Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Mark Shea bans Laramie!

To my groupies over at the Patheos website,

I know you all are just dying to hear my response to your criticisms and questions.  But alas!  Mark Shea, for all of his tolerance, faith, love, and charity, has decided that he strongly dislikes this humble author!

Shea the Malevolent!  Another Catholic who cannot handle confrontation.

Words have been exchanged through e-mail with Shea, to be sure.  But such things ought to be kept private and between the parties.  I will, however, assure you that the likelihood of yours truly being able to respond to your quibbles in that post is quite non-existent, no matter how much I try to convince Shea I'm not a Rick Delano groupie.

(I swear, what is Shea's problem with DeLano?  The latter is such a nice guy compared to the former.)

"Only people who agree with me are allowed in my living room!"  Sounds familiar!

So, TMLutas, Marthe Lépine, chezami, and Heather!  If you want to follow up on your shallow name calling as you safely enjoy the absence of my presence, then go right ahead!  I'm sure you'll claim you're being a loving and charitable Catholic as you lambaste the banished guy with flowery insults.

More details later, gang.


UPDATE:

A bit of followup, I'd like to provide a summary of my brief exchange on said blog post, shortly before my exile.  I attempted to call out Mark Shea, who has ultimately shown himself too cowardly to respond to my points, and rather, has chosen to just remove me and plug up his ears.  I began by quoting him:
"[Pope Francis] opposes abortion and contraception and gay 'marriage'. He’s not going to be ordaining women. He’s, y’know, the pope, and therefore Catholic."
Just because he does not outright oppose these things with his official powers of infallibility, that does not mean that in his mind he does not wish for these things. It appears as if Pope Francis, his handlers, and those who elected him are eager to make the Church as un-Catholic as possible. It appears as if he and his friends look at the Church's traditions as a stain to be erased. In this way, though the Pope IS the Leader of the Church, he acts, therefore, un-Catholic.
Pope Francis has a penchant for saying things without saying them. Mark Shea, it boggles my mind how you and other Catholics fail to see the winks and nods he passes across the aisle to the enemies of the Church. Many decades after today, people will look back at this disaster of a papacy, and when Church historians--if they're still around--need to find the "yes men" who nodded their heads in approval to all of the subtle and revolutionary pushes the pope undertook, they will turn to Mark Shea pieces, scourge of those "Rad Trad" "triumphalists."
What kind of return did I get? What kind of an exchange could I have expected? Did anyone agree that Pope Francis appears to hate tradition? Did anyone discuss the possibility of fallible words vs infallible official actions? Did anyone discuss or dispute the possiblity of Vaticanspeak--the idea of saying something without saying it? Did Mark Shea respond to the idea that the Pope is winking to a fawning media? I called Mark Shea a "yes man," but did he refute me? Nah. Because I'm right.

The responses:
-Thank you for supplying one more piece of evidence that the problem with Francis on the right is a problem of tribal signaling, "that does not mean that in his mind he does not wish for these things". How are you mind reading Francis? It's the body language and style that usually people use to do that.
-You are writing as if you truly were able to read the minds of an awful lot of people... And judging them by what you assume you have clearly "read". That does not even seem Christian to me... And who gave you that power to read minds, again?
-Another Reactionary smiting fellow Catholics for the mortal sins of faith, hope and love. Duly noted. You alone are the Savior of the Church. No towering pride in that.
-By all means, continue amazing us with your powers of mind reading and not at all reading crazy interpretations into orthodox statements and deliberately reading the worst possible interpretation of cherry picked badly translated media coverage.

Deep thoughts, all of them.  Unfortunately, I cannot respond to any of them, and so it appears that they've won, though actually, Shea has merely shut me up.  

How emotional.  Wouldn't you say?

I tried to start the dance with a bit of biteback.  Because I was momentarily pressed for time, I responded to the latter with the following:

"By all means, continue amazing us with your powers..."
I will

And that's as far as I could get.  To that last tit, I received the following tat:
-However, if I was in your "shoes", I might become weary about the real source of such mind-reading powers...
-Do you see sorcery at the carnival when the 'guess your weight and age' guy is almost never wrong?
Unfortunatly, Shea was aware of the exchange, and his hands were probably nervously shaking with concern as he blocked me shortly thereafter after.  Can't have Catholics bein' confronted, and all that.  






Friday, January 30, 2015

Te Deum: Report Card

I've been visiting Te Deum for over a month and a half.  I've had some good conversation there, and I've exchanged a lot of intelligent correspondences.  It is good to see that the body of thoughtful Catholics continues into this collection of conversationalists.  It's refreshing to know that there's a place that is unafraid of traditional taboos, namely, taking a critical look at Church leadership.  Daring to question any kind of cleric could get you swiftly booted off of Mark Shea's Catholic Answers Forum.

Also, it might relieve a Catholic to know that Te Deum is not feminist, nor would there be toleration of homosexual nay-sayers against the Faith.  I particular like that latter aspect, as I think it's a forum owner's duty to protect the members from harassment by those outside the group.  At best, a sub-forum should exist for such outsiders, though pretty much all forums I know of keep the radical and hostile outsiders out.



But speaking of keeping outsiders out, it is good to know that Te Deum has the maturity to tolerate me.  This is probably because I'm not radical and hostile.  Agreeing to disagree is a rare thing, I find these days.  It is safe to say that a majority of the posters there are sympathetic to sedevacantism.  I am an antagonist against sedevacantists.  It takes a mature mind to realize the benefit of having someone around who disagrees.  As I said today on Cathinfo, not every forum knows how to tolerate an antagonist. Not every forum realizes the worth of a devil's advocate, a gadfly, or Socratic dialectic. If you block such people out, all you'll end up with is an emotional echo chamber that encourages brown-nosing and groupthink.

And, with that, I should mention my apologies to Greg, who was recently banned from Cathinfo. I should have known that the homeschooling-vs-public-school issue was a hot-button topic for which he's always had contrary advice. Instead of creating a public thread, I could have sent a private message to Greg and helped to save face.  I feel I am to blame in this.



I have suggested to Matthew to perhaps make the ban temporary, as I believe that to be more reasonable than the insane, hysterical, emotional, and vague bans that The Echo Chamber dishes out.  And, of course, I think we can all agree that Matt's patience and toleration extends pretty far in a lot of these kinds of circumstances.  He's always been equitable as far as I could tell.  

In the meantime, I'd encourage Greg to catch up with folks over at Te Deum.  Apparently, a reasonable amount of variety is welcome there, and conversations don't seem to be stifled.  Heck, you can even talk about evangelizing the atheists, and there's no danger you'll be banned.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Further Insights Into RabbitGate

It came up again today.  It was an exchange about the pope's incident about reprimanding that woman for being irresponsible for having eight kids.




The fact that it is not just the world--but even, seemingly, the pope--is set against faithful Catholics is weighty and depressing.

I can, however, offer a few insights I've glanced at in the past week.  Most of these were linked to via Barnhardt's Twitter feed, so special thanks to her for finding these links.


A Verbally and Mentally Abusive Father
"Imagine a father who lives in the picturesque suburbs. He has a good job, a loving wife, and several beautiful children of various ages. Many people look up to this man as an exemplary model within the community. Most say he is on his way to sainthood.
"As an outsider, this is only a part of the full picture. Now imagine if this same father spends more time playing with the other children in the neighborhood than he does his own children.
"When his children ask why their father would rather play with the other children and not his own, he in turn starts teasing them, making fun of them, and insisting that they are being whiny brats, instead of getting a loving answer in regards to why he is neglecting their emotional health.
"Additionally, his children are victim to several bullies in the neighborhood, tormenters who are relentless and look for any flaw in these children in order to persecute them. The father’s words and actions give these bullies ammunition to use against his children. Then the aggressors pounce upon the children and use the father’s own words against them.
When some of the children get rightfully upset and complain about their father supporting the bullies more than themselves, their siblings yell at them and force their ideas into submission. “You can’t criticize Dad! He’s our father! You have to be obedient and submissive to his will, after all, he knows better than you do.” With this, the family has become more divided than before. Not only is the father allowing the world to abuse his children the same way he does, but some of the children viciously defend his abusive actions."

Tradwriter 23: The "People's Pope"

"Recent comments offered by Pope Francis on the return flight from Manila to Rome seem to suggest that the warm, kindly, humble image of the man is as much illusion as reality."


CFN Media 1 - Catholics Need not Breed LIke Rabbits

"First video in our new CFN Media series discusses Pope Francis' January 19 remark regarding Catholics need not breed 'like rabbits'."




"It is a serious matter when a pope confuses political and ideological symbols for religious ones.
"Civil society has an immense stake in that confusion. And the stakes are raised when papal preferences, masked in a Christian idiom, align themselves with ideological agendas (e.g. radical environmentalism) that impinge on democratic freedoms and the sanctity of the individual. Throughout the history of the Church, there has been tension between Peter and Caesar, between the Church and the state. Francis, raised in Argentina during the apogee of Peronism, gives every evidence of tilting toward the state."

# # #

At least we don't have Female Bishops yet...


"Does that look like someone who is sobered by the burden of assuming spiritual leadership? Or the smirking triumph of someone who has finally managed to corrupt a once-great institution?" -Vox Day







Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Pope Francis: "Stop Breeding Like Rabbits"


Madonna of the Rabbit
We wait for His Holiness, Pope Francis, to utter some fallible statement about a non-religious issue that is hotly debated between the Left Wing and the rest of the world--man-made climate change.  And if you're keen to hear some commentary about this unnecessary expenditure of the pope's precious time as leader of all living Christians on Earth, then you can have a gander at Lord Monckton's interview with trusty ol' Alex Jones.  (Special thanks to Jonathan D'Souza for pointing this video out.)

I am not a Jones-a-holic, but I think Monckton's thoughts on the matter are interesting and insightful.  And did you know, by the way, that Lord Monckton was a conservative Catholic?  Who knew?

But as we wait, Pope Francis regales us with his latest insult against those hideous Traditional Catholics.  Yes, you conservative Christians, according to Pope Francis, are "museum mummies," "rosary counters," and "pelagians!"  How dare you not get hip and modern, you dusty old "triumphalists!"

His latest insult?  He slaps large families right across the face as he hovers above the heavily-populated Philippines in the safety of his airplane.


Here is the complete interview question and answer:
Christoph Schmidt: 
Holy Father, first of all I would like to say: Thank you very much for all the impressive moments of this week. It is the first time I accompany you, and I would like to say thank you very much. My question: you have talked about the many children in the Philippines, about your joy because there are so many children, but according to some polls the majority of Filipinos think that the huge growth of Filipino population is one of the most important reasons for the enormous poverty in the country. A Filipino woman gives birth to an average of three children in her life, and the Catholic position concerning contraception seem to be one of the few question on which a big number of people in the Philippines do not agree with the Church. What do you think about that? 
Pope Francis: 
I think the number of three children per family that you mentioned – it makes me suffer- I think it is the number experts say is important to keep the population going. Three per couple. When this decreases, the other extreme happens, like what is happening in Italy. I have heard, I do not know if it is true, that in 2024 there will be no money to pay pensioners because of the fall in population. Therefore, the key word, to give you an answer, and the one the Church uses all the time, and I do too, is responsible parenthood. How do we do this? With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do carry out a responsible parenthood.
That example I mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth child and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is a an irresponsibility That woman might say 'no, I trust in God.’ But, look, God gives you means to be responsible. Some think that -- excuse the language -- that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood. This is clear and that is why in the Church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can search; and I know so many ways that are licit and that have helped this. You did well to ask me this.
Another curious thing in relation to this is that for the most poor people, a child is a treasure. It is true that you have to be prudent here too, but for them a child is a treasure. Some would say 'God knows how to help me' and perhaps some of them are not prudent, this is true. Responsible paternity, but let us also look at the generosity of that father and mother who see a treasure in every child.

Insult much?  Either he knows it and he's vindictive, or he has no idea how he affects people and he's reckless.  

I bet you just can't wait to hear your smirking atheist and Protestant co-workers laughing at you and how your pope contradicted you this month.  They will laugh at the fact that all this time, you had a mess of kids, when all this time your pope was against being "irresponsible."  

Cherish the moment when you are standing by the water cooler at the office, and your "buddy" elbows you and laughs: "Looks like you and Jayne can take it easy and stop having kids now!"  Or ladies, just wait until Thanksgiving dinner when your mother-in-law looks across the table at you as she saws through a piece of ham: "Now that your pope approves of the pill, you and Harvey can save up some money for a change."

I wonder, was Pope Francis disgusted with the Philippines "overpopulation problem?"

And does anyone else besides me see another spectrum of how rude this was?  He flew into that nation, the Philippines, and basically insulted the lot of them.  It's like taking a walk into a bad part of town, going into a run-down neighborhood with a bunch of big black mommas with their six kids, and telling her: "Hey, you don't need to be having all those kids!" Doesn't this strike anyone as being rude to the Filipino people?

How out of touch.  

Here is a man who happens to be a world leader who flies into a nation overrun by women.  This nation, the Philippines, is filled with transvestites already.  And then, speaking on behalf of an institution that's become horrifically feminized (yes, the Church on Earth has become feminized), he says "listen to women, don't be macho."  

As my colleague, Guy Bridgeport, said this week:
Do you think a bunch of macho men are responsible for all the butterfly and rainbow banners that so many parishes have endured? Do you think macho men are responsible for parishes that belt out "Make me a Channel of Your Peace" and "Let There Be Peace on Earth" at every Mass? Do you think macho men are responsible for the servers at most Masses looking like the local girls' basketball team?

But I digress.

It seems--appears, even--that Pope Francis is so horribly out of touch that he does not even realize that it sounds as if he now condones The Pill.  After all, "there are experts in this matter."  

But endorse The Pill?  

Oh!  Heavens no!  Pope Francis doesn't condone artificial birth control!  Surely, he's talking about Natural Family Planning (NFP)!  But even then, the pope falls in line with liberal clergy who Michael Voris relates to as marketers for "Contraception-Lite."

NFP is not Catholic Birth Control.  NFP is a dispensation from what has been taught for centuries by the Church.  The necessity for NFP is a serious circumstance, and it should not be a routine practice.  People should not be routinely trying to bend the rules to suit their convenience.  Using NFP in this way makes children come off not as a blessing, but as a burden to be avoided.

If Pope Francis is pushing the idea of NFP as a routine tool for contraception, then he appears to be taking a stance with the anti-life crowd.  He might as well be rubbing elbows with Captain Capitalism, who enjoys raging hysterically about how children cause poverty.  To think, our Holy Father has anything in common with the latter--a man-boy so repulsed by the thought of responsibility as to mangle his genitals like a castrated beast.  

I have read from many mothers--many who could have only C-sections--about how insulted they are by Pope Francis' words.  For him to even suggest that seven C-sections are dangerous betrays his unscientific ignorance on the matter.  There are many women who have had far more than seven children through C-Sections, and they can attest to Pope Francis' simplistic attitude about this gynecological topic.

Indeed, Pope Francis has offended many large families this week with what he said.  Perhaps they can take heart knowing that in Italy just weeks ago, he stated that large families are a gift to society.  And if that doesn't have your head spinning, what will?  One month he holds up large families, and the next month he's telling us not to breed like rabbits and not have a bunch of C-Sections.  

So, I guess you can take your pick of which statement of Pope Francis you like the best.  

I would like to perhaps give comfort to my fellow Catholics, the troubled mothers and fathers who have been made distraught by this.  I read their thoughts on the various boards, blogs, and Facebook groups.  I offer these calm words from Pope Pius XII, from a time that was more measured and sane:

[Y]ou are and represent large families, those most blessed by God and specially loved and prized by the Church as its most precious treasures. For these families offer particularly clear testimony to three things that serve to assure the world of the truth of the Church's doctrine and the soundness of its practice, and that redound, through good example, to the great benefit of all other families and of civil society itself.
Wherever you find large families in great numbers, they point to: the physical and moral health of a Christian people; a living faith in God and trust in His Providence; the fruitful and joyful holiness of Catholic marriage.

The giant "monster" emerging from behind where Pope Francis sits is supposed to be a wood carving of Jesus.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Sedevacantism: An Interesting Perspective by Ladislaus

I've been watching the latest dog-pile on those few souls fighting sedevacantism over at Cathinfo.  Watching the sede supporters devolve into a pack of hysterical shavelings has been a display of comedy and amusement for everyone outside of the arena.

Amidst the din and tumult, I found this enjoyable summary by Ladislaus: 

I believe that there is sufficiently probable, nay, rather, grave, positive doubt regarding the legitimacy of the Vatican II popes ... for all the reasons that the SVs raise, but that individual Catholics cannot and never have the right to decide this matter definitely on their own, that only the Church can do this. Consequently, we can never go beyond the point where we have doubt. We cannot have the requisite certainty of ecclesiastical faith that would be required to decide the matter. We cannot go beyond that. Nor is it necessary for us to solve this problem for the salvation of our souls. We avoid schism simply by positing that there's sufficiently probable positive doubt regarding the election or power or person of these individuals.

I cannot be R&R because R&R does grave violence to Traditional Catholic theology regarding the necessity to submit to the Magisterium. That's something that the R&R folks haven't touched. If I were to accept Nishant's "peaceful acceptance" argument, then I would have to cease being a Traditional Catholic in the sense of being out of canonical submission to Rome. I would go FSSP or Eastern Rite or something, just because I find 99% of all Novus Ordo Mass implementations to be contrary to my sensus fidei, but I would FIND A WAY to return to canonical submission to the Holy See.

I believe that both SVs and R&R make some very good points and yet they take things too far.

R&R point out that not everything in the Magisterium is infallible. But they take this TOO FAR by positing a grand-scale defection of the Magisterium and of the Church's universal discipline. That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church.

SVs reject this and then swing too far towards the opposite direction; many of them refuse to allow the existence of ANY error in ANY authentic papal teaching. They also create problems by making it allowable for any given individual to declare SV whenever they disagree with any teaching of the Magisterium. Nado's SVism is actually the very worst form of SVism, what I have termedmodo tollens SVism, where you judge the Magisterium, which if you feel the need to reject, then you must reject the Pope behind it. That undermines the Magisterium NO LESS than R&R but the SVs refuse to see it. This subjects to Magisterium to a constant validation feedback loop against private judgment whereas normally if you had a different opinion about a subject (say, papal infallibility) you would submit to the Magisterium and change your mind rather than rejecting the Magisterium due to the a prioricertainty regarding the pope's legitimacy.
I find myself quite sympathetic to this point of view.  I daresay, I almost identify with it.  However, I would caution Ladislaus.  In such arguments as this, conceding any point is merely a hole and weakness that your opponents will rush in to take advantage of.  

Though, for all your words, I am uncertain that anyone paid much attention to what you said.  

I wonder if anything in Ladislaus' statement goes contrary to what I have stated in the previous year.  All of my views about sedevacantism are on record on this blog, so it is easy to crosscheck.  If I thought it was a worthy argument that required more of my attention, I'd look into the matter further.  But as of present, I really don't see the importance or urgency for discussing pet theories schismatic heresies such as sedevacantism.  

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Europe's Mood; Atheist Hate; CAF; Shea; Socialists; Manosphere


Does Europe Move Against Islam?

The New York Times, in a moment of hysteria, feels that Europe is at a "dangerous moment," as we all watch the Continent slowly work its way into a climate that will spawn the counter-revolution of The Great Monarch.

To the West: if you cannot stop hating your Father in Heaven, then submission to Islam is your fate. Islam is your future. You will conduct commerce in Islam. You will be arrested by police in Islam. You will be denied church in Islam. You will modify your diet in Islam. The liberals and liberal atheists already have a fondness for Islam. And if you ever had any children or grandchildren, they too will suffer and perhaps die in Islam. That is what happens when you abandon God. He abandons you.

Be assured, folks. There will be a time in the future when Islamists will claim reign to the entire world before we start fighting back. Islam has no place in the Western Hemisphere. But until that future comes, we get to enjoy the continual marriage between liberal atheism and Islam. (Which reminds me: note to self, look up Jewish collusion with the Muslims prior to their eventual banishment from Spain in the late 1400s.)

I really ought to collate some of the prophecies together about the foretold king--the Great Monarch. But until then, here's a link to a list of random prophecies I've amused myself with over the years. I'm unsure if they're accurate, and I don't post these authoritatively. If the prophecies are off track, lemme know in the comments box.


The Insatiable Hate of Hostile Atheists

Even if all faithful children of God disappeared overnight--along with every visible reminder of Christianity and the Creator's involvement on this planet--the secular satanists we know as atheists would still be whining about their very memories of the Holy things that were on this earth. In such a hypothetical future, I wonder, how many generations would have to pass until the satanic godless people utterly forgot about Christ and His Church? Happily, this hypothetical will never happen, and the Earth will be destroyed before God ever let that happen.


The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge: he shall wash his hands in the blood of the sinner. And man shall say: If indeed there be fruit to the just: there is indeed a God that judgeth them on the earth. Psalm 57: 11-12


Catholic Answers Forum

I hardly ever visit CAF. I'm certain I shall instantaneously get banned if I so much as breathe contrary to liberalism. I've heard that there's people on that forum who actively despise Traditionalist Catholics. Creepy.


Shea Shenanigans

Mark Shea wrote another screed against most sensible people this past week. What fun!

Once again, you have the opportunity to watch Shea smugly retreat back into his typical habit of labeling the people he is talking about and splitting them into two groups. To top it all off with irony, Shea in this article complains about how those silly conservatives who run into the embrace of "politic games" instead of remaining independent, unworldly, and Catholic. And yet, he's complaining about...conservatives--thus, falling into the very "politic game" he is denouncing! Once more, Shea fits perfectly into the mold that he is criticizing.


Socialist Government

To those on the Left who argue that it is because of "Justice" that we are legally forced to give charity through our government:

I, for one, am so "pleased" that government implements justice by forcing your charity with a loaded gun. It is good to see your willful and complete compliance with such an arbiter as our Western government. And though I'm sure your motives are as clean as the pure driven snow, I really can't say the same for your government once it gets your charity from you. But fear not! It is above your station to quibble or concern yourself with such lofty subjects. Just do as you are told, and continue to give your charity to your justice-practicing government. Because audits.

This is a Freemasonic republic, not a Catholic feudal state. So! Please, by all means! Trust our overlords to your heart's content. Just please let no one hear you ever complain about our master's overreach--particularly police actions. There will undoubtedly be plenty of bread and circuses for you until Thunderdome.


The Manosphere

I've been growing to enjoy the Manosphere in the past year.  More entertaining than bickering or quibbling about sedevacantism with sour people.

Here's a great video that helps encapsulate what the men of our time are starting to figure out:



And two interesting blogs I intend to check out later include:

http://illusionofsanity.com/blog/  
http://www.averagemarrieddad.com/


Enjoy.



Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Slamming on the Brakes: The Hazards of Dr. Easterbrook


Professor Emeritus Dr. Don Easterbrook

I am a simple Catholic layman who, once upon a time, was forced to utter my opinion about man-made climate change once I learned that my pope was going to address the matter at the United Nations and write an encyclical that talked about it. The fact is, I am a skeptic of man-made global climate change. I do not believe that man collectively is making the globe either cooler or hotter, though I do believe he controls the pollution and local climates of areas or regions. Beijing is a good example of that.

 


Two Chart Presentations: Mine and My Opponent's

One day, as I was happily presenting different facts and figures to my debate opponents, I decided to include:

- a chart of lower troposphere global temperature anomalies (1980 - 2010)
-a chart of solar irradiance that is compared to temperature (1880 - 2000)
-next to the above, a chart of CO2 that is compared to temperature (1880 - 2000)

This chart is by Dr. Don Easterbrook.


These charts are by Dr. Don Easterbrook. 
Note the total solar irradiance of the left chart; it ranges from 1967 to 1974 watts per meter squared.



All three of these charts were presented by Dr. Easterbrook at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. These charts have been used by Dr. Easterbrook to demonstrate a coming cooling trend, and the idea that solar radiance correlates with global temperatures. The CO2 chart was used by Dr. Easterbrook to demonstrate a lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature change.

One particular opponent said that my chart showing total solar irradiance looked strange somehow. At the time, I thought nothing of it. Yet, later in the thread, he showed me a picture of a graph that was an adaptation of data from differing studies.

This is a model projection of temperature and solar irradiance. It is compiled by Skepticalscience.com. The solar irradiance values come from two sources, N.A. Krivova, and PMOD. Note that the solar irradiance measures between 1365 and 1367.5.

In this graph, the total solar irradiance data was taken from two sources:

- solar irradiance data from 1880 until 1978 was taken from an astrophysicist named Natalie A. Krivova
- solar irradiance data from 1979 until 2009 was taken from a Swiss institution called PMOD (Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos)

Something odd struck me about how Easterbrook's and my opponent's solar irradiance measurements compared with one another. In my opponent's chart, in 1995, the total solar irradiance measured just under 1366 watts per square meter of the planet. Yet, in the chart I provided, the solar irradiance measured just over 1971 watts per square meter of the planet.

So, that is about a 605 watt difference between the two charts. Dr. Easterbrook's chart says that there were 605 more watts of solar irradiance in 1995 than what PMOD reports. So, Easterbrook says there was an extra 605 watts of solar irradiance per square meter on planet earth in that year.

Surely 605 watts is not a big deal. Right? What is 1366 watts versus 1971 watts? Surely we can overlook this discrepancy, and just consider it all just one big approximation, right?

Wrong. Six hundred and five extra watts of solar irradiance per square meter is a big deal when talking about global temperature. Or, at least, it's a big deal to Dr. Easterbrook.

To get an idea of just what a big deal 605 extra watts of solar irradiance means, let us take a look at Dr. Easterbrook's paper, SolarVariability and Climate Change.


Solar Variability and Climate Change

This graph is Figure #36 in Dr. Easterbrook's paper. 


Easterbrook's caption for this figure reads as follows:
Correspondence of cold periods and solar minima from 1500 to 2000.  Each of the five named solar minimas was a time of sharply reduced global temperatures (blue areas).

On the left side, it lists solar irradiance in terms of watts per square meter on the planet.  The bottom lists the year.  Due to internet restrictions, the left side probably appears very difficult to read, so I have typed the numbers into a larger readable print. 

Red enlarged numbers are added by yours truly.
Note that the solar irradiance measures between 1363 and 1367.
As you can see on Easterbrook's graph, the year 1995, has the solar irradiance measured at 1366 watts per square meter on the planet.  Please note that in this chart, Dr. Easterbrook is more in line with my opponent's chart; and again, those values were tabulated by the Swiss-based PMOD.

Dr. Easterbrook argues that it is solar radiance that causes global temperature change.  So if we look at his listing of the solar irradiance of 1520, we see that the earth was receiving 1363.5 watts per square meter.  The earth was in the midst of the Little Ice Age at this time, so giving him the benefit of the doubt, we would conclude that the lower temperature is due to lower solar irradiance.  How much lower?  Only 2.5 watts.   

So, Dr. Easterbrook would have us believe that having 2.5 watts less of solar irradiance will help to cause a little Ice Age?  That 2.5 watts, then, surely is a big deal.  Each watt per square meter is a very very big deal if 2.5 watts takes us into a mini ice age. 

Remember Easterbrook's charts from the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change?  Remember what Easterbrook said the wattage per square meter in 1995?  He said we experienced 1971 watts of solar irradiance.  That 605 watt difference should be cooking us to death, when considering how dramatic for the world 2.5 watts are.  

Perhaps Dr. Easterbrook was not on top of his game during that conference.  Perhaps we can just give him the benefit of the doubt, and he screwed up when putting that graph together.  After all, he is a Professor Emeritus.  He's older, and he's not as sharp as he used to be. 

But then, after finding this embarrassing little discrepancy, I spotted another one that was worse.  He contradicted himself in his own paper. 


Figure #36 and Figure #37

Figure #37 in Dr. Easterbrook's paper is like Figure #36, in that it lists on the left side the global solar radiance in terms of wattage per square meter on the planet.  Unfortunately for Dr. Easterbrook, they are different.

Here is Figure #37:

Note that the solar irradiance measures between 1367 and 1373.


First off, it is easy to note that the caption underneath this graph has a sentence that trails off without a conclusion.  The second noticeable error is that any source for this graph has been left out or forgotten.  But the third, most embarrassing fact is that the values are different from Figure #36.  In this particular figure, by 1995, the solar irradiance measures at a whopping 1372 watts per square meter.  And again, his previous figure states that the 1995 levels measure at 1366 watts.  That is a whopping 6-watt difference from his own graph—which appeared in his paper just before this one. 

Again, if a difference of 2.5 watts per square meter is sufficient to send us into a mini ice age, then surely an increase of 6 watts per square meter should send our planet into full tropical mode.  If 2.5 watts is a big deal, how much more is six?

So, let's take a score.  Figure 37 looks remarkably similar to the chart from the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, yet the graph line seems changed a little, and the wattage numbers on the left are completely different from one another.  Neither the graph from the conference, the graph from Figure 36, nor the graph of Figure 37 are similar; they are all different from one another, and they all were made by Dr. Easterbrook.  And finally, adding insult to injury, one of the graphs actually correlates with my opponent's graph in some small measure.


Skepticalscience.com

This website has a low reputation among people on my side of the aisle.  But I can honestly say that the attention they draw to Dr. Easterbrook is not without cause. 

In their post titled Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality, Easterbrook is taken to task for four faults, three of which I can agree with:

-  "From among many charts, he chose a single model run with an anomalous temperature spike in 2011
-  "He only presented the data from 2000 to 2011, which concealed the fact that the temperature spike in 2011 was a short-term anomaly
-  "He exaggerated his distorted IPCC temperature rise by a factor of two."

A forth objection the Skeptical Science group has, is that Easterbrook "chose a figure that represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of areosols."  I do not have a problem with the fact that Easterbrook was only representing greenhouse gas changes, because it is greenhouse gas—primarily carbon dioxide—that is the focal point of our nation's blame for global warming.  Carbon taxes have been introduced, not aerosols.  It is carbon dioxide—our very exhales—that have been labeled a pollutant.  In that regard, it makes sense to me that Easterbrook would have chosen greenhouse gas change models for his presentation.   

While I continue to disagree with Skeptical Science's stance that man-made global warming is a real phenomenon, hard empirical data is a language that all parties can speak and understand, and hard facts cannot be ignored. 

As someone who just days ago thought I could rely on Easterbrook, I became quite disappointed as I read of how a Skeptical Science contributor tried to inquire for the source of the professor's sources for his IPCC projections.  What had happened when that inquiry was made?  Easterbrook claimed he obtained his data from the IPCC website, but then went on to say that the data must have been altered or removed because he could no longer find it. 
Additionally, Easterbrook should never have made this error to begin with.  The caption of the IPCC figure he used was clear and explicit that it depicted model simulations responding to only the greenhouse gas forcing.  Even if the graphic in question depicted responses to the total global radiative forcing, to cherrypick a single model run and ignore the fact that it displays an anomalous spike in 2011 reveals exceptionally poor data analysis on Easterbrook's part.
It is painful to read how my opponents—those who believe that man is causing the earth to warm—are able to catch such errors among purported experts on my side.  Can those on my side of the fence not police their own?  From the skeptics on my side I have yet to see anything critical being written about this man.

Skeptical science went on to make another post about Dr. Easterbrook, lamenting how "Easterbrook is not explicit about his methodology."  And, in fact, it seems as if Dr. Don Easterbrook is completely evasive about where he draws his data from.  Pinning down source material for his charts can be difficult, and finding such sources can require some amount of digging. 


The Incorrigible Easterbrook

In June of 2012, a writer named Gareth at the New Zealand website, Hot Topic, recounts previous follies of Dr. Easterbrook.  Gareth mentions how the professor claims that the GISP2 core is an acceptable global temperature proxy.  He reminds us that it was wrong for Easterbrook to claim the IPPC predicted an entire degree of warming between 2000 and 2010.  Gareth goes on to mock how Easterbrook is using faulty Greenland graphs that were shown to be in error 18 months previously.  And finally, Gareth laughs at Easterbrook's assertions that we are entering a global cooling period—although, for me, the jury is still out on that one.  I can relate to most of Gareth's conclusions, but not all.

Another article that Gareth links to reveals the professor emeritus's recycling of a previous chart, and never does Easterbrook attribute the chart correctly to the original author, Robert A Rohde. 

Here is Robert A. Rohde's chart:

This chart is the original.


And here is Easterbrook's new unsourced version of it:


This chart is Easterbrook's new version of the original chart by Rohde.

I cannot decide what is more embarrassing, the fact that Easterbrook simply moved the temperature anomaly y-axis over to the left side, or that he kept the original font just the way it was.  Did Professor Emeritus Don Easterbrook honestly think that no one would find this out? 


What does this mean?

This all means that if you are a skeptic against man-made global warming, you should avoid the works of Dr. Easterbrook like the plague.  Imagine a jungle of road construction warning signs all around his name and his photograph.  Furthermore, any other global warming skeptical works that are based off of his research—especially if they use or include his charts—all such 2nd party works should also be avoided. 

In 2014, a Dr. David Deming responded to criticisms of Easterbrook by the Western Washington University geology faculty.  He said:

Their attack on Dr. Easterbrook is the most egregious example of pedantic buffoonery since the Pigeon League conspired against Galileo in the seventeenth century.

I have not read the WWU geology department's letter against Easterbrook, but one thing is certain.  Going over the details, the numbers, and the charts of Easterbrook in the manner that I have laid out is not pedantic buffoonery.  Going over these details has been absolutely necessary to reveal the shoddy work of a man considered prominent to my side's cause.  The higher that skeptics of anthropogenic global warming hold Easterbrook, the harder and more painful it will be when our side falls down for not keeping a clean house. 

Now, I am all for not throwing out the baby with the bath water.  I do not like how conservatives eat their own.  But when empirical data is loosely tossed around, it is quite humiliating.  I am reminded of an embarrassing episode of Glenn Beck, when he went hog wild in quoting the National Inflation Association, which ultimately turned out to be a pump-and-dump scam organization run by Johnathan Lebed. 

Can there be hope for Don Easterbrook?  Only if he methodically went back to explain and correct every single error he has made, and then went on to make a definitive presentation that set the public straight.  But as things are, Easterbrook is not one to attribute his sources very well. 

However, just because Dr. Easterbrook has ruined his reputation does not diminish the skepticism of man-made global warming.  Does this week's revelation give me pause?  Indeed.  However, now some new questions arise:

-Are there other researchers studying the effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or was that idea completely from Dr. Easterbrook?
-Are there any other researchers who assert that the earth is cooling?  Or was it only Easterbrook? 
-Does anyone else assert that the sun itself also has a prominent role in the changing of the earth's temperature? 

And, of course, let's not forget that there are holes and contradictions in many pro-man-made global warming presentations.  There is much more to be said in this debate.  I still retain the opinion that I have had before. 

However, suffice to say, shining a spotlight on Dr. Easterbrook has exhausted me from the topic altogether.  So, perhaps I shall take a break from the global warming debates for a while, and simply wait until Pope Francis says something I disagree with again.  And ultimately, as a priest has recently told me, bantering back and forth on a forum sets each person in the forum up as an expert or someone whose opinion is of importance.  I would like to think Hirsch is important to somebody in these circles; however, not a one of you has met me or knows much about me at all outside of the forums, so my importance is unlikely.  And secondly, I do not claim to be an authority on this anyway. 

Ultimately, my taking people to task on this topic—and conversely, their taking me to task—has led to this newly-explored dead end of the debate.  At this point, I will have to back up, re-evaluate my sources, and double check their legitimacy in future debates.

Yet, for now, it is of no matter.  I am taking a hiatus from the conversation for now.  So, once again, I would like to say "point goes to my debate opponent, Leonhard" when it comes to Easterbrook's charts.  Maybe my opponents and I will pick up on this conversation later on. 




Friday, January 2, 2015

Man's Dominion over the Material, Solar Activity Influences Temperature

Man's Dominion Over the Material World

Fr. Chad Ripperger: exorcist, priest of the FSSP, and author of the book, Magesterial Authority

These things are not there for themselves. They're there for us. God created the material things for our use and our benefit. Not the other way around. Today we tend to see that people panic at the slightest bad report about the environment, and it's a sign of rejection of Divine Providence. God created the material universe for our use. Which means that He designed it for the type of use that we're making of it. 

 
The idea that the Earth was made for man, and not man for Earth is so elementary. So basic. The idea that it goes over heads is befuddling, sometimes.

God in Genesis 1

28 ...Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.
29 ...Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:
30   And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon.

Again, here in Genesis, we see that the world was made, fashioned, and handed over to men.

Consider this brief story of a world without God's Providence:

Once upon a time, the Supreme Intelligence of the Cosmos created a world. Then the Almighty put upon this world vast amounts of resources, and finally men. To these men, the Creator said: "It's all yours. You have dominion over it."

And so, many many generations of men were born and died. Until finally one day, all of the men destroyed the world with global warming. The God of the Universe allowed all of the men of the world to destroy their world, and He did nothing to stop it. The men who should have known better all killed themselves, and so the Creator of Everything moved on without them. For the suicide of Man was not in His plans.

The end.


I just don't buy that.

At the very least, if Man was truly capable of destroying his world, God would have warned him about the specific dangers. To consider the idea that Man can destroy his world before God is finished with His plan is a blasphemous concept.


It's all good and fine to appreciate nature. It's preferable to keep a locale clean. But we can continue to be good stewards of the environment, loving God's creation and whatnot, all the while as we burn gasoline in our engines, burn coal for electricity and heat, and drill for oil in oil-rich deposits throughout the world. And we can do these things with confidence that we are not globally destroying the world's climate, because global warming is a lie.

Fr. Ripperger's latest book, published in October 2014.
Further considerations of Pope Francis' liberal social agenda in light of Fr. Ripperger's theological considerations can be found in Ryan Grant's book review of Fr. Ripperger's Magisterial Authority.

In the first section, Papal Infallibility, Fr. Ripperger begins by taking Vatican I's decree on papal infallibility and analyzing it for its implications for us. In the first place he notes: “The First Vatican Council essentially states that under certain conditions and only under those conditions are we assured that the statements being made by a pope are infallible. Outside of these conditions for infallibility, we do NOT have the same degree of certitude about the truth of the judgment of a pope. There are members of the Church who treat ALL papal statements with the same degree of certitude: infallible. Aside from real questions of prudence, treating all papal statements as if they are infallible is NOT the mind of the Church.”1 (Emphasis in the original) This is one of the great problems with certain individuals in the Church today, they treat everything as infallible. Vatican I intended to give the criterion of only in certain very limited areas is the Pope infallible.Thus a statement which does not pertain to the faith, such as speaking on global warming and the like, is not infallible. The issue comes in when certain statements are made that seem to pertain to the faith, of which we could name quite a few from the current pontificate.
Grant relates Ripperger's review of Pope Honorius I who was "condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople and its Pope for having taught the Monothelite heresy." In the review, we are also reminded of Pope Nicholas I, who taught that one could simply baptize in the name of Christ only. Also, we are reminded of Pope John XXII, who said that souls of the deceased only would only possess the Beatific Vision after the Last Judgment. (This error was actually in Pope John XXII's book before he was a pope, but he also taught it publicly after his papal election, clearly making it an actual magisterial act.)

So! What are we learning today, gang?

Just because a pontiff is speaking does not mean that the Church is officially acting in infallible prudence for your benefit.

I've been saying all week that the Holy Father appears to be utilizing encyclicals the same way Obama churns out executive orders.

"If my pope said it, it must be right!" Hogwash. Too many Catholics tend to get wrapped up in the Magesterium of the Now.


Global Temperatures Coincide With Solar Activity

Someone requested that I provide more of a source for my favorite boring chart of the week.  




I'm happy to be of service.

The source is 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. The chart in question is another one of Dr. Easterbrook's charts. Dr. Easterbrook is a is Professor Emeritus of Glacial Geology and Environmental and Engineering Geology at Western Washington University. The American Thinker summarizes his paper The Looming Threat of Global Cooling, which notes:
the undeniable link between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifting to its warm mode in 1915 and 1977 and global warming resulting both times. Conversely, in 1945 and 1999 the PDO moved to its cool mode and the globe cooled right along, despite a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 during the period. What’s more, climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years. Easterbrook thereby concludes that we should “expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.
But we were not talking about PDO. We were talking about Dr. Easterbrook's chart, which demonstrates solar activity's correlation with temperature changes. So, here is another chart from a separate group studying the same phenomenon in another part of the world--a totally separate group that gets similar results as Dr. Easterbrook's chart:



Now, the print at the bottom of this chart is difficult to read at this scale. It says:

"Fig. 1. Smoothed Group Sunspot Numbers for the period 1620-1970. The regression line shows the gradual increase over the centuries. For the smoothing technique reference is made to De Jager and Usoskin (2005)."

On the left side of the graph, it says GSN, which stands for Group Sunspot Numbers. The bottom of this graph is the years, as is probably legible for you.

This chart is discussed in a study in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, and the study was conducted in 2009 by two researchers, C. de Jager and S. Duhau.

A PDF of the paper itself can be found here, and in layman's terms it states:

Viewed in this light, it is easy to see, as de Jager and Duhau state, that "the amplitude of the present period of global warming does not significantly differ from the other episodes of relative warming that occurred in earlier centuries." Why? Because the late 20th-century episode of relative warming, as they describe it, is merely "superimposed on a relatively higher level of solar activity than the others," which gives it the appearance of being unique, when it really isn't.
The study's abstract:
Solar activity is regulated by the solar dynamo. The dynamo is a non-linear interplay between the equatorial and polar magnetic field components. So far, in Sun-climate studies, only the equatorial component has been considered as a possible driver of tropospheric temperature variations. We show that, next to this, there is a significant contribution of the polar component. Based on direct observations of proxy data for the two main solar magnetic fields components since 1844, we derive an empirical relation between tropospheric temperature variation and those of the solar equatorial and polar activities. When applying that relation to the period 1610-1995, we find some quasi-regular episodes of residual temperature increases and decreases, with semi-amplitudes up to ~0.3 °C. The present period of global warming is one of them.

More questions have arisen on that particular forum, which I will be happy to respond to, point by point, as time allows.

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Catholic Community Pipedreams; Medieval Warming was Global


We Don't Even Have Catholic Ghettos

Today, the following video was brought to my attention. It depicts a typical Protestant megachurch, in 2015:



Why don't Catholic dioceses have what that megachurch has?

I know that the timeline is ridiculous, and the choice for arrangement and some aesthetics is terrible, and let's not forget the silly idea of holy yoga.

However, when I saw the commons area, the toddler play area, and the gigantic indoor soccer field, I said to myself:

"Man, I wish our diocese had this type of place for all of the Catholics to gather and socialize and feel comfortable. I'd love to be able to take my kids to a Catholic version of this, but a place with more dignity and with an actual grand sanctuary. Instead, I've gotta take the kids over to McDonalds or some place like that for them to play. And instead of having a community center like this, we are like prisoners trapped in our own homes because the city is feral."

Another thought that struck me this Christmas season was the following:

My town has a Protestant bible college that does a really great job with a Christmas light presentation. The entire city will pour through that area to go look at their Christmas lights. It's great. And as I drive up to the place with the tribe, I think to myself, "How could the Catholics in my town allow themselves to be outdone by the Protestants? Why doesn't my diocese have a grandiose unfathomably awesome Christmas light park?"

You know, back in its heyday, the Catholic Church was the king of art and culture. Life was built around a parish. Sort of how this megachurch functions, but with style.

Now?

Catholics end up going to a modernist-styled parish that faces the west, they worship at Mass, and then they all leave without saying anything to each other.

That megachurch has a lot wrong with it. But I think it has a lot right with it as well.

How about we build some Catholic ghettos, to start with?


The Medieval Warming Period and the Mini Ice Age Were Global

One argument I've heard in the last 24 hours in this on-going discussion about how prudent Pope Francis is for buying into man-made climate change, is that the Medieval Warming Period was a local phenomenon.

This is wrong.

Perhaps one will conclude this after reading Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statements. Firstly, if you take a look at those statements, you'll notice their data goes backwards from the year 2000, which was 15 years ago.

Up-to-date research has revealed that, indeed, the Medieval Warming Period was quite global. Right down to the Antarctic.

- An examination of 10,000 years of layered fossil plankton in the western Pacific reveals that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were global in scope. This paper can be found in Science Magazine.

- Another study analyzed samples of ikaite crystal in Antarctica. Apparently, Northern European climate events influenced/influence climate conditions in Antarctica, bolstering the fact that these periods were global in scope. This paper was published in Science Direct.


The Left is Biologically Different From You

Leftists apparently have a smaller amygdala than conservatives.  It's almost as if a weaker pedigree of human being is being bred in these recent generations.