for one reason or another.

            If this is a bona fide question, it will be a) re-phrased in non-personal terms; and b) supported by a reason for its asking, as it is apparently non sequitur.

          • St Ignatius

            As an evangelical you really shouldn’t pass up opportunities for evangelisation through personal pride.

          • St Ignatius

            PS do you mean Core as in the Douai-Rheims bible? Need to specify which one you are referring to.

          • pobjoy

            ‘PS’

            The cowardly poster admits that Paul was not expecting to be called ‘Father’.

          • St Ignatius

            Just answer the question. Which Korah are you referring to?

          • pobjoy

            Oh, look. Saint Ignatius is getting worried about what will happen to him after his death. Isn’t that strange. Well, don’t worry about it, Iggy. There’s an angel specially dedicated to meeting your every whim, who’ll really look after you, and give you exactly what you deserve. Don’t forget to smile.

          • St Ignatius

            No, simply asking you to clarify your point. (If you have one.) It does seem you don’t know what you are talking about on any level.

          • St Ignatius

            “It is not as though the poster necessarily takes any note of Bergoglio’s teaching, because few people are very sure of what it is!”.

            What profound ignorance you display and patronising with it. Catholics can disagree with the Pope on anything except a clear, well defined ex cathedra teaching. I know loyalty is a trait you might find hard to understand, but if you disagreed with your own family you wouldn’t go around shouting it in the street. Just because Catholics don’t rant about Pope Francis doesn’t mean they agree with him all the time. To be honest, you just project your own ignorance onto others, as if we don’t know the difference between Bergoglio the man having an opinion, and Pope Francis leading the Church. Honesty, how stupid can you be Pobjoy? Seriously.

          • pobjoy

            Bergoglio, ‘the man having an opinion’ about climate change? Had that been the case, this ugly exchange would never have occurred. Odd that it was ‘the Holy Father’ whose ‘mere opinion’ were asked to consider, then, by this thug. The thug can disagree with his Father about almost anything, but the thug wants *us* to touch our forelocks and cross ourselves in his holy presence.

            Catholics can ignore their Father, of course they can. Catholic Fathers have been disagreeing with previous Catholic Fathers for centuries! But the poster does not give a monkey’s cuss for any of their opinions, because he knows that they were lying when they called themselves Christians, because they knew that they would be punished beyond description for their arrogance and disobedience, calling themselves ‘Father’, disobeying Jesus’ specific command against doing so. It’s there in Matthew’s Gospel, ironically enough, because every ‘pope’ knows how to find Matthew’s Gospel. Wojtyla knew his fate. Ratzinger knows it. Bergoglio knows it, but he deserves an Oscar. But then maybe that’s Jesuitry for you.

            The poster also knows that he is lying when he calls himself a Christian, because he flatly disobeys Jesus when he calls Bergoglio his ‘Father’. The poster also knows that he is going to be punished terribly, but he does not care. He will do anything to persuade readers that Bergoglio is not a cheap cult leader whose only advantage over many other cult leaders is backing by rich and corrupt people; people such as Mussolini, and Franco, and Pinochet. That’s because the poster is here for only one purpose, and that is to try to allay his own terror of Jesus by promoting Bergoglio as Holy Father to others. You have been warned.

          • St Ignatius

            Your faith is evidently so lacking in grace that you think using an honorific title condemns one to hell. That’s not Christianity my friend and nowhere does the Church teach authoritatively that it is a tenet of Faith that you must call a priest Father. You are so confused. Do you also object to other titles: Reverend perhaps? Maybe you have a fit when you got the Doctors surgery and call him “Teacher”! Anyway since you are obviously a fundamentalist, tell me where you got this Bible, and by whose authority you presume to teach others with such certainty. As I said before all you are doing is making yourself your own Pope and trying to lay down the law. Hypocrite: at least Catholics understand the meaning of freedom of conscience and dissent. Whereas you are taking your own authoritarian standards and trying to apply them everywhere.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Out of interest, what are congregationals then?

          • St Ignatius

            Like all of these innovations, it sounds a good idea until something goes wrong in the congregation. Even if this doesn’t happen they usually end up going their separate ways doctrinally and splinter off in variants of Calvinism. There’s got to be an orthodoxy somewhere in any group and you’ll find a name behind it if you look closely.

          • Dominic Stockford

            1. With respect, that isn’t an answer, is it?

            2. People give others the name ‘Calvinists’, when those concerned would simply call themselves Reformed Protestants. Many of those erroneously called Calvinists don’t agree with him on several key issues.

            3. My congregation isn’t in any ‘denomination’, and so are many not so, therefore your “(i.e. every Protestant church)” is inaccurate.

          • St Ignatius

            With respect to you also, you didn’t write a very clear question so I was left to infer your meaning. I did not say congregationalist were all Calvinist, but it is in fact true (as your comment proves) they have split off into variations of Calvinism. (Interesting that you read it that way.) You seem to be implying that a church which has a congregationalist polity has no individual person to look to for theological authority. You do in fact accept the Protestant canon of scripture if you are “Reformed Protestant” and you cannot justify that without recourse to an authority. Because you are attempting to hide behind the collective, of course if I try to work out what you believe or your church teaches you can deny a label and slide off into some variant of some mainstream theology. In reality all you will be doing is making yourself the interpretive authority and it certainly didn’t work like that in the NT church. As I said if you don’t have an orthodoxy, what’s the point in having a church? If you do have an orthodoxy, where did you get it from? (Please don’t say the Bible: the other church you disagree with thinks that.)

          • Dominic Stockford

            I have no idea why I can’t point to Scripture Alone as being the source of orthodoxy – only Protestant Evangelicals actually do hold it to be that. Rome holds Rome to be the source of all that is orthodox, and the only valid interpreter of anything, including the Bible. That is clearly arrogant folly.

            The NT church relied on the Old Testament, and on those who had personally met Jesus Christ, we don’t have them, but we do have their writings, clearly divinely inspired. For anyone who reads the Bible with Wisdom it is clear when a preacher is going astray – so why a congregational church should do so more than any other I don’t know. And why any denomination that relies on the leadership of men, who tell them what it says, is any better I cannot understand – after all they are all sinners and thus liable to be wrong, a lot of the time. Whereas the Bible will never be wrong (unless you think it isn’t God’s Word, or you think God would have deliberately given us a Word that is wrong, which really wouldn’t be very ‘perfect Godlike’ would it?).

          • St Ignatius

            “clearly arrogant folly”, “clearly divinely inspired”.

            Yes, well that’s your problem right there: apparently the Baptists (e.g.) didn’t get the memo that the Pentecostals found it all so “clear” and neither did the Presbyterians who thought they had it all so “clear”. How come they all disagree if it is just so “clear”? (Nothing against these denominations, these are just examples, by the way)

            I’m not sure from reading your comment that you have followed through on the logic of “sola scriptura”. I mean, if you are happy to go down that path from it’s false premise (nowhere *in the Bible* is this doctrine stated so your position is self-refuting) to it’s bizarre conclusions (e.g. the early Church must have been heretical according to you because they didn’t hold this doctrine) then do it properly and go all the way. But it is a very limiting doctrine. How do you speak to the issues of 21st century when the Bible says little about euthanasia or abortion?

            You are also subtly reading an “either-or” into this discussion. St Peter was a sinner (obviously), maybe one of the worst (who am I to judge?), but he was also the divinely appointed leader of the early church and he exercised Christ’s authority without hesitation. No contradiction there. Likewise any Pope is not unable to make mistakes, even sin heinously (as history clearly shows there have been some scoundrels) but … the Holy Spirit has promised to protect the Church from error in faith and that’s what infallibility means. It’s not a hard concept to understand, really. But you make it hard if you want to put people or the Bible in God’s place which in practise is what a lot of evangelical Churches actually do. I know, I’ve been there and seen the good and the bad.

            So yes, I’ve been on the Protestant side of this debate too (if there is indeed a “side”) and you need to start by being fair to the Catholic Church because a lot of what you take for granted came from them holding to orthodoxy. And frankly, it still does. You might not find that palatable but it is historically accurate.

          • St Ignatius

            And if you want to be accurate it’s not “Rome” that is held to be the “source of all that is orthodox” but the successors of the Apostles in communion with the successor of St Peter. Yes the latter happens also to be the Bishop of Rome. Your subtly mischaracterisation makes it sound like a dictatorship. I’m sure that’s not what you intended …

          • St Ignatius

            You are hopelessly confused. The pope claims no jurisdiction but if one wishes to be Catholic, then one accepts the authority of his office. As I said, jog on: it doesn’t concern you.

          • pobjoy

            ‘The pope claims no jurisdiction’

            Neither does Bugs Bunny. Because there is no Bugs Bunny. Because there is no pope.

            ‘As I said, jog on’

            When you stop behaving like a thug.

          • St Ignatius

            Yeah because thugs are well known for running the world’s largest charity. Time for your bed Pobby.

          • pobjoy

            ‘thugs are well known for running the world’s largest charity’

            Or rather, child-abusing thugs cover their arses with ‘holy charity’ that they would have to use for government funding anyway.

          • St Ignatius

            Ah, showing your true colours now. At some point you are going to realise that slandering people left right and centre is only harming you. Hate filled, sad little people spewing bitterness. Is that what your church is all about?

          • St Ignatius

            Is that the UN or the BBC you are referring to there.

          • pobjoy

            The BBC uses the same thug language that you and almost all Catholics do (and has the same thug response to criticism), and it harbours far more Catholics than reflects the UK population, and has done for decades. That’s probably also true of the EC leadership in re Europe, so the UN doubtless has its sympathisers for the Vatican when it sends enquiries about child abuse to its letter box.

          • St Ignatius

            You got this “thug” word for Christmas and feel you had to start using it at every opportunity before it runs out. You’re pretty sick to start co-opting abused children to try to score some points on the internet, Pobby. I’ve had a quick look at your other posts. What a time waster you are. Honestly your incoherent ramblings are just laughable.

  • DennisHorne
    • Mnestheus

      It’s far too factual for a writer of Delingpole’s originality- if you reject his damned lies and statistics, Mark Steyn can provide more :

      http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/06/mark-steyn-and-grapes-of-wrath.html

    • Mr B J Mann

      Yeah.

      The text is easy to follow too.

      Here’s the key words:

      Methodology
      …create models…. projections…. produced the results shown here in 2012…… estimate….. graphic stops in 2005…. baseline…. fewer monitoring stations…. measurement is very difficult….. modeled estimates….. simulated…… modeled years 1850-1879…. not shown…. observed data begins in 1880…. do not expect their models to reproduce weather events or El Niño phases exactly when they happened in real life….. temperature lines in the modeled results might not line up exactly with observations….

      ie GIGO and B S

      • DennisHorne

        Reassuring to have an explanation from a distinguished commenter. Have you spoken at the Royal Society and other scientific bodies, to allay their concerns? Impossible? The real scientists are all part of a giant conspiracy?

        • Mr B J Mann

          Reassuring to have a response from someone who hasn’t bothered to read my other comments. Have you bothered to read the actual reports from the Royal Society and other scientific bodies, regarding their concerns about climate “scientists”? Impossible? The real scientists are all part of a giant conspiracy?

Close