Has The Holy Father betrayed his flock?
by Mick Warshaw
Last Thursday the Vatican put out an encyclical, Laudato Si’, in which Pope Francis urged the world to take measures to reduce anthropogenic (man-caused) climate change. One of the lead advisors for the encyclical was prominent German atheist and one-world government activist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.
In addition to being one of the four speakers at the introduction of the encyclical, Schellnhuber has now been announced “as ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” an organization directly under the authority of the Holy See.
Aside from the Vatican, Schellnhuber wields considerable clout in the UN and worldwide climate research communities. He founded and continues to head up the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), serves on the board of several peer review publications, and has been instrumental in the various Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate reports.
Objectivity is a reasonable expectation of a man granted so much influence in so many consequential areas. Unfortunately, in this case, it is an expectation left unmet.
The PIK takes as given that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is an absolute truth, and structures all of its studies and papers to reflect that position. The PIK is instrumental in the climate models that have had such an outsized impact on the IPCC reports, all of which have been dramatic failures.
The IPCC itself has been judged and found wanting. In 2010 the InterAcademy Council investigated the IPCC and directly contradicted Schellnhuber’s contention that the panel represented a vast synthesis of all research on climate, finding “significant shortcomings in each major step of the IPCC’s assessment process.”
Schellnhuber opined in The Guardian (UK) that using fossil fuels for energy is “a lifestyle of mass destruction” and accused Westerners of “eco-crimes” against the world at large. Schellnhuber also proposed and advocates for something called a two degree rule, which states that governments cannot allow the temperature to vary more than two degrees from the average at the start of the Industrial Revolution.
These extreme climate views tie in nicely with Schellnhuber’s unapologetic Malthusian view of the world.
Malthusianism is rooted in the late-18th century writings of Thomas Robert Malthus, an English economist who predicted doom and catastrophe for the world based on overpopulation. Malthus believed the resources of the Earth were finite, and thus population must be limited. He viewed disease and birth control as positive checks on overpopulation.
Similarly, Schellnhuber told the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference that the ideal population for the Earth was less than one billion people – in other words, six billion less than the population at the time of his speech.
Global warming, according to Schellnhuber, is “a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something — namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.”
Schellnhuber uses these decidedly radical views to rationalize calls for an “Earth Constitution that would transcend the UN Charter” and direct election of a one-world government. He has also talked openly of using science to direct human behavior in acceptable directions. How his physics degrees qualify him to make these decisions is an open question.
The obvious political motivation and shaky science of a man like Schellnhuber raises obvious questions about the Vatican’s own motives in commissioning his work for the encyclical. When taken in context with Pope Francis’ other left leaning comments on the economy, gay marriage, birth control, and other issues, observers are left wondering when his Holiness will focus on the problems within the church and his explicit primary task, saving the souls of believers.
Source
In addition to being one of the four speakers at the introduction of the encyclical, Schellnhuber has now been announced “as ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” an organization directly under the authority of the Holy See.
Aside from the Vatican, Schellnhuber wields considerable clout in the UN and worldwide climate research communities. He founded and continues to head up the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), serves on the board of several peer review publications, and has been instrumental in the various Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate reports.
Objectivity is a reasonable expectation of a man granted so much influence in so many consequential areas. Unfortunately, in this case, it is an expectation left unmet.
The PIK takes as given that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is an absolute truth, and structures all of its studies and papers to reflect that position. The PIK is instrumental in the climate models that have had such an outsized impact on the IPCC reports, all of which have been dramatic failures.
The IPCC itself has been judged and found wanting. In 2010 the InterAcademy Council investigated the IPCC and directly contradicted Schellnhuber’s contention that the panel represented a vast synthesis of all research on climate, finding “significant shortcomings in each major step of the IPCC’s assessment process.”
Schellnhuber opined in The Guardian (UK) that using fossil fuels for energy is “a lifestyle of mass destruction” and accused Westerners of “eco-crimes” against the world at large. Schellnhuber also proposed and advocates for something called a two degree rule, which states that governments cannot allow the temperature to vary more than two degrees from the average at the start of the Industrial Revolution.
These extreme climate views tie in nicely with Schellnhuber’s unapologetic Malthusian view of the world.
Malthusianism is rooted in the late-18th century writings of Thomas Robert Malthus, an English economist who predicted doom and catastrophe for the world based on overpopulation. Malthus believed the resources of the Earth were finite, and thus population must be limited. He viewed disease and birth control as positive checks on overpopulation.
Similarly, Schellnhuber told the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference that the ideal population for the Earth was less than one billion people – in other words, six billion less than the population at the time of his speech.
Global warming, according to Schellnhuber, is “a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something — namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.”
Schellnhuber uses these decidedly radical views to rationalize calls for an “Earth Constitution that would transcend the UN Charter” and direct election of a one-world government. He has also talked openly of using science to direct human behavior in acceptable directions. How his physics degrees qualify him to make these decisions is an open question.
The obvious political motivation and shaky science of a man like Schellnhuber raises obvious questions about the Vatican’s own motives in commissioning his work for the encyclical. When taken in context with Pope Francis’ other left leaning comments on the economy, gay marriage, birth control, and other issues, observers are left wondering when his Holiness will focus on the problems within the church and his explicit primary task, saving the souls of believers.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment