By HOWARD THOMAS BRADY
In 1643 the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for proposing that the sun was the centre of the solar system. Since that time, with the development of science, the Catholic Church has not backed any scientific theory—until the pontificate of Pope Francis. In 2015 the papal encyclical Laudate Si’ gave outright support for the climate science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with respect to the role of greenhouse gases, their relationship to the temperature of the Earth, and the need to halt the increase in greenhouse gases to avert catastrophic global warming.
This endorsement of IPCC climate science was contrary to a warning given to the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II in October 1992. He said the condemnation of Galileo in 1643 was a dangerous precedent and that both the Catholic Church, when defending its faith, and scientists, when developing their research, should acknowledge their respective abilities and limitations:
The underlying problems of the Galileo case concern the nature of science and the message of faith. It is therefore not to be excluded that someday we shall find ourselves in a similar situation, one which will require both sides to have an informed awareness of their field and the limits of their own competencies.
However, since then, climate scientists who were members of a papal scientific advisory board in Rome (the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) have controlled any climate science advice that is given to the Pope. They have had strong support from their Argentine chancellor, Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo.
In 1996 the first qualified climate scientist to be elected a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was Paul Crutzen. He was a Dutch meteorologist and atmospheric chemist, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work with Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland for identifying the destructive effect on atmospheric ozone by chlorofluoromethanes (CFCs); chemicals particularly used in refrigerators. The ozone layer, fifteen to thirty kilometres above the Earth, was being depleted by such chemicals. Their research led to restrictions on the use of these chemicals and the successful protection of the ozone layer. Crutzen also strongly supported geo-engineering to counter what he saw as catastrophic atmospheric warming due to increasing greenhouse gases. He published a paper in 2006 proposing the release of sulphur particles in the stratosphere to increase the Earth’s albedo (reflectiveness of solar radiation) to lessen the solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
In 2000 Crutzen’s research partner in ozone research, Mario Molina, was elected to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Molina was also convinced that there would be catastrophic global warming if greenhouse gas concentrations increased. Then, in 2004, near the end of the pontificate of John Paul II, Veerabhadran Ramanathan was elected to the Academy. This climate scientist from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, identified additional greenhouse effects from trace gases, CFCs, and black carbon soot. This warming was in addition to that caused by the known greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide). Ramanathan also worked on the cooling effect of aerosols. He met Pope Benedict XVI several times and warned him that catastrophic global warming would eventuate due to the increase in greenhouse gases. He proffered the same advice to the Dalai Lama. He was strident in advocating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and was highly critical of any scientists with dissenting views.
In 2009, Peter Raven was elected to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. This climate scientist was a renowned botanist who had spoken out about the disastrous ramifications of any reduction in the biodiversity of the Earth. Then, upon the election of Pope Francis, a famous German physicist, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, was appointed as an adviser to Cardinal Peter Kwodo Turkson, who was helping the Pope to draft an encyclical on the environment.
Although not appointed a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences until 2016, Schellnhuber’s ideas were strongly supported by Crutzen, Molina, Ramanathan and Raven. He advocated a reduction in greenhouse gases so that the Earth’s temperature would not rise more than two degrees Celsius above its nineteenth-century baseline temperature. He also listed tipping points that would be catastrophic for the climate. Like Ramanathan, he strongly opposed any climate scientist with different views.
Shortly after he was elected, Pope Francis announced that an encyclical on the environment was being prepared. The Pope already had the idea that man could significantly harm the environment, and he had scientists in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences who wanted action on climate change. These scientists knew that if the Vatican moved in this direction there would be strong support from the United Nations.
The final text of the encyclical was no surprise. During its preparation between 2013 and 2015 there had been climate workshops organised by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences on sustainable development, climate change, and the need to protect the biodiversity of the Earth. These were attended by many scientists, philosophers and theologians, and they were supported by the United Nations, especially by Ban Ki-moon, its Secretary-General.
Before the release of the encyclical in October 2015 it was already evident that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences would not tolerate any climate opinions contrary to those of the IPCC. For example, in April 2015, the Heartland Institute of Chicago sent a delegation of eight scientists to a climate summit the Academy held at the Vatican. This delegation included a prominent English physicist and climate sceptic, Lord Monckton. They were told to leave the conference. That day the fact that Ban Ki-moon had given a key address boosted the prestige of that workshop and gave the Pope and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences some surety that the Catholic Church would get worldwide praise for its support of the IPCC.
The encyclical—Laudate Si’—was released on the feast of St Francis, October 4, 2015. This document was the strongest support ever given by the Catholic Church for the environment. In many respects this was a catch-up by the Catholic Church to the environmental science developed by many environmental activists since the Second World War. The central message of the encyclical was that the Earth, in all its beauty and complexity, was God’s gift to man. And this beautiful home, which deserved constant care and protection, was being desecrated by pollution driven by human greed and uncontrolled development.
While most of the encyclical’s text concentrated on the environment, the well-publicised release of the encyclical at the Vatican concentrated on its climate change message and the threats posed by rising greenhouse gases. Two of the four speakers that day were Cardinal Turkson and Schellnhuber. Cardinal Turkson commented: “Our care for the home God has given us requires us to combat global warming … Climate change is due to the greed of the upper middle classes and hurts the poor.”
Schellnhuber’s speech was also on the climate crisis. He listed climate tipping points—the threat of more storms, more droughts, a sea level rise over three metres, a decline in the Arctic permafrost, the melting of polar ice sheets and the destabilisation of jet streams. He highlighted an urgent need to stop global warming exceeding a two-degree rise above the Earth’s average temperature in the mid-nineteenth century. He commented: “The climate system is a most delicate fabric of interwoven planetary components, and it could be torn apart.”
Since the release of Laudate Si’ climate scientists have had a stranglehold on climate science within the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, strongly supported by its Chancellors, Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo (from 1998 to 2022) and Cardinal Turkson (from 2022). Bishop Sorondo has made many vitriolic comments about capitalism, coal and oil companies, and anyone who denies human-caused climate change:
To say we need to rely on coal and oil is like saying that the Earth is not round. It is an absurdity dictated by the need to make money … Human induced climate change is a scientific reality, and its decisive mitigation is a moral religious imperative for humanity … The Pope said to the group that climate change and human trafficking, a new form of slavery, are human emergencies.
And when asked why a 2022 climate workshop differed from a 2007 climate conference that was open to all views on climate change, Bishop Sorondo said, “There is only one side.”
In June 2022, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held a workshop titled “Resilience of People and Ecosystems under Climate Stress”. Its report, signed by Ramanathan, makes exaggerated statements about climate change, often unsupported by the recent IPCC Sixth Assessment 2023 report:
- There has been a five-fold increase in the frequency and severity of storms, cyclones and hurricanes. (The IPCC reports that such individual climate events are largely influenced by stochastic variability);
- There has been an increase in the severity and frequency of mega-droughts and the acreage burnt by wildfires. (The IPCC reports that observed trends in such events are highly regional, with increases in some regions and decreases in others);
- There are increasing deaths, or escalating poverty, or diminishing human health due to climate change. (Climate-related disasters now kill 97.6 per cent fewer people than a century ago. Richer societies reduce disaster deaths and swamp any potential climate signal);
- The world food system is in a crisis that is, to a significant extent, prompted by climate change and related indirect and ripple effects. (Not a statement from the IPCC. Currently, world grain production is at record levels, except in Ukraine);
- At least one-third of the 1.2 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide presently in the atmosphere should be extracted. (An unrealistic goal, often referred to by Ramanathan, that is not in the IPCC reports).
In October 2023, Pope Francis released an encyclical titled Laudate Deum. This more explicitly addressed climate change and was addressed “To all people of goodwill about the climate crisis”. There was also a May 2024 climate workshop organised by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences titled: “Planetary Call to Action for Climate Change Resilience”. The workshop’s report states:
The year, 2023, was the hottest year on record, resulting in severe global impacts due to extreme weather events. By February 2024, ocean temperatures soared to levels never seen (21°C), continuing a pattern that persisted throughout the preceding year. Climate experts now forecast that the Earth is very likely to exceed a critical global heating threshold of 1.5°C by 2030 to 2035. We have a limited time frame to proactively prepare for and respond to the crisis, rather than simply reacting to it.
Climate change is due to developed nations. One billion people are responsible for 50% of heat trapping pollutants. The bottom three billion people in the world contribute less than 10% of the world’s pollution, yet suffer 75% of its effects.
The manipulative control of climate science within the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has been due to strong-willed climate scientists, particularly Schellnhuber and Ramanathan. While they have been supported by enthusiastic Chancellors, behind the scenes there has been a naive, enthusiastic Pope who wanted the Catholic Church to be increasingly relevant to the modern world. Sadly, this certification of scientific theories regarding climate change and the condemnation of those with dissenting views chokes the very freedom needed for climate science to develop. Such authoritarian control of science is not dissimilar to the control of Soviet science by Trofim Lysenko, who condemned the modern genetics developed by Gregor Mendel and theories of natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin. Science must be allowed to develop at its own pace and through its own methodology. It does not stand still and must always challenge its own assumptions. As Karl Popper said in his famous book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959): “Science develops by trying to show that its present theories are falsifiable.”
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences has become a narrow-minded bastion for IPCC climate science, and seems unaware that the foundations of IPCC climate science are on shaky ground. Challenging the climate narrative of the IPCC are discovered facts, some known for many years, new scientific articles that describe historical temperature changes that undermine its assumptions about a present hothouse, and scientific articles that dispute the carbon dioxide narrative that has buttressed IPCC climate science since the first IPCC report in 1992.
For example:
- the narrative about the frequency and severity of storms, storm surges and droughts is not supported by statistics gathered by national weather bureaus or even by the IPCC. Yet, this is a constant theme in documents released by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences;
- its oft-quoted narrative about today’s record hottest temperatures is being undermined by historical research on regional temperatures. Without any dramatic change in greenhouse levels, 8,000 years ago the Earth was much warmer than today, the Greenland Ice Sheet reduced in size, West Antarctic glaciers retreated, and sea levels were higher for a few thousand years;
- the climate models it defends are failing. Since 1992 the Earth’s atmospheric temperatures collected by NASA satellites, worldwide balloons, and by the British meteorological bureau are in general agreement. However, the temperatures predicted for this period by the climate models were far higher;
- while greenhouse gases continue to rise, it is becoming clearer that the warming effect of greenhouse gases is limited as they can only absorb certain wavelengths within the total range of radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface. This limitation is much like the limitation of a piece of blotting paper, as no matter how much ink is spilt, there is only a limited amount of ink that piece of blotting paper can absorb. Such limitation explains why carbon dioxide levels, as high as 2000 to 4000 parts per million (five to ten times the level of today), could not stop the advance of past ice ages.
For the last forty years a group of scientists in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences have presumed that rising greenhouse gases provided a general guide through the climate maze, and that the Catholic Church would enhance its reputation by defending IPCC climate science. They are wrong. At some stage the scientific community will eventually wake up to the fact that the swathe of computer climate models on which the IPCC relies are flawed and their internal sensitivity to greenhouse gases in the overall climate system has been miscalculated. These models have been further compromised because they cannot mimic the nonlinearity and complexity of the climate system.
The fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is relevant. The dogged defence of greenhouse gases as the primary driver of the present global warming may become more strident but one day someone or some event will make it clear that the emperor is stark naked. Then, the science community will nod in agreement and quickly change sides and the IPCC’s climate edifice, built up over the past thirty years, will collapse.
Once this charade is over, the IPCC and supporting organisations, such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, will be in turmoil as they try to redefine their objectives and question those who have led them into this abyss. For the Catholic Church, it will be difficult to rise out of the ashes left behind by this Climate Hell.
Howard Thomas Brady is a member of the Explorers Club of New York, the Heartland Institute, and the CO2 Coalition. He is the author of two books: Mirrors and Mazes: A Guide Through the Climate Debate and Letters from Hurrell Street.
