Schellnhuber Boasts Of Having Skeptics Excluded From Participating In Drafting “Laudato Si” Encyclical

 at www.achgut.com/ch, a policy-critical site run by leading German publicists, wrote how Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber recently boasted before journalists of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) how he got Pope Francis to swing over to climate alarmism in His most recent encyclical “Laudato Si”. It wasn’t through open debate.

[Read here for more background on Schellnhuber.]

Wendt quotes the climate-alarmist Schellnhuber:

Over ten years ago the Pontifical Academy held a conference on climate change. Back then also a squad of prominent ‘skeptics’ also were invited; the Vatican’s position at the time was much different than it is today. …It was a tough job to prepare the scientific findings so that the problem is now far better understood in the Vatican.“

In response Wendt writes point that for Schellnhuber: “The major progress made at the Vatican is namely that the Church excluded any controversy in the new, latest debate which he influenced.”

According to Wendt, the FAZ journalists anxiously asked Schellnhuber:

The skeptics were invited as well?”

Schellnhuber replied:

No. But a British politician, Lord Monckton, managed to sneak into a conference. Unfortunately he is all caught up in conspiracy theories. In Rome he sat behind me with his iPhone, eagerly recording everything, and later in his blog made fun about how he fooled the Swiss security. It was a performance like in a Tyrolean peasant theater.”

Wendt summarizes what we naturally can gather from all this:

When it comes to how a debate is supposed to be conducted, we now know quite precisely what Schellnhuber’s idea of this is, especially once his Great Transformation becomes successful one day.”

Schellnhuber is convinced he should have the last and final word. Pope Francis likely views him as a prophet of some sort.

Wendt defended Monkton, writing that the high profile British climate critic is not caught at all up in any “conspiracy theories”, and that he in fact shares many common positions with scientists like Schellnhuber, quoting him in his own words: “Yes, there is a greenhouse effect. Yes, CO2 contributes to it. Yes, it causes warming. Yes, we emit CO2. Yes, warming will result. But not a lot.”

So here we see, just as we suspected, that the Vatican never bothered having any real balanced and open discussion on climate science in the run-up to “Laudato Si”. A terrible misstep.

7 responses to “Schellnhuber Boasts Of Having Skeptics Excluded From Participating In Drafting “Laudato Si” Encyclical”

  1. DirkH

    Yet none of the models work, and Schellnhuber is a C-rated hack, started as Quantum physicist and has devolved to climate model worshipper, what a decline. Never discovered anything and today still promotes broken models and a broken political model – his technocracy has been tried again and again for 100 years and always resulted in mass starvation. USSR, Mao, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, to name a few. Or when not mass starvation then rationing – Atlee’s UK.

  2. Dan Pangburn

    Some would like you to believe that global average climate is so complex that you can’t understand it. In fact, over 97% of reported average global temperatures since before 1900 are explained by a comparatively simple expression involving only sunspot numbers and a simple approximation of the net effect of all ocean cycles. The ongoing long-term average global temperature trend is down.

    The analysis and a brief description of the proof that CO2 has no effect on climate are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

  3. L Michael Hohmann

    I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html. The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of monetary and energy policies – and bringing a whole, if not all, of science into disrepute. Even the UK Royal Society has become Lysenkoist. viz. http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/snippets-questions-2-climate-models.html
    So, two other politicians — Schellnhuber and the head of the Vatican State — join in the same vein, about which David Archibald’s comment in his ‘Twilight of Abundance’ equally applies — “Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted”.

    Apart from that, even if, for the sake of the argument, one allows the IPCC warming forecast of 4degC by 2100 due to manmade CO2, then thanks to Count Rutherford (Benjamin Thompson) and his famous experiment to help clarify the identity between Energy = Work = Quantity of Heat (all measured in joule, J) it is evident that in comparison to solar power reaching the Earth, the CO2 effect is about as trivial as a flea on the equator jumping off in an easterly direction will have in retarding the Earth’s rotation according to Newton, when compared to solar and lunar gravity effects. Unless, of course, anyone can show me where I may have gone wrong at http://tinyurl.com/ot2hlp4

  4. Brian G Valentine

    I have never heard anything from Hans Joachim that didn’t have an arrogant and vapid tone to it and I would be interested in learning if anyone knows any statements from him that were not of this quality

  5. AndyG55

    The little pseudo-religious rant should be called….

    “Laudato Schell”.

  6. BobW in NC

    “A terrible misstep…”? THAT is the understatement of the year. You were very charitable, Pierre. I admire you for your restraint.

    The critical question: what ever happened to the search for truth? Yes, truth – what is real.

    Sad.

  7. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #186 | Watts Up With That?