Pope Francis socialist.

Spiritual Ecology Versus Science

by Lewis Loflin



Why did a liberation theology (Marxist) Priest from Argentina who become Pope choose to adopt the name of the patron saint of ecology St. Francis of Assisi? Because he believes in the nonsense idea nature is equal to human beings. Nature is sacred. Many who believe in the "intrinsic" value of nature for its own sake place the welfare of nature over the welfare of humans. Note the following definition:

Spiritual ecology is an emerging field in religion, conservation, and academia recognizing that there is a spiritual facet to all issues related to conservation, environmentalism, and earth stewardship. Proponents of Spiritual Ecology assert a need for contemporary conservation work to include spiritual elements and for contemporary religion and spirituality to include awareness of and engagement in ecological issues."

Science has nothing to do with spiritualism.

I'll be outright on this in I believe in empirical science, not hypothetical computer models from those with the above views. Like it or not science is based on physics not "biocentrism" which advocates animals and nature has "conscience" or "rights". In the hands of anti-humanists, techniphobes, and Nature-centered spiritualists they have no interest in technology or are hostile to it. Some advocate outright human genocide.

The real dispute is empirical science based on observed facts and debate versus hypothetical computer models and the "authority" of experts. I reject the merging of social science, spiritualism, and socialist ideology into science, which crackpots like Pope Francis advocate.

New essays October 2018:

What does Al Gore say about the 'science' behind climate change?

"As it happens, the idea of social justice is inextricably linked in the Scriptures with ecology."

Science has nothing to do with social justice.

This is a direct quote from his book Earth in the Balance Al Gore's rambling pseudo-religious text that combines religious mysticism (Eastern, New Age, American Indian), far left politics, and a massive misuse of science not to convey scientific facts, but to give authority to his beliefs. Ecology is not a science in the same way sociology is not a science - all fail the scientific method.

Dr. Marcel Kuntz, Director of Research at the prominent French institution CNRS voices concern over this issue:

"Postmodernism considers that scientists cannot be trusted, and that their research must be subject to a democratic process, more precisely to a 'participative democracy'."

The scientific method is not democratic. See Postmodernism Attacks Reason, Science, and Culture.

In the West today with the decline of Christianity and Judaism and with the collapse of fascism and communism many have fled to environmentalism. This has been incorporated into a lot of leftwing politics in order to attract interest to whatever cause they are peddling this week.

Capitalism is now touted as destruction of the environment.

Liberal churches that have abandoned their theology have incorporated politics and social work including climate change to fill empty pews.

But it has become increasingly political for some bordering on a secular pseudo-spiritualism. Climate correctness like political correctness treats anyone that dares to dissent or question the issue as religious heretics or simply crazy. This is how religious fanatics behave and now we have demands that "deniers" be legally prosecuted.

Retaliation can cost one their career and scientific commissions have become like 12th century inquisitions.

Skepticism the very heart of scientific debate has been banned to point many scientists are forced to declare man-made climate change even on their research that disputes it.

Rasmussen Reports Nov. 12, 2015 Little Support for Punishing Global Warming Foes;

But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming...Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don't agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.

In other words 32% even considering such a thing has fascism written all over it. Is it any wonder people are scared?

Stalled temperature rise 1997-2013.
Fig. 2

Fig 2 shows there's been no significant temperature increase since 1997. This was not in the climate models. What are we observing today?

Then in 2016 "scientists" decided to adjust down all previous climate data as being in error. Now it shows "recent" warming is real only after the adjustments. Good science or not? This has brought more distrust of politicized science.

Typical again is a report from www.washingtonpost.com on October 7, 2014 about record Antarctic sea ice that continues into 2016:

The Antarctic has been brimming with sea ice in 2014, hovering around record-high extent for most of the year. On September 20, it peaked at 7.78 million square miles, breaking the previous Antarctic sea ice extent record, which was set in 2013. But while it might seem that this record throws into question the validity of global warming, scientists say this just isn't the case.

Up north, the sea ice loss in the Arctic is exactly what you would expect in a warming world. 2012 was a record-low year for Arctic sea ice in the satellite record, and 2014 was the sixth lowest.

The report is dishonest by leaving out one other vital piece of information - the satellite record only goes to 1979! Once again look at the NOAA chart. They did mention the need for further research and I'm sure NASA is in need of the funding!

Science is not interested in the what scientists "say" we go by the data.

Let's take another example: Stabilization of ozone hole and changing wind patterns has driven regional cooling phase in Antarctic Peninsula July 20, 2016 Earth Sciences,

The rapid warming of the Antarctic Peninsula, which occurred from the early-1950s to the late 1990s, has paused. Stabilisation of the ozone hole along with natural climate variability were significant in bringing about the change. Together these influences have now caused the peninsula to enter a temporary cooling phase.

Temperatures remain higher than measured during the middle of the 20th Century and glacial retreat is still taking place. However, scientists predict that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise at the current rate, temperatures will increase across the Antarctic Peninsula by several degrees Centigrade by the end of this century.

What is wrong with the above statement? How is ice expanding in 2014 yet still retreating in 2016? First the computer models failed - this pause and cooling wasn't supposed to have happened. How do they know if it's temporary or even a pause?

If the rise of "greenhouse gases" was responsible for warming here and CO2 levels continues to increase while temperature it is supposed to cause doesn't, then we have a problem with the computer models. Notice the last sentence was a weasel word disclaimer distracting from the core message.

With a flawed computer model how can they possibly "predict" climate change over the next century? The word here is "predict" and the scientific method can NOT be used to measure or predict future events.

This is opinion and science is not interested in your opinion or title. In fact the ice pack in Antarctica has grown to the point a research vessel full of climate scientists trying to prove melting got stuck in record ice.

See Prof. Chris Turney Stuck in Record Antarctic Ice - in the Antarctic summer!

It's also no accident they chose "middle of the 20th Century" (notice the cold spike in 1950) as a starting point to "prove" human induced climate change. They want to prove man causes climate change in order to justify political and social policies various activists desire. Science doesn't care about your politics or feelings. In addition one is supposed to disprove or falsify your hypothesis.

Of course there's climate change - it's been going on for 4.5 billion years. I believe in climate change, I believe in the scientific method. Science is based on skepticism and "facts" measured by the scientific method.

In the real world. Science merely explains natural processes we observe in nature without any regards to supernaturalism, to feelings, to social justice, or politics. If it fails the scientific method it's not science. If it can't be measured and is not repeatable it's not science. One time events can't be scientifically proven. Is that clear?

Now a further quote from the Journal Nature,

"The ozone hole, sea-ice and westerly winds have been significant in influencing regional climate change in recent years," John Turner, lead author of the study, stated in the report. Despite this cooling trend, scientists say global warming has not necessarily ended.

What? They are now saying "global warming has not necessarily ended"? Don't they know? This cooling was not supposed to have happened according to those same scientists a few years ago.

Antarctica controls the world's climate by radiating massive amounts of heat into space and whose cold, deep sea currents it generates effect temperatures into the North Atlantic and around the globe. In fact the currents around Antarctica south of Africa, South America, and Australia when it opened up due to continental drift massively cooled the whole planet reducing Australia from rain forest to mostly desert.

That is not their only problem. The Daily Caller 7/20/2016 article "Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice" notes the following:

A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

The Polar Ocean Challenge is taking a two month journey that will see them go from Bristol, Alaska, to Norway, then to Russia through the North East passage, back to Alaska through the North West passage, to Greenland and then ultimately back to Bristol. Their objective, as laid out by their website, was to demonstrate "that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through."

There has been one small hiccup thus-far though: they are currently stuck in Murmansk, Russia because there is too much ice blocking the North East passage the team said didn't exist in summer months...

Oops that wasn't in the computer models ether. Coincidence that both the N and S poles are colder than the "scientists" predicted? I don't have the space to debunk present hysteria over record heat. Let's go further.

The scientific methods works like this: we observe an event, let's say the temperature increases starting in the late 1970s. It's now 1998 and computer models since the late 1980s "predict" "if" things continue climate Armageddon is around the corner.

At the same time this is happening CO2 levels continue to rise, thus their hypothesis that CO2 is causing the climate to heat up doesn't seem to fit the observations.

Just because we have event A doesn't mean it has anything to do with event B. Lots of things happened from the 1970s to 1998 to today. We increased say the production of corn, so did growing more corn raise temperatures?

The EPA did a lot of great work in cleaning up pollution and America is far cleaner today than 60 years go even with a 55% growth in population and far more energy usage, which also occurred at that time.

They "predicted" then we would be out of oil/gas and many industrial metals by 2000 - only by remaking society can we prevent this disaster. Didn't happen. With the rise of environmentalism the EPA became less scientific and more political.

Al Gore, Paul Ehrlich, etc. predicted and demanded broad changes in society or else by 2000 the Arctic would be ice free and Denver under water. Didn't happen.

Around 2000 the temperature didn't do anything near what the computer models earlier on "predicted" would happen. It's now 2016 and with CO2 around 400 PPM the opposite effect. There's no obvious relation between the two, so the computer models were revised and the methodology was changed again around 2012. Wrong again in 2016 with all the ice and arctic cooling.

The scientific method does not accept "predictions" unless they can be proven to work in the real world, not a virtual world. Now we come to why they choose the 1950s as a starting point because prior to that their claims are completely exposed as fraud.

They have tried every way possible to prove a human-CO2 connection to climate since the industrial revolution, but that started in the early 1800s. So why the early 1950s or for some even 1890 as a starting point? I can take from 1940 to 1970 and prove climate cooling by 1975 which in fact had scientists at the time claiming a coming ice age. Didn't happen.

So taking climate models based on selected, limited time periods to fit ones agenda is not science and the computer models and predictions have all failed. If the prediction fails again and again the hypothesis must be discarded.

Let's say the computer models did work and temperatures did keep rising with increased CO2 instead barely budging over the last 17 years and reversing at the poles, then we need to falsify the hypothesis to prove it.

Did rapid and severe climate change occur prior to the industrial revolution? Also, did we have big climate swings since 1800 to the 1950s? If the answer to all of these questions is no, then the hypothesis is likely proven. The answers are both yes and the hypothesis is proven false which is what we've observed in the real world.

Not only have the predictions failed, they have repeatedly failed. Nor can the hypothesis be falsified. Real climate science belongs in the realm of earth science not the non-science of environmentalism. Historical and geological records prove climate change is real - climate varies a lot long before humans made spear points out of flint and also occurred during historical times.

Fig. 1 above shows the warmest decade of the 20th century was the 1930s followed by severe cold in 1940s-1950s. During WW2 American soldiers fighting the Nazis during the Battle of the Bulge nearly froze to death due to record cold. By the 1950 we had a further cooling spike as shown in Fig. 1.

Climate temperatures last 5000 years.
Fig. 3

Again in Fig. 1 look at the far left side to about 1890 and notice how low the temperature was. We need to pull back to previous history that suffered very destructive climate changes. This included three little ice ages:

Sporer Minimum 1460-1500; Maunder Minimum 1645-1715; Dalton Minimum 1790-1830. Ref. The Great Extinctions by Norman MacLeod P59

In addition we had three climate altering volcanic eruptions in about a 100 year period following the cold periods that all led to earlier glacier expansion:

Laki Iceland eruption 1783-84. To quote, "The Laki eruption and its aftermath caused a drop in global temperatures, as sulfur dioxide was spewed into the Northern Hemisphere. This caused crop failures in Europe and may have caused droughts in India.

The eruption has been estimated to have killed over six million people globally, making it the deadliest in historical times."

Mount Tambora Eruption 1815. The eruption blasted 38 cubic miles of material into the atmosphere. "It had a long-term effect on global climate" producing what was known as the "year without a summer". Smaller eruptions occurred in 1819 and "around" 1880.

"This was the largest and most violent eruption in the last 5000 years." This caused massive cooling, crop failures, etc. across the globe.

Krakatoa Eruption 1883. "In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 Deg. C (2.2 Deg. F). Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888." How convenient they started the graph in Fig. 1 at 1890.

"The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere...The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation." Ref. all Wikipedia.

Climate change 5.5 million years.
Fig. 4

Thus we had centuries of below normal temperatures which are now getting back to normal in my view. That massive cooling you see on the left edge in Fig. 1. was caused by Krakatoa. Complaints about melting glaciers is no big deal as they expanded during this prolonged cooling period and should be melting.

If we pull back 5.5 million years (Fig. 4) using sediment cores, this illustrates how variable climate really is - even if present scare mongering is correct we won't even be close to the geological normal.

Ice Ages over 450,000 years.
Fig. 5

In Fig. 5 from the University of Utah Geology Dept. illustrates how cold and variable the climate has been over the last 450,000 years. Note the phrase "abrupt temperature swings".

Climate change last 2.4 billion years.
Fig. 6

Fig. 6 shows ice ages over the last 2.4 billion years and compare the normal temperatures far above present day when the earth was far greener and full of life. In another of my geology texts 37 million years ago CO2 was at 2700 PPM and the planet was pole to pole lust forests full of life. This included crocodiles and turtles in Northern Canada!

Mass extinctions have occurred mainly during strong global cooling and asteroid impacts such as the one that killed the dinosaurs.

The John William Pope Center notes in their article The Academic-Governmental Complex that government funding of research tends to "distort scientific priorities" and to quote;

Federal funding can actually pervert the direction and outcome of scientific research. Federal funding agents are careful not to make awards that stray from existing research paths...in some cases they want to see successful results even before making the grant. That is destructive of genuine research, in which the outcome isn't known when the scientist starts out...

...in 1930 the entire research budget of all American universities totaled $51 million, federal grants represented 10 percent of the total. In 2008, federal funds represent about 60 percent out of a total of $51.9 billion.

That's a whopping $31 billion and will continue compromising scientific objectivity. For that kind of money we could have a real space program. In Southwest Virginia (Appalachia) I've watched tens of millions of public funds going to green energy research as economic development that has produced nothing. It was never about science, it was about the money.

As a final note we need to clean up scientific research and should consider reducing government interference. Research needs to be driven by reason and a clear purpose, not religious style hysteria or political agendas.

New essays on this subject October 2018: