Pope Francis preaches cult climate religion

by Dr. Ed Berry, PhD Physics, also posted in NewsWithViews

A new Inquisition.

Four hundred years ago, from 1610 to 1633, the Roman Catholic Church thought it knew more about the solar system than Galileo Galilei. So it subjected Galileo to an Inquisition.

Now, in 2015, Pope Francis thinks he knows more about climate science than thousands of educated climate scientists (like me). So the Pope wants a new Inquisition for those who tell you the truth about climate change.

The fallible Pope Frances “believes” global warming is “mainly” man-made. He believes the Paris summit must implement a Global Warming treaty or our environment is toast. He believes global warming hurts the poor.

He’s wrong on all counts. The loss of carbon-dioxide-restricted abundant cheap energy, not global warming, hurts the poor.

Although the Catholic Church does not claim the Pope is “infallible” in matters of science, few people understand this technicality. So the Pope, with his great influence, does great damage to truth with his false claims about science.

Pope Frances said of the upcoming Paris Climate summit that runs from November 30 to December 11,

“It would be sad, and dare I say even catastrophic, were special interests to prevail over the common good and lead to manipulating information in order to protect their own plans and interests.”

The Pope’s “special interests” refer to the thousands of climate scientists who understand why our carbon dioxide emissions do not threaten the planet, and to Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates who agree with these scientists.

As for “manipulating information,” its the other guys who are manipulating the data to support their failed climate theory.

The conflict between religion and science.

The Pope has exited the domain of religion and entered the domain of science where he has no expertise. Many Protestant churches preach the same false climate claims as the Pope.

The lesson of Galileo is when a church challenges science, science always wins.

Expertise in the world of religion does not bestow expertise in the world of science. The two worlds are polar opposites.

Religion is based on the world we cannot measure. Science is based on the world we can measure. The boundary between religion and science is clear.

Anyone can claim what they wish about religion and no one can prove them wrong. But when people make claims about our physical world, science can prove them wrong.

Bible interpretations about our physical world cannot compete with direct measurements of our physical world.

When church ministers make claims about our physical world, like the Earth and universe are 6000 years old (as Ben Carson believes), or carbon dioxide harms our environment, science can and does prove them wrong.

Note that millions of scientists agree on only one physics. But millions of ministers of religion cannot agree on thousands of different interpretations of the Bible. Science, properly used, is precise. Religion, at its best, is imprecise. Therefore, religion is in no position to dictate to science.

Neither the Pope nor anyone else can “prove” their belief that carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous to our environment is true. They can assume this position justifiably only when all attempts to prove them wrong have failed. But this is not the case.

Scientific tests, like those that show climate model predictions are wrong, prove the global warming hypothesis is wrong. Climate alarmists simply ignore this fact and continue to preach what they should know is wrong.

The fundamental gap between religion and science.

Whether to discard evidence or discard beliefs is the central conflict between religion and science.

Many churches teach people to reject evidence that conflicts with what their church teaches. This may work for religion but it is the exact opposite of the scientific method, which requires we discard beliefs that conflict with data.

To find truth, we must follow the scientific method. The scientific method shows we can’t find truth directly. We can find truth only by discarding fiction through proper tests and accepting that truth lies in what we have not discarded.

This is why science is a constant search for truth and science is never “settled.”

The scientific method is the only known way to find truth. The scientific method says a hypothesis is wrong when its prediction is wrong. The Biblical statement of the scientific method is

“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” -Matthew 7:20.

This says, we must test our beliefs by their results and we must reject beliefs when they conflict with data.

When Christians transfer their church’s order, to reject evidence that conflicts with their belief, to the physical world, they reject the Biblical way and the scientific way to find truth.

If we refuse to discard fiction, we can’t find truth. Without truth, we can’t be free.

Where is it written in the scriptures that one must believe in human-caused climate change, or that the Earth is 6000 years old, in order to be a Christian?

Religion, even the environmental religion, conditions the minds of climate alarmists to believe lies. Therefore, climate alarmists reject evidence that contradicts their climate religion.

When we reject evidence that contradicts our opinions or beliefs, we reject the only way we can ever learn the truth.

Nevertheless, these climate alarmists want to implement treaties and laws to make their false climate religion a government religion. That is what Pope Francis is now doing.

Let’s insert reality into the discussion about climate change.

Alarmists believe any evidence that climate has changed proves them right. This is a logical error known since Aristotle. To support their hypothesis they must show evidence our carbon dioxide emissions and not nature caused the changes. They have not satisfied this requirement.

The only evidence climate alarmists, like Pope Francis, have to support their case is hearsay. Somebody told somebody told somebody … and so ad infinitum. Therefore, they claim, it’s true.

The alarmists’ fallback position is to claim 97 percent of atmospheric scientists say it’s true. Well, that’s another lie. Climate alarmists use lies to support their other lies.

Furthermore, voting determines belief, not truth. When a kindergarten class votes on the sex of a puppy, their votes does not decide truth.

Only the scientific method determines truth by checking predictions against data. As Einstein said, “Many experiments may show me right but it takes only one experiment to prove me wrong.”

Here’s a challenge for climate alarmists.

Watch or read the presentations by these very well qualified physicists and show me where their conclusion that human carbon dioxide emissions are insignificant to climate change is wrong:

1. Watch this video of Ivar Giaever, 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics and a Democrat. He says climate change alarmism is a “religion.” It’s a religion because you “believe” it on faith rather than on physical evidence. Show me where his physics is wrong.
2. Watch this video about Freeman Dyson, retired professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and a Democrat. Show me where his physics is wrong.
3. Watch this video of Professor Murry Salby, author of the comprehensive new textbook, “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.”  Show me where his physics is wrong. Also, show me where his physics is wrong in his conclusions on pages 23-25 and 250-255 of his textbook that human carbon dioxide emissions are insignificant to climate change. If you can’t read his textbook, don’t claim you understand climate.
4. Read this article about Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, and Michael Connoly’s new peer-reviewed paper, “The Sun not CO2 causes climate change.” Show me where their physics is wrong.
5. In case you are not up-to-speed in the scientific method, watch this video of Richard Feynman just to get you started.

The above five steps prove climate models and their global warming predictions are wrong.

Next, Dr. David Evans shows some reasons climate models are wrong. He discovered they contain fundamental errors. When he corrects these errors, the climate models predict CO2 produces only 10 to 20 percent of the global warming of their previous predictions.

So carbon dioxide is not a big enough effect on climate to cause anyone’s concern, and all efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will make no observable difference in climate.

The only question is whether we discard our beliefs that conflict with evidence or discard evidence that conflicts with our beliefs. Do we seek truth or do we seek fiction?

Miranda Devine wrote a popular version of Dr. Evans’ discovery in NT News:

A former climate modeler for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

Next, go to this webpage: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html.

Here, Dr. David Evans presents a thorough analysis of climate models and shows why they are wrong. Then he presents the reasons the IPCC way over-estimates the amount of warming carbon dioxide can cause. He concludes added carbon dioxide can cause only about one-tenth the amount of warming climate alarmists claim.

Dr. Evans’ conclusion destroys the climate alarmists’ claim that our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous global warming because an insignificant temperature change does not justify the economic cost to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

Dr. Evans presents 19 sequential documents. Begin with his last document “New Science 19b: Synopsis” because it’s a summary of the others and easier to read.

When you finish reading what Dr. Evans wrote, please tell me where he made a mistake in his analysis.

Tom Sheahen commented in Science and Environmental Policy Project:

Evans states the “basic architecture” of the conventional models is wrong, because Arrhenius (and all who followed) assumed that the response to more CO2 would be the same as the response to more sunlight. Absolutely not, says Evans; there is a totally separate response to more CO2 which causes other processes, notably the “re-routing” of escaping heat, which leaves via other pathways such as more radiation from water vapor in the upper troposphere. Evans insists that a “change of architecture” is needed to correct this error at a very basic level.

If you are a climate alarmist and you can’t show where the above six scientists are wrong, I hope you get the picture. You don’t know what you don’t know. You are part of a cult religion that believes what has been proven wrong, is true.