On climate change Pell has adopted a peculiarly postmodern position, arguing that we should not accept at face value what institutions such as the U.S. National Academy of Science say, but rather assess for ourselves whether we think global warming is caused by human activities or not.
It is ironic that he has bought into a postmodern narrative of science as inherently contestable and scientists as villainous, given that similar ideas are often expressed by radical environmentalists who adopt fundamentally anti-science views such as an irrational opposition to nuclear power.
Pell's interventions on climate change have prompted me to write to him on many occasions, passing on standard scientific texts on climate change, recent scientific papers of relevance and interest, and extending an invitation to organise a meeting with a leading climate scientist.
Advertisement
That offer has never been taken up, and there is no indication my correspondence has had the slightest impact. Pell is wedded to the views of Plimer, despite the fact that Plimer's key claims cannot be maintained, and his outlandish statements (about the contribution of volcanism to climate change for instance) have never been corrected.
Pell has said to me that when it comes to commenting on climate change he makes clear that he is simply speaking as an individual and expects no one to accept his claims simply on his say-so. However he does not include this disclaimer each time he speaks on climate change.
The reality is that given Pell's prominence and his constant interventions in national discussions as one of Australia's best-known climate change contrarians, his views gain a good deal more attention in the media than the views of Australian bishops more generally.
Unless you are a close follower of religious affairs you are unlikely to be aware that the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference has heeded the mainstream science, issuing a position paper on climate change in 2005, and a statement in 2009 supporting Benedict's prayers for the success of the Copenhagen Climate Conference.
Pell's views on climate change have no scientific basis, and his interventions on the topic have done great damage to the reputation of the Catholic Church in Australia and to agencies such as Caritasthat are taking practical steps to help vulnerable communities in developing countries whose livelihoods are being threatened by climate change.
There are no signs that Pell intends to step back from public discussion on the topic. In October he will deliver the second annual address to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate skeptic think-tank in London, established by Lord Nigel Lawson, and which includes Plimer on its Academic Advisory Council. The first Foundation address was delivered by Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. He argued that climate change is a ruse to justify a totalitarian ideology. It remains to be seen whether Pell will speak on the same theme to his audience at Westminster Cathedral Hall. But it seems unlikely he will refer to any of the recent published science, such as the report of the Australian Academy of Science that identifies four lines of evidence (physical principles, the record of the distant past, measurements of the recent past, and climate models) to conclude that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause of recent climate change.
Advertisement
It is, to use Pell's own words, likely to be more 'hot air', both in the sense of being unscientific, and also in being inflammatory.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
28 posts so far.