Content uploaded by J.C. Hanekamp
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by J.C. Hanekamp on Sep 17, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Colophon
Pope Francis' climate crusade or the erosion of faith in god © 2024 by the Clintel Foundation
All rights reserved. No part of this essay may be used or reproduced in any
manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher, except
in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Clintel Foundation
Zekeringstraat 41C
1014 BV, Amsterdam
The Netherlands
https://clintel.org
https://clintel.nl
Authors: Jaap C. Hanekamp and William M. Briggs
Cover and illustrations: Yleana Hanekamp (Studio Plafondeling)
Graphic design by Maarten Bosch (Little Shop of Graphics)
About Clintel
Climate Intelligence (Clintel) is an independent foundation informing people about climate change
and climate policies. Clintel was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus
Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Clintel’s main objective is to generate knowledge and
understanding of the causes and effects of climate change as well as the effects of climate policy
on the economy and the environment.
Clintel published the World Climate Declaration, now signed by almost 2000 scientists and
experts. In 2023 Clintel published the book The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, which
documents serious errors and biases in the latest IPCC report.
3 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
The authors
Jaap C. Hanekamp (1964) is a chemist by trade and
his second dissertation Utopia and Gospel: Unearthing
the Good News in Precautionary Culture at the
University of Tilburg (The Netherlands). The essay
book.
Jaap is married and together with his wife part of a
local church in which he, sporadically, leads a service.
The Hanekamp family at some point ran a foster
home in which they lived with their own 3 children
and, successively, in total 9 teenagers. He blogs at
https://jaaphanekamp.com.
William M. Briggs, often referred to as the
Statistician to the Stars, is a multifaceted individual
with a background in statistics, philosophy,
meteorology, and cryptography. Born in Detroit,
he left the city when it was at its peak, which some
might jokingly suggest led to its decline. Briggs
holds a PhD in Mathematical Sciences and an MS in
Atmospheric Physics, and has served in various roles
including professor, consultant, and statistician.
He is known for his work in probability and statistics,
as well as his cultural commentary on various social
various publications and maintaining an active blog
(https://www.wmbriggs.com/) where he discusses a
range of topics from climate change to human nature.
He is Catholic.
4 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
Summary
Pope Francis outlines his outlook on climate
change in Laudato Si’Laudate Deum
(2023). Concisely, the Pope fears that the world
in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing
the breaking point because of climate change. In fact,
the Pope announced in his encyclicals that there is a
on climate change as such. Instead, we examine the
Pope’s use and understanding of models, and delve
deeper into the overarching philosophy that sustains
both encyclicals. We conclude that the Pope, carelessly
we believe, embraces scientism, and not science,
which inadvertently weakens his position, and those
that follow his scientistic prescriptions. Scientism is
the ideology that science alone is deemed capable of
elucidating and resolving all genuine human problems,
and that all human affairs can be reduced to science.
Accordingly, scientism is the effort to expand science
to usurp them in a reductionist fashion.
The two encyclicals reveal sure signs of scientism
in several ways. First, Pope Francis shows an
unquestioning allegiance to climate catastrophism
gross misrepresentation of what climate science is
by, perhaps unwittingly, embracing climate scientism,
the Pope opens the door to a dialectic understanding
of reality. That is: on the one hand, he unambiguously
derides the current economic reality (with all its
regulatory reality that must oversee all fundamental
human affairs on a global scale. Because of this, and
third, Pope Francis introduces and endorses the
destructive utopian worldview. He plays the dystopian
card of dogmatic climate catastrophism to persuade
people to get on with the global transformative
program of the utopian kind. Fourth, the climate
scientism Pope Francis peddles stands diametrically
opposed to the Christian worldview. We will show,
incommensurable with not only the Christian faith but
also with science.
5 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
A half century of warnings
In comments to the opening of 2023’s twenty eighth
annual United Nations Conference of the Parties on
global warming, now called “climate change”, Pope
Francis said that environmental destruction is “an
offense against God.”¹ This we wholeheartedly agree
with.
Yet a moment’s thought reveals that this statement,
coming at this time, is rather curious.
Recall that this was the twenty eighth global warming
Hansen’s dramatic warning to the American Congress
that man’s use of energy was driving temperatures
up. Hansen’s testimony came fourteen years after
Britain’s Royal Meteorological Society’s President
Kenneth Hare, echoing many of his colleagues, said
in Time magazine that because of global cooling, also
caused by man’s energy use, that “I don’t believe the
world’s present population is sustainable if [trends
continue]”.² The population in 1974 was about
4 billion. It is more than double that today.
We have therefore had a half century of warnings
that man’s use of energy was causing environmental
destruction, at least of the atmospheric kind, with
downstream effects that would become apparent,
devastating, inescapable. Each successive warning
said these terrible effects would occur “soon.” Soon
is, of course, a relative word. Geologically speaking,
which is the best time scale with which to discuss the
earth’s climate, soon can be many human lifetimes. On
the other hand, given the obvious strenuous emotions
1 https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256165/pope-francis-to-cop28-environmental-destruction-is-an-offense-against-god.
2 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTMY-W1VsAEj1tB?format=jpg&name=900x900.
that accompanied each year’s new warning, each
predicting doom “soon”, it makes one wonder how
much longer we must wait until considering the idea
these warnings might, well, be wrong.
There are at least two separate questions here. The
daily are on target. The second is, even if they are
right, what to do about them, if anything at all. A
matched, but shockingly neglected, though just as
important, third question is what do we do if the
warnings are untrue?
Pope Francis obviously takes the warnings as truthful
and accurate. Indeed, he wrote two papal encyclicals
on the topic, Laudato Si’Laudate
Deum (LD) in 2023. In both documents he assumed
the worst: that the predictions of the ravages of global
warming, now called “climate change”, as delivered by
the predictions were right; he took the answer as
because some scientists said so. As a
result, the focus of both his writings are devoted to
exhortations on how to respond to these ‘true and
certain’ warnings.
Yet responding to warnings as such are not matters
of science, and indeed that the uses to which science
are put are emphatically not science. To confuse
science with what are good or bad or necessary or
unnecessary decisions is scientism, a term elaborated
below. Scientism, tragically, has center stage in both
6 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
encyclicals. This results in the Pope defending his
solutions to climate change, e.g. the complete and
global termination of all uses of fossil fuels, as science.
Which is not true. We argue below that the distortion
of science into scientism is part and parcel of Laudato
Si’ and Laudate Deum.
To be absolutely clear, any dismissal of the critique
presented below as purportedly being outside the
fallacious appeal to the very authority which we are
explicitly questioning, we reject out of hand. We also
that because of our critique, we must be in bed with
the fossil fuel industry or some such. This is simply
a red herring that purposely distracts from the real
to show that in the realm of the Old Testament, it
alone the Pope’s or indeed anyone else’s. Therefore,
questioning the humdrum authority of science is more
than commendable. Truly, it is a prerequisite of the
science enterprise itself!
A matched, but shockingly neglected, though just
as important, third question is what do we do if the
warnings are untrue?
7 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
The Story of Job
A Prolegomenon to our Critique
The Book of Job is captivating for many reasons
and is an appropriate starting point of our
extremely wealthy man who loses everything in his
life, including his children, and questions the justness
of his lot.
In the book, Job’s friends tell Job that God is
in allowing Job to suffer because of some hidden or
unknown wrongdoing, and God can do whatever
He likes. Job must have fallen short of some divine
standard, which he should own up to, they insist.
Job, contrariwise, protests openly and bitterly that
his suffering is wrongful, and that God should not
8 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
have allowed it to happen. We, the readers, are
unequivocally aware from the beginning of the
story that Job is guiltless. So, everything that befalls
him (through God’s actions and Satan’s malice) has
nothing to do with God righting some injustice in the
world through Job’s suffering. Job is innocent and
what happens to him is not a consequence of any
wrongdoing on his part.
Job’s position and repudiates that of the comforter
friends! Put differently, in opposing God, Job is more
allied with God’s will than his comforters are, as God
Himself makes clear. That is why God sides with Job,
who opposed him, and not with the comforters, who
were trying to be God’s devotees. It is telling, and
quite extraordinary, that in the ancient world a story
was told in which an ordinary human being stood up
against power, in this case even Absolute power if
that power is devoid of Goodness only God possesses.
This makes the Book of Job such a remarkable
and exquisite literary work that is unparalleled in
the ancient world. We intend to do the same here,
obviously in a far more restricted sense and with
respect to the understanding and use of science (and
its modelling) and its results, and how much science
should be believed, if at all, because authorities insist
upon it. Ultimately, Job speaks openly about authority,
justice, honesty, integrity and truth, even against God
Himself if that is needed.
The main (and everyday) sticking points we will carry
over in our assessment are that any and all empirical
no exceptions. Any and all theories and models
proposed in science are up for critical analysis, no
exceptions. We believe we are in the good company
of Job who questioned even the Almighty, although
we certainly cannot compare in any way with Job’s
guiltlessness. Nevertheless, Job is a man who was
highly commended by God precisely because he stood
goodness.
We will see that science has taken the place of God,
namely in the form of scientism. That might not be
such a surprise in our secularized culture. People all
too easily bow to perceived power and knowledge,
everywhere. For any Pope, however, that would be a
as an intellectual leader who must be aware of the
unequivocal limitations of science and the idolatrous
character of replacing God with it. In this sense, the
story of Job informs us also that we all could easily fall
prey to the position Job’s friends are in.
We will see that science has taken the place of God,
namely in the form of scientism.
9 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
We now turn to Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum.³
As both documents are signed by Pope
Francis, we take him to be the author. We take
(his) language seriously and will not speculate on
purported implications in the texts in terms of politics
and the like. Our interest is in only the meaning of
the documents themselves. Pope Francis’s intent is
nothing other than clear; from Laudato Si’ (p. 4):
the brink of nuclear crisis, Pope Saint John XXIII wrote
an Encyclical which not only rejected war but offered
a proposal for peace. He addressed his message Pacem
in Terris to the entire ‘Catholic world’ and indeed ‘to
all men and women of good will’. Now, faced as we
are with global environmental deterioration, I wish
to address every person living on this planet. In my
Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I wrote
to all the members of the Church with the aim of
encouraging ongoing missionary renewal. In this
Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all
people about our common home.”
Francis wishes to address all mankind in the face
of what he sees as a global environmental decline,
which is why he urgently appeals for a “new dialogue
about how we are shaping the future of our planet”
(LS p. 12). On the same page he points at the biblical
truth that the “Creator does not abandon us; he never
forsakes his loving plan or repents of having created
us.” Overall, the encyclical letter Laudato Si’ posits
that we “require a new and universal solidarity” and
that we do away with “obstructionist attitudes” to
3 Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home. 2015. See https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/
documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html.
Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum of the Holy Father Francis to all people of good will on the climate crisis. 2023. See https://www.vatican.va/content/
francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/20231004-laudate-deum.html.
this universal governance ranging from “denial of the
problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or
of us can cooperate as instruments of God for the care
of creation, each according to his or her own culture,
experience, involvements and talents” (LS p. 13).
Laudate Deum is a further response by Pope Francis
on what he now calls the “climate crisis”. He states
that:
“Eight years have passed since I published the
Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’, when I wanted to
share with all of you, my brothers and sisters of our
suffering planet, my heartfelt concerns about the
care of our common home. Yet, with the passage of
time, I have realized that our responses have not
been adequate, while the world in which we live is
collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point.
In addition to this possibility, it is indubitable that the
impact of climate change will increasingly prejudice
the lives and families of many persons. We will
feel its effects in the areas of healthcare, sources of
employment, access to resources, housing, forced
migrations, etc.” (LS p. 1)
Conversely, Pope Francis points at the Bible and tells
us that “God saw everything that he had made, and
indeed, it was very good” (Gen 1:31). His is “the earth
with all that is in it” (Deut 10:14). For this reason, he
tells us that, “the land shall not be sold in perpetuity,
for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and
Laudato Si’ (2015) and
Laudate Deum (2023)
The Road to Scientism
10 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
God’s earth means that human beings, endowed with
intelligence, must respect the laws of nature and the
delicate equilibria existing between the creatures of
this world”. … At the same time, “the universe as a
whole, in all its manifold relationships, shows forth
the inexhaustible richness of God”. To be wise, “we
need to grasp the variety of things in their multiple
relationships”. … Along this path of wisdom, it is not a
matter of indifference to us that so many species are
disappearing and that the climate crisis endangers the
life of many other beings.” (LS p. 13)
For all their good will and hopeful arguments, the two
encyclicals accommodate two perspectives that are,
in truth, irreconcilable. More precisely, one of the two
perspectives – scientism – not only contradicts but also
usurps, annuls, the theological perspective – faith in
God. Notes of despair on the state of the planet as a
from
which no escape seems possible and the notion that
the “biblical tradition … shows that … renewal entails
recovering and respecting the rhythms inscribed
exemplify this incommensurability. This contradiction
in Laudato Si’ is much more pronounced in Laudate
Deum
possible, about the purported science it invokes (with
our emphasis):
“It is not possible to conceal the correlation of these
global climate phenomena and the accelerated increase
in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly since the
mid-twentieth century. The overwhelming majority
of scientists specializing in the climate support this
correlation, and only a very small percentage of them
seek to deny the evidence. Regrettably, the climate
crisis is not exactly a matter that interests the great
economic powers, whose concern is with the greatest
4 M. Stenmark, Scientism. Science, Ethics and Religion, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, England: 2001.
amount of time.
appear obvious, because of certain dismissive and
scarcely reasonable opinions that I encounter, even
within the Catholic Church. Yet we can no longer
doubt that the reason for the unusual rapidity of
these dangerous changes is a fact that cannot be
concealed: the enormous novelties that have to do
with unchecked human intervention on nature in the
past two centuries. Events of natural origin that usually
cause warming, such as volcanic eruptions and others,
the changes of recent decades. The change in average
surface temperatures cannot be explained except as the
result of the increase of greenhouse gases.” (LD p. 4)
Firstly, it is clear that Pope Francis takes the consensus
approach to climate change, which is the view that the
, is
in agreement that climate change is mostly a human
affair related to the use of fossil fuels. This is a gross
misrepresentation of what climate science is about
matter) should be understood.
Secondly, Pope Francis is clearly tempted by a
scientistic
Scientism is the ideology that science alone is deemed
capable of elucidating and resolving all genuine
human problems (poverty, social inequity, climate
change, warfare, pollution, food safety, the meaning
of life et cetera), and that all human affairs can be
reduced to science. Accordingly, scientism is the effort
to usurp them in a reductionist fashion.
Scientism is the ideology that science alone is deemed
capable of elucidating and resolving all genuine human
problems, and that all human affairs can be reduced to
science.
11 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
Concisely put: scientism is the ideology that all real
is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a
branch of science. If that is the case, and we argue for
the Pope’s scientistic position in both documents, then
unwittingly) null and void because they are outside
the realm of science, scientistically understood.
Put differently, Pope Francis invokes a colossal and
insolvable contradiction by embracing the ideology
of scientism, which is idolatrous, that is, worshipping
something or someone that is not God. Something or
someone creaturely is never worthy of devotion. Only
God – Subsistent Being Itself as the Christian tradition
states – is worthy of worship. Consequently, believing
that science, an all too human and thus limited
idolatrous. We will come back to this point later.
Thirdly, Pope Francis invokes an additional
contradiction when he, on the one hand, chastises the
economic forces at play which he sees as detrimental
to human and environmental thriving, while
simultaneously and foolishly embracing a political
yet undiscussed
risks to humanity and the environment. An example of
the former is found in Laudato Si’:
“economic powers continue to justify the current
global system where priority tends to be given to
fail to take the context into account, let alone the
effects on human dignity and the natural environment.
Here we see how environmental deterioration and
human and ethical degradation are closely linked.
Many people will deny doing anything wrong because
distractions constantly dull our consciousness of
result, ‘whatever is fragile, like the environment, is
which become the only rule’.” (LS p. 41)
He explains the latter in Laudate Deum:
“It is not helpful to confuse multilateralism with a
world authority concentrated in one person or in
an elite with excessive power: ‘When we talk about
the possibility of some form of world authority
regulated by law, we need not necessarily think of a
5 Feser, E. 2015. Religion and Superstition. In: Oppy, G. The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion. Routledge, New York, p. 192–201.
personal authority’. … We are speaking above all of
‘more effective world organizations, equipped with
the power to provide for the global common good,
the elimination of hunger and poverty and the sure
defence of fundamental human rights’. … The issue
is that they must be endowed with real authority,
in such a way as to ‘provide for’ the attainment of
certain essential goals. In this way, there could come
about a multilateralism that is not dependent on
changing political conditions or the interests of a
matter of establishing global and effective rules that
can permit ‘providing for’ this global safeguarding. All
this presupposes the development of a new procedure
since the one put in place several decades ago is not
and political arrangements could indeed be successful,
if at all, he does not say or argue for. And he does
charged with making decisions on seemingly every
aspect of human life, could be constrained, and
kept from abusing its monumental powers. That is
the missing essential requirement. This makes the
Pope’s critique and recommendations alarmingly
whimsical. That an envisioned dystopian sequence
confronted with “world organizations, equipped with
the power to provide for the global common good,
the elimination of hunger and poverty and the sure
dialectic later. First, we need to further our discussion
on science.
12 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
Of Science and Climate Change
of Models and Predictions
It is not easy to know what to make of the science
of “climate change”, for several reasons. The
most important one is that it has become next to
impossible to separate actual changes in the state of
the atmosphere and their known and uncertain causes
and effects from the endless and constant stream of
theoretical predictions of change, a great majority
of them hyperbolic. And we are asked to take the
hyperbole in earnest, because doing so at least shows
moral solidarity to the environmental cause.
As a prominent example from top leadership, UN
Secretary General António Guterres said in 2023 that
the earth was undergoing “global boiling”, a term
which he insisted be taken seriously. Yet as a
of any kind. But he, like many leaders, meant us to
accept his judgement as sound science, and even, or
rather especially, if we know the statement is absurd.
This is because “good people” accept the usefulness
of absurdities in inducing panic. And they know that
means science, itself yet another form of scientism.
There is, of course, the possibility that Guterres may
have believed sincerely what he said about “global
boiling”, but, if so, that merely makes him incompetent.
Even if you are thoroughly convinced of the theories
behind global warming, it is clear “global boiling”
is not yet upon us, even though some of the more
fanciful theories predict catastrophes like it might
someday occur. Yet since there is no “global boiling”
now, Guterres seems to be relying on the predictions
6 See Table 12.12 of Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribu-
tion of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1767–1926. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf.
of such a thing as evidence that the theory behind the
predictions is true. This is an inversion of the vaunted
In any case, Guterres is far from alone
in taking predictions of calamity as proof the calamities
have already occurred. Pope Francis does so as well.
In Laudate Deum, the Pope begins by announcing there
is a “global climate crisis.” To be sure, as with “global
boiling”, some predict that such a crisis will occur. But
this does not mean it must or will. Yet the Pope assumes
the prediction is certain, infallible and without error,
and therefore the predicted crisis is already here. This
is circular reasoning, albeit tempered by many media
stories which routinely claim the “end of the world.”
It could be the Pope, and people like Guterres, rely
on these sensationalistic stories and not on the bulk
of published research. But, given the propagandistic
nature of most media, that would be irresponsible in the
that he does not rely on dubious (media) sources. In
point of fact, it is unclear which sources lie at the basis
of the many claims the Pope makes in both encyclicals.
Many, well publicized, ravages of “climate change”,
happened, but are only predicted to happen. In fact,
the IPCC states that for most types of extreme weather
beyond natural variability has not happened and will
likely not occur, even under the most extreme CO
emission scenario until sometime towards 2100!
Nevertheless, it is these predictions that lead many,
especially in the media and in leadership, to suppose
13 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
it must have been caused by “climate change”. Pope
Francis says, “No one can ignore the fact that in
recent years we have witnessed extreme weather
phenomena, frequent periods of unusual heat, drought
and other cries of protest on the part of the earth that
are only a few palpable expressions of a silent disease
that affects everyone.” (LD – p. 2)
Whether the earth can in fact cry in protest, we leave
for the reader to decide. There have not been any
frequent periods of unusual heat, and there has been
no certain increase in extreme weather phenomena
has, of course, been a colossal increase in interest in
every kind of untoward event that can be tied, however
weakly, to climate. That awareness generates more
future awareness, the whole building into a tsunami
of commotion, where the commotion itself is taken as
proof that “climate change” theories are correct.
7 https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wefo/22/3/waf997_1.xml.
8 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007EO180001.
As a benign example, consider the early days of
tornado research, well before there was any interest
in “climate change”. It was noticed that tornadoes
seemed to be increasing in number into the modern
era. What could be the cause? The dull answer is
counting, not “climate change”. Historically, many
tornadoes spawned where there were no eyes to
record them. But as population increased and as
measurement equipment became more sophisticated
public eye, identifying and documenting tornadoes –
location, speed, direction, intensity – became easier.
Tornado numbers didn’t increase, but their recording
did. Famously, the same thing happened with
hurricane research. This does and will happen with
all subjects which become interesting.
The Pope admits that not all “catastrophe[s] ought
to be attributed to global climate change.” (LD – p. 2)
14 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
by humanity are notably heightening the probability
of extreme phenomena that are increasingly frequent
attribution studies. This is where bad events, and
never good ones, that are observed to happen, are
assigned an increased probability under “climate
change” models. Space precludes a full discussion
of attribution studies here (but see these papers),
except to note two important things. One, the models
assigning these heightened probabilities must be
probabilities to hold. Of course, in practice the models
are far from perfect, almost always predicting higher
temperatures than occur in reality and therefore
they assign probabilities that are far too high. Two,
attribution studies are predictions, not observations.
This is a prime example of assuming predictions of
calamity are taken as providing the proof that the
theory behind the calamities is true.
The Pope obviously assumes global warming theory
must be true: after all, why would so many scientists
have made all these predictions unless the theories
behind them were correct? So convinced is he that the
scientists he favours are right, that he takes to bullying
scientists who disagree with him. He says in Laudate
Deum that “only a very small percentage of [scientists]
seek to deny the evidence” (p. 4; our emphasis). He
says that there is “resistance” and “confusion” among
certain unnamed but clearly shady individuals, and
that these (implied) bad scientists “have chosen to
deride” the “facts” which he uncritically takes as true.
Demonstrating that a “fact”, which is to say a beloved
not derision.
Showing a claim is wrong is indeed denial: but it is the
.
The story of Job is illustrative here (in the restricted
9 https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/04/Briggs-Climate-Attribution.pdf.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/10/Briggs-IPCC-Attribution.pdf.
10 See https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/global-warming-observations-vs-climate-models.
11 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/23421495/1769713.
12 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zmI0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=L5wEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5376,3200988&.
13 https://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2014/11/expert-predicts-ice-free-arctic-2020-un-releases-climate-report-04-11.
sense we mentioned above). Job vehemently disagreed
with the deterministic ‘theology’ of his day that
(In fact, Jesus Himself emphasized this as can be read
in John chapter 9 (ESV): “As He passed by, He saw a
man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked Him,
“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he
was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “It was not that
this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of
God might be displayed in him.”)
As an example of predictions mistaken as
melting glaciers, which “can be easily perceived by an
individual in his or her lifetime, and probably in a few
years many populations will have to move their homes
because of these facts.” (LD – p. 2) He has not taken
the trouble to learn that similar predictions have been
made many times and have been shown to be wrong
each time. One series of predictions deserves special
time (that we can discover) the Arctic was predicted to
it was predicted there would be no ice by 2004.¹¹ The
ice, of course, remains to this day. Another similar
¹²
Many predictions, all of increasing mathematical
and computerized sophistication, have been made
since then. A notable one is by Peter Wadhams, who
in 2014 was a professor of applied mathematics and
theoretical physics at the University of Cambridge in
England. He assured the world the Arctic would be
clear of all ice by 2020. He was wrong.¹³ The minimum
summer extent of ice stopped dropping around 2010
and has increased somewhat after that.
Now we could do the same service for all the other
examples Pope Francis cites, including entire nations
He has not taken the trouble to learn that similar
predictions have been made many times and have
been shown to be wrong each time.
15 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
predicted to disappear beneath the waves but
which have stubbornly remained dry. We could list
many examples of serially incorrect predictions of
environmental doom that have not come to pass. But
science should be conducted and, more importantly,
how it should be understood by its users.
The Pope also misunderstands the role of science and
of criticism within science. Is it derision to point out
that these many, increasingly alarming, predictions
over the course of decades have all been wrong? And
that, therefore, the theory behind the predictions is
necessarily false? This is a matter of logic: correct
theories will only make correct predictions. Whereas
a false theory, by luck alone, can make guesses which
turn out to be correct. This means, more is needed to
justify belief in theories than accurate predictions alone.
Here, however, we are not discussing accurate but
inaccurate predictions, where it is clear the theories
must be wrong.
The Pope suggests instead the desire to “ridicule” is
what leads sceptical scientists to show, and publicize,
the errors in leading theories. He disdains these
“certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions”
(LD – p. 4). Again, we ask, how can it be unreasonable
to demonstrate conclusively that a theory is in error
or should be greatly doubted? Should we not want
to pursue the truth in science, wherever it leads?
Scorning critiques of science is, as must be obvious
by now, not how the practice of science should be
conducted. Now it is true that scientists, being people
and therefore subject to the same weaknesses as the
rest of humanity, do not welcome criticism with any
greater enthusiasm than anybody else (and perhaps
even less than others). This is especially so after
they have gained a certain level of status and power
in controlling the direction of research and grants.
cannot and must not be trusted.
If theories are pushed because of their political
necessity, or because they align with personal desire
or ideology, then the entire practice of science
becomes suspect. Again, if a theory leads to a
prediction that does not eventuate, then that theory
14 Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Routledge, London.
15 Prosch, H. 1986. Michael Polanyi: A Critical Exposition. State University of New York Press.
to the theory creators. But these good intentions,
assuming they are good, are not proof of the old
theory’s validity. Indeed, they are proof of exactly the
opposite
& Improved!’ models are not proof of their validity.
The only acceptable test is the empirical one: always
pit model predictions against reality.
It should go without saying, but alas we must say it,
that it also follows that valid and accurate criticisms
do not lose their validity or accuracy because of
the character or employment status of the people
who bring them, or the circumstances in which the
criticisms are made. No matter how a theory is proved
wrong, it is wrong. A great many in leadership, and
rulers and top or celebrity scientists, have warmly
accepted the idea that falsehoods in service to a
‘greater truth’ are not only warranted but necessary
– the very “planet” is imperilled. They might not tell
such lies themselves, but they almost never correct
these lies (i.e. “global boiling”), if they are in the “right
direction” of course. Perhaps these elites believe
there is no other way than lies and hyperbole to “raise
awareness” among the public and thereby create an
academic powerbase very few would or could contest.
That this purposely utopian strategy is neither new
nor exceptional, Michael Polanyi pointed out more
than half a century ago when he remarked in his
Personal Knowledge
as such because they satisfy moral passions, will
excite these passions further, and thus lend increased
behind it, while any moral objections to it are coldly
brushed aside by invoking the inexorable verdict of
takes it in turn to draw attention away from the other
when it is under attack.”
Harry Prosch summarizes Polanyi’s poignant
observation as the “twin devils of the ideal of
knowledge as detached objectivity and the ideal of
action as moral perfectionism.” Both play off of each
other so that neither is properly addressed within
their own domain. The reason for that is simple:
16 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
rejected as immoral – such critique ostensibly hinders
the ‘necessary transformation’ of society – and
condemning projected climate policies is subsequently
in the graveyard’ strategy is nowadays immortalized
and dull belief that they should and must sidestep
honesty, integrity and truth, these elites create the
decry.
Add to this shyness of criticism that the actual
predictions of change. Clear separations no longer
exist. Most assume something close to the worst has
already happened, with only impossible depredations
yet to come. This must be the case, common people
reason, why else would many important people
appear to be so upset. The level of emotion on display
leads to the conclusion that something must justify it.
Polanyi was very much aware of this dangerous and
Perhaps these elites believe there is no other way than
lies and hyperbole to “raise awareness” among the
public and thereby create an academic powerbase very
few would or could contest
17 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
Scientists imagine that no good of any kind can
come from a changing atmosphere: all changes
are prejudged as evil, so the story goes. Indeed,
the reader will be hard pressed to discover a facet of
life that has not been researched and proclaimed to be
negatively susceptible to “climate change”. Whatever
is bad in the world will become worse. Whatever is
good will become bad. The Pope appears to endorse
an atmosphere richer in carbon dioxide (which, after
water, is the primary source of plant food). Naturally,
it could very well be that bad changes outnumber, or
even outdo, good changes. But this kind of calculation
is never done and frowned upon when suggested.
Certainly, the Pope has not done it.
The Pope in Laudate Deum did say, “Certain
apocalyptic diagnoses may well appear scarcely
welcome note of providence. But then he immediately
weakens it with: “This should not lead us to ignore
the real possibility that we are approaching a
critical point. Small changes can cause greater ones,
unforeseen and perhaps already irreversible, due to
both ways. It might not be as bad as some of the most
nervous say, the Pope agrees, but he then insists it
is surely grim, because “unforeseen” problems that
cannot be ignored might exist. Therefore, it is best to
treat them as if they do exist. The potential size of the
ostensible threat becomes proof that the threat is in
fact real, or real enough, to take action against. The
seriousness of the charges is thus regarded as evidence
of the charges themselves, which is a fallacy.
16 Hanekamp, J.C. 2009. Neither Acceptable nor Certain – Cold War Antics for the 21st Century Precautionary Culture. Erasmus Law Review 2(2): 221 – 257.
17 Voegelin, E. 1952. The New Science of Politics. An Introduction. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
The Pope, in both Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum,
is clearly arguing from within the framework of
harm in question is related to human activities.
serious or irreversible damage are brought to the fore,
the precautionary principle envisions regulation to
be mandatory so as to prevent such potential damage
from materializing in the future. Put differently,
precaution is regarded as the means to cope with
the many dark sides of human history before these
actually materialize.
Precautionary thinking is profoundly dialectic. This is
the approach in which the confrontation between two
opposing grounds results in some kind of resolution:
the envisioned conceivable harms of the future done
by human societies can, a priori, be ameliorated in the
present by the elites of the global society as referred
to by the Pope. This means that Pope Francis is playing
the dystopian card, so as to entice people to get on
with the global transformative program of the utopian
kind as quickly as possible. Obviously, the gloomier
the dystopia is presented, the brighter the depicted
utopian future seems.
Unfortunately then, and contrary to the Christian
faith, Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum directly play
into the utopian dialectic: “to immanentize the
eschaton”, that is, the future Kingdom of God needs
to be implemented right now and by human hands.
Eric Voegelin famously coined this phrase, yet it is
a contradiction in terms. Utopia, the secularized
The precautionary Pope
the dialectic of
utopia vs dystopia
18 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
Kingdom of Heaven, is nothing other than a failed
empire made by fallible human hands. As one of this
essay’s authors remarks: “the utopian precautionary
perspective is no more than the pitiable orphan of
Christian eschatology”. Thus, the former is the
distorted echo of the latter, that is the Christian
confession of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,
announcing the resurrection of the dead, eternal life,
and the kingdom of God. This is theologically called
the eschatological reality
world as realized by God alone.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Francis’ predecessor, noted
that in the attempt to manufacture eschatology via
utopia, the very thing Pope Francis dabbles with,
“no real connection between the promise and the
approaches to it” exists. That is to say, the assurance
world actionable counterparts. The idea of Utopia
Worse, any utopian attempt annihilates the natural
relationship between ideas, motives, and values on
the one hand, and human action on the other, as the
catholic philosopher Aurel Kolnai makes clear in his
work on utopia. The 20th century is littered with the
debris and corpses of the attempts to establish utopian
empires. Yet, Pope Francis is trying to have it both ways,
which, again, is theologically and humanly irresoluble.
Apart from these historical, philosophical, and
theological deliberations, what is ignored in all
uses of precaution is the patent asymmetry of its
methodology. It is indeed logically possible any
unknown threat can be bad. But it is just as logically
possible for the cures proposed for the ostensible
disease to be worse than the disease itself. That is:
18 Hanekamp, J.C. 2015. Utopia and Gospel: Unearthing The Good News in Precautionary Culture. Dissertation, Tilburg University.
19 Ratzinger, J. Eschatology and Utopia. See https://matiane.wordpress.com/2020/10/30/eschatology-and-utopia-by-cardinal-joseph-ratzinger/.
20 Kolnai, A. (edited by Dunlop, F.) 1995. The Utopian Mind and Other Papers. Athlone, London 1995. Pierre Manent has written the introduction also found in
Modern Liberty and Its Discontents (1998).
21 Manson, N.A. 2002. Formulating the Precautionary Principle. Environmental Ethics 24: 263–274.
22 Cross, F.B. 1996. Paradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle. Washington and Lee Law Review 53: 851–925.
the utopian zeal to ward off the feared dystopia will
spawn a different dystopia with equal, if not more,
destructive qualities, is rarely or never considered by
utopian elites.²¹ There is seldom any consideration
of what implementing the proposed solutions will
cost. For instance, in Laudate Deum the Pope says that
political solutions that will be offered at the United
acceleration of energy transition”. (LD p. 12) As some
proposed at that meeting, this means abandoning the
use of all oil, gas, and coal in some very short period of
years, even less than a decade. This is astonishing. And
frightening. No person in power who has suggested
this could possibly have thought through this
proposal. There is instead a naive, almost blind, trust
that all obstacles in moving away from fossil resources
will be conquered with easily and painlessly.
Precautionary policies are routinely thought of
as exogenous panaceas that can do no harm once
implemented.²² This is patently false: policy is just
as much fallible human technology as the purported
disease. As a global church leader, the Pope must and
should be aware of human sinfulness that affects all
our doings in this world. Fallible human action takes
center stage in any human endeavour. Put differently,
speaking of detrimental human economic doings in
the ominous wording as found in both encyclicals is
a clear indication of the Pope imposing a dystopian
precautionary culture. This dystopian imagery the
Pope obtusely redeems with utopian expectations
of “global and effective” rulemaking (but with no
indications of who would oversee this powerful new
globally controlling entity). Let us illustrate this with a
thought experiment.
The Pope has called for powerful global governance to
control the climate. If it turns out that “climate change”
is not the problem which it is portrayed, it will next to be
impossible to disband this global government.
19 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
Suppose the theories behind catastrophic “climate
change” are false, or wildly exaggerated. There is some
evidence for this in the string of failed apocalyptic
predictions. Of particular suspicion are the swelling
mass of “downstream” theories, predictions of a near
to everything because of “climate change”. The entire
are heavily invested, personally, institutionally,
politically, and monetarily, in all these theories. But
again, we are supposing the foundational theory of
runaway global warming is false (which means we
don’t have to be concerned with the downstream
theories, regardless if they are good or bad).
There should come a point at which the error is
apparatus supporting “climate change” theories is
dismantled.
Yet is this even possible? Could so many people
whose entire livelihoods, their entire careers, based
on “climate change” admit they were wrong? It is not
human nature to give up any cherished theory, even
false ones, easily. Indeed, it takes herculean effort to
even see contradictory evidence, because this always
brings pain. The Pope has called for powerful global
governance to control the climate. If it turns out
that “climate change” is not the problem which it is
portrayed, it will next to be impossible to disband this
global government. The Pope has the responsibility in
calling for its creation to provide recommendations on
how to rein in this awesome power should it prove not
to be needed.
20 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
It is clear that Pope Francis, in his encyclicals, falls
scientism on which this dualism thrives. This
is the idolatry Pope Francis tinkers with in both
his encyclicals. He desires two mutually exclusive
outcomes. On the one hand, he embraces the
catastrophism of climate scientism that goes hand in
hand with the utopian dialectic he openly espouses, but
he also wishes to be the guardian of the Catholic faith
with Christ as its Sovereign. However, the Christian
worldview that Pope Francis must embrace cannot be
married to the ideology of scientism that by necessity
closes off the empirical reality from any divine
intervention as celebrated most visibly at Christmas,
Easter and Pentecost. Ernest Gellner sums up the
scientistic worldview and its inconsistent credentials
like no other in his Postmodernism, Reason and Religion:
“... no privileged facts, occasions, individuals,
institutions or associations. In other words, no
miracles, no divine interventions and conjuring
performances ... no saviours, no sacred churches or
sacramental communities. All hypotheses are subject
to scrutiny, all facts open to novel interpretations, and
all facts subject to symmetrical laws which preclude
the miraculous, the sacred occasion, the intrusion of
the Other into the Mundane. ... The idea of a Message
(or, indeed, a Messenger) declaring itself to be
demanding assent with menaces, is morally as well as
intellectually unacceptable. ...”²³
What Gellner sketches here Pope Francis should
(and will) reject most emphatically, but which he
23 Gellner, E. 1992. Postmodernism, Reason and Religion. Routledge, London.
24 Del Noce, A. 2014. The Crisis of Modernity. McGill-Queen’s University Press. [Edited and translated by Carlo Lancellotti.]
nevertheless endorses in his encyclicals. Scientism is
not only incommensurable with the faith, but it also
has nothing whatsoever to do with science. The claim
truth. It is an indefensible ideological position very
few are consciously willing to accept. As the catholic
philosopher Augusto del Noce warns in his The Crisis
of Modernity (added emphasis):
“Scientism cannot present itself to the awareness
of its own advocates as a rational truth, i.e., as
susceptible of an irrefutable proof. It is, literally, a
resolution of the will: the resolution to accept as real
On the other hand, it can only be presented to others
as the expression of the adult age of reason, of the
age when myths have vanished (even the wording of
this presentation is necessary: scientism was born
with the Enlightenment, in the wake of the analogy
between the history of mankind and the stages in the
life of an individual, which is the foundation of the
idea of progress. Hence, the metaphor of the adult
man). Due to this contradiction, it must be recognized
reason. It is rationalism revealing itself as a falsifying
ideology. … the essence of scientism is hatred for
religious transcendence. …”
per se does not oblige anyone
to believe anything about the world and neither does
catastrophism, however, is not science but the
offspring of scientism, which should be dismissed
Some Concluding Remarks
21 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
out of hand by scientists of all stripes. Pope Francis
has the further duty to repudiate scientism as it
denies the divine reality of which he is an earthly
representative. Put bluntly, by uncritically embracing
the scientism of climate catastrophism, Pope Francis,
perhaps unwittingly and most certainly unwillingly,
inherently rejects the God he clearly tries to serve
wholeheartedly. As said earlier, the framework of
belief of Job’s friends is too close for comfort for
almost anyone. Nevertheless, the Catholic intellectual
domicile is, fortunately, home to many faithful
intellectuals Pope Francis should have called upon in
his thought process towards Laudato Si’ and Laudate
Deum. This he should have pondered before he sent
both failed encyclicals into the world.
The Christian worldview that Pope Francis must embrace
cannot be married to the ideology of scientism.
22 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
Anderson, C.J., Wikle, C.K., Zhou, Q., Royle, J.A. 2007.
United States. Weather and Forecasting
See https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/
wefo/22/3/waf997_1.xml (accessed on the 1st July
2024).
Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum of the Holy
Father Francis to all people of good will on the climate
crisis. (2023).
Briggs, W.M. 2021. The Climate Blame Game: Are We
The Global
Warming Policy Foundation.
See https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/
(accessed on
the 1st July 2024).
Briggs, W.M. 2021. How the IPCC Sees What Isn’t There.
. The Global Warming Policy Foundation.
See https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/
(accessed on
the 1st July 2024).
Cross, F.B. 1996. Paradoxical Perils of the
Precautionary Principle. Washington and Lee Law
Review
Del Noce, A. 2014. The Crisis of Modernity.
Queen’s University Press. [Edited and translated by
Carlo Lancellotti.]
Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’’ of the Holy Father
Gellner, E. 1992. Postmodernism, Reason and Religion.
Routledge, London.
Greenstein, E.L. 2019. Yale
University Press, New Haven, London.
Hanekamp, J.C. 2009. Neither Acceptable nor Certain
– Cold War Antics for the 21st Century Precautionary
Culture. Erasmus Law Review
Utopia and Gospel: Unearthing
Dissertation,
Tilburg University.
See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
269733910_Utopia_and_Gospel_Unearthing_the_
Good_News_in_Precautionary_Culture (accessed on
the 1st July 2024).
The Utopian
Mind and Other Papers.
Landsea, C.W. 2007. Counting Atlantic Tropical
Cyclones Back to 1900. EOS Transactions American
Geophysical Union
See https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/
(accessed on the 1st
July 2024).
D.J. and Seaton, P.) Modern Liberty and Its Discontents.
Manson, N.A. 2002. Formulating the Precautionary
Principle. Environmental Ethics 24: 263–274.
Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-
Critical Philosophy. Routledge, London.
Bibliography
23 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
State University of New York Press.
Ratzinger, J. Eschatology and Utopia.
See https://matiane.wordpress.com/2020/10/30/
(accessed on the 1st July 2024).
Spencer, R. 2024. Global Warming: Observations vs.
Climate Models. The Heritage Foundation.
Stenmark, M. 2001. Scientism. Science, Ethics and
Religion, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot,
England.
Stump, E. 2010.
the Problem of Suffering. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Introduction. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
24 JAAP C. HANEKAMP & WILLIAM M BRIGGS POPE FRANCIS' CLIMATE CRUSADE OR THE EROSION OF FAITH IN GOD
www.clintel.org
