Trick No.
2: You Cherry Pick Your Data
Global Warming Science? Nope, Global Warming Scam.
by Steven W. Mosher President of PRI
How do you create a Global Warming
panic when the weather isn’t cooperat-
ing? Here are a few tricks of the trade that
the scammers are using to explain away
the recent cooling trend, as revealed by
the hacked e-mails of the world’s leading
advocates of man-made Global Warming.
As you read these disturbing e-mails, bear
in mind that there is a close association of
the Global warming community and the
population controllers and contraception
and abortion advocates.
Trick No. 1: You Destroy Conflicting
Data:
Phil Jones, who directs the
Climate Research Unit (CRU)
of the University of East Anglia,
was emphatic in his 21 February
2005 e-mail to American Mike
“Hockey Stick” Mann and two
others: “I’m getting hassled by
a couple of people to release the
CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody
that the UK has a Freedom of Infor-
mation Act!”
Here Jones appears to violate a basic rule
of scientific research, namely, that you
make your raw data available on request
so that others can verify—or disprove--
your hypothesis. Why would the CRU
director not be happy to turn over his
evidence of climate change, unless …
his original temperature data didn’t show
any convincing rise in temperature at all
and it had been conveniently “lost” in
6 www.flionline.org e-mail greg@flionline.org FLI - PO Box 4771 London SE9 4XA
sharp temperature increase at the end of the
to Show a Recent Rise in Temperatures:
twentieth century simply vanished. The
Mike Mann is the author of the now fa-
twentieth century now showed no signifi-
mous “hockey stick” graph, which asserts
consequence? cant trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey
that global temperatures remaining virtu-
And it is not his temperature data any- stick was gone.
ally fixed for centuries, then shot up in the
way. The whole CRU was in fact set up The CRU Archive, showing a spike in
last few decades. The “hockey stick” was
in the early 1980s (with funding from the temperatures during the late twentieth
Exhibit Number One in the UN’s 2001
U.S. Department of Energy!) to produce century, based on a few, cherry-picked
climate report, which went on to claim that
the world’s first comprehensive record of data points. The Schweingruber variation
this dramatic increase in temperature was
is a complete data set from the same area
surface temperature. Phil Jones and Tom the result of human activity. (Graph below)
showing none.
Wigley were sent data gathered by gathered The graph was questioned even by the
Phil Jones later claimed in an e-mail to
over the course of decades by thousands of Global Warmers themselves.
Graham F. Haughton on 27 October 2009
temperature recording stations located in The “Hockey Stick” Graph Used by the
that “The claims of [Steve McIntyre] are
dozens of countries. This “Jones and Wig- UN Climate Panel:
exaggerated.”
ley” record, as it is called, served until 2007 Note the exagger-
Left unanswered is
as the primary reference standard for the UN ated warming at
the question of why
climate panel. in recent decades,
his Institute seems to
After years of stonewall- which has been
specialize in cherry-
ing, Jones now admits called into ques-
picking data to bolster
that he “merged the data tion by Climat-
the case for “Global
we have received into egate.
Warming,” while
The story is too
existing series or begun keeping the original
complicated to tell
new ones. … Data storage data--which weakens the
in detail here, but
availability in the 1980s case--under wraps?
it involves another
meant that we were not Trick No. 3: You “Adjust” Away Incon-
famous “hockey stick” graph, this one
able to keep the multiple venient Trends
based on tree rings from Yamal, Russia.
sources for some sites, That Threaten to Derail Your Hypothesis:
This was crafted by another CRU Global
only the station series after The warming trend of the early Twentieth
Warmer, Keith Briffa. It went on to be
adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, Century, which ran from 1910 to 1940,
used in a dozen other temperature recon-
therefore, do not hold the original raw data is a major embarrassment for the Global
structions, all of which the UN climate
but only the value-added (i.e., quality con- Warmers. They can’t simply ignore this
panel said validated Mann’s original graph.
“bend” in the hockey stick, because it is
trolled and homogenized) data.” But Briffa, like Mann and his own boss,
too well-known and too well-documented.
Phil Jones, for ten years refused to release
In other words, this valuable data set, com- But neither can they blame it on people and
the data on which he based his graph.
piled at great expense … was discarded. It their infernal combustion engines, since
When Briffa’s hand was finally forced a
doesn’t require an advanced degree in the atmospheric CO2 scarcely increased over
few weeks ago, it turned out that he had
hard sciences (which I have, by the way) to this time period. Instead, they go to great
used only a tiny, biased fraction of the
understand that you never, ever, under any lengths to try and “adjust it away,” as Tom
raw data available. When skeptic Steve
circumstances destroy raw data. (The claim Wigley explains to Phil Jones:
McIntyre calculated a revised chronol-
that “data storage” was lacking is nonsense.) Dear Phil, Here are some speculations on
Did taw temperature data contain an inconvenient truth? Can anyone spell c-o-v-e-r u-p? ogy based on more complete data, the
correcting SSTs [Sea Surface Temperatures]
7

to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. …
The land also shows the 1940s blip … So, if
we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15
degC [degrees Centigrade], then this would
be significant for the global mean—but
we’d still have to explain the land blip. …
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still
leaves an ocean blip, and I think one needs
to have some form of ocean blip to explain
the land blip. … My 0.15 adjustment leaves
things consistent with this, so you can see
where I am coming from. It would be good
to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but
we are still left with ‘why the blip.’
In case you didn’t get all that, let me
translate what Wigley is saying into plain
English:
“I am fudging the data to take out as much
of the ocean warming as I can. I can’t
take out all of it, because then we would
have no explanation for the land warming,
which would raise suspicions. But even
with my fudge factor, we still don’t have a
convincing explanation for why the ocean
warmed during this period.” Why the
blip, indeed.
By the way, the Climategate deniers who
dissed the e-mails as “ten years old”
should note that the date on this one is 27
September 2009.
Trick No. 4: You Cherry Pick the Model
to “Prove” Global Warming is Real.
This 14 October 2009 e-mail from insider
Tom Wigley to Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann
speaks for itself:
“The figure you sent [from Gavin Schmidt]
is very deceptive. As an example, historical
runs with PCM (Parallel Climate Model)
look as thought they match observations
8
-- but the match is a fluke. PCM has no
indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate
sensitivity – compensating errors. In my
(perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a
number of dishonest presentations of model
results by individual authors and by [the UN
climate panel].”
The response, from Schmidt himself, makes
it clear that he was working backward from
the recent cooling trend to salvage the
Global Warming models. “The kinds of
things we are hearing, “no model showed a
cooling”, the “data is outside the range of
the models,” need to be addressed directly,”
Schmidt explained.
His “very deceptive” figure was an effort
to make the real world data showing static
or cooling temperatures appear not to
contradict the model predicting Global
Warming. You get the idea.
You won’t hear them talk like this in public,
of course, where they close ranks in defense
of their increasingly discredited theory.
Trick No. 5: You Spend a Lot of time
Promoting Your Views with the Media—
and Publicly Attacking Your Skeptics.
When the BBC finally--after a decade of
no global warming—began to tentatively
question whether temperatures were rising
after all, the Global Warmers circulated
frantic e-mails entitled the “BBC U-turn on
climate.”
The reaction of Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann
was to go after the reporter:
Extremely disappointing to see something
like this appear on BBC. It’s particularly
odd, since climate is usually Richard
Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great
job). From what I can tell, this guy was
formerly a weather person at the Met Office
(British Meteorological Office). … it might
vomiting, liposuction, etc). It would
be of no surprise if the individual,
became greedy, had poor nutrition, and
had no concept of the social dimension
of eating. Further, one would not be
surprised if they evaluated every piece
of food in terms of the pleasure it give
them.
So it is with sex education, we introduce
our young to sex through the media
and in schools programmes. It is rarely
today for children to be introduced
to the subject from a perspective of
marriage and family life, let alone from
a moral perspective. The consequences
are blatantly apparent with 50% of
the 200,000 abortion occurring now
in the UK from the under 24’s and
co-habitation already matching the
number of married couples. Further, one
in two sexually active young persons
has already contracted a sexually
transmitted disease (STD) causing 50%
of infertility problems according to the
World Health Organisation. The Health
Services now routinely send STD test
packs to all teenagers on their 17th and
18th birthdays, and all girls between
12-13 years are now vaccinated against
two of the 100 strains of the human
papilloma virus. The Health Service’s
budget for the vaccination programme,
contraception, the morning after pill
and abortion is colossal, but the cost to
women’s health is incalculable.
So what can parents expect when
they abandon their children into the
hands of the sex educators, whether it
is to the media soaps or school sex ed.
programmes. The following steps are
www.flionline.org e-mail greg@flionline.org FLI - PO Box 4771 London SE9 4XA
not uncommon,
1. The removal of sexual mores and
the concept that marriage comes before
sexual activity.
2. The removal of the child’s natural
sexual inhibition.
3. The acceptance that sexual relations
and co-habitation is as valid as marriage.
4. The acceptance of contraception
being a natural and normal part of sexual
activity.
5. Acceptance that abortion is the
contraception of last resort
6. Acceptance there is nothing wrong
with any kind of sexual behaviour
including homosexual behaviour.
A good test of you son or daughter’s
perception concerning these issues would
be to ask them what their views on each
of the steps are. In my experience by
the age of 18 few would express view
counter to the 6 steps above.
To protect our children from the worst
ills now prevalent in our society we
need to build a culture of life in our
homes and in wider society. We need
to bring out the best in our children by
giving them a moral formation that will
give them character to make good life
choices, thereby not only preparing them
for adult life but also for eternal life with
God. Chastity and fidelity is a spiritual
virtue; and the only way a person
can remain faithful is sexual chastity.
Sexual chastity can be practiced only if
the individual learns with conviction,
through the support of their parents and
to some extent the wider society that sex
is truly sacred and a gift deserved by no
one else but their spouse.
5
 Sex Education and the Catholic Church
By Greg Clovis Director of FLI-UK
The formation in Chastity is one of the
primary obligations of parents. When the
Church calls for chastity based education,
it means education for love and life within
the family, that is to say, that parents
themselves should be the one to teach
their children about this delicate issue.
The Church opposes sex education when
done in primary and secondary schools,
even in colleges, it would be
inappropriate if the reasons
for introducing young adults
to the topic was to introduce
and improve the use of birth
control methods.
In the 1980’s to the present
the stated aim of sex
educators was to reduce
teenage pregnancy by
applying the methodology
of introducing children to the details of
intimate relationships and birth control
methods. Initially it was only for older
children, but with the ever increasing
number of teenagers becoming sexually
active and the greater numbers of girls
becoming pregnant, the age of sex
education has fallen to the recently
announced age of 5 year.
Those pushing such policy have a
monetary and philosophical interest in
keeping the figures high because as the
president of the IPPF Alan Guttmacher,
said some years ago in response to the
question how he had planned to ensure
that abortion would never become illegal,
he answered with two words: “sex
education”.
4 9
All the statistics and studies over the past
40 years demonstrate that when the young
are introduce to sexual matters outside
a moral frame work, with birth control
as a way of minimising the risks, the
results are counter to the stated aims of
reducing teenage pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases. But the resulting
consequences are much worst than we
often realise. When
we look at societies
which have actively
pursued such
policies, and we can
see this particularly
in the UK, the
consequences for
social cohesion of
the nation are quite
devastating. By
removing the moral framework from this
important area of human development
has lead to the exclusion of marriage and
children in the thinking of the young. Sex
education programmes has encouraged the
mindset of sex as a recreational activity;
it has had the affect of leaving young
men in adolescents and young women
with serious health concerns. Let me
just explain this last statement with a
metaphor. If an alien assumed a human
form and we had the task of introducing
them to the concept of food and eating.
And if our education excluded the social
and nutritional aspect of the activity
focusing only on the pleasurable aspects
and artificial way of avoiding the
possibility of getting fat (through pills,
be appropriate for the Met Office to have a
say about this, I might ask Richard Black
what’s up here? (Michael Mann to Phil
Jones, Tom Wigley and others, 13 October
2009)
Trick No. 6: “The Science is Settled.”
Realizing that their models are open to
question, the Global Warmers have tried
frantically to shut off debate by chanting in
unison: “The science
is settled. The
science is settled.”
Critics are mocked
and derided.
When one scientist
suggested that
skeptics like
Fred Singer and
Lord Christopher
Monckton be taken
seriously, “Hockey
Stick” Mann
exploded: “I can’t believe the nonsense
you are spouting, and I furthermore
cannot imagine why you would be so
presumptuous as to entrain me into an
exchange with these charlatans.”
What set him off was Lord Monckton’s
comment, forwarded in an e-mail, that the
UN climate reports were unreliable:
I understand that the IPCC’s [the UN
climate panel’s] 2007 draft does not contain
an apology for the defective “hockey-stick”
graph, which the US National Academy
of Sciences has described as having “a
validation skill not significantly different
from zero.”
In plain English, this means the graph was
rubbish. It is difficult to have confidence in
a body which, after its principal conclusion
www.flionline.org e-mail greg@flionline.org FLI - PO Box 4771 London SE9 4XA
is demonstrated in the peer-reviewed,
scientific literature and in numerous
independent reports as having been useless,
fails to make the appropriate withdrawal
and apology. Worse, the UN continues
to use the defective graph. This failure
of basic academic honesty on the IPCC’s
part was the main reason why I began my
investigation of the supposed climate-
change “consensus”.
Contrary to what you may
have heard, the science of
“man-made Global Warm-
ing” was never settled.
Now that these e-mails have
exposed the duplicity of
that theory’s chief backers,
perhaps we can begin trying
to understand what, if any-
thing, is really happening
with the earth’s climate.
For, as Kevin Trenberth
admitted to Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann on
14 October 2009: “The fact is that we can’t
account for the lack of warming at the mo-
ment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
The e-mails do prove one thing, however.
They make abundantly clear that much of
what was presented as objective “scientific
research” by the Global Warmers was
nothing more than cleverly disguised
advocacy for the radical environmentalist,
radical anti-people belief that man is slowly
destroying his planet.
At the end of the day, it may turn out that
the only thing “man-made” about Global
Warming is the hysteria that has been
generated by its advocates.
The Heart of Paternity
By Scott McKendry Director of FLI Australia
Pater Noster...
When teaching his disciples how to pray,
Jesus began with ‘Our Father’. He ad-
dressed God as ‘Abba’ and taught us to do
the same. This was a term equivalent to
‘Daddy’, or the language of a small child.
This would have been considered blasphe-
mous by Jewish leaders who did not write
the full name of God, let alone speak it.
Descriptive phrases like The Almighty, The
lord or The Most High may
have been acceptable but those
terms only spoke of what God
is and not who God is. Thanks
to the revelation of Jesus
Christ, mankind now knows
who God is –Our Father.
It is interesting to note that the
followers of Islam, the other
great monotheistic religion,
are also offended by Christians
calling God, ‘Father’. Some
years ago, the well-known
scripture scholar, Scott Hahn,
was scheduled to publicly
debate an Islamic scholar. In a pre-de-
bate meeting, the Islamic cleric expressed
his outrage that Christians dare call God
‘Father’. He threatened to call the debate
off unless Hahn agreed not to commit that
blasphemy during the course of the debate.
Hahn indicated that it would be impossible
for a Christian to talk about God without
reference to His paternity. The debate never
took place.
We might reflect with some awe that in
the Holy Mass, immediately preceding the
Lord’s Prayer, we basically state that we
would not have the courage to address God
10
in this manner if not for the directive of
Christ.
The Crisis of Paternity
During fourteen years of marriage and with
seven children, I have had much impetus
for the contemplation of the meaning of
paternity and its decay in the culture of
modern man. With the intrinsic paternity
of God as a backdrop, I would like to share
a few thoughts that create a foundation
on which to build an understanding of the
crisis of paternity in the Church and in the
world at large.
The words of the then
Cardinal Ratzinger (now
Benedict XVI) have driven
and illumined my search
for meaning when he
remarked that “the crisis of
fatherhood we are living
today is perhaps the
most important element
threatening humanity.”
On the superficial
level, many people may
understand this crisis
purely in the context of
broken marriages and, more specifically, in
the absence of fathers in the upbringing of
children. I’ve little doubt that psychologists
and sociologists will be examining the
deficiencies of fatherless children for a long
time to come. However, fatherless children
are only symptomatic and, as with all
epidemics, it is imperative to seek the root
causes of the crisis.
The Nature of Man & Woman
The most obvious place to begin looking for
a cause is the so-called women’s liberation
movement which brought
about a redefinition of gender roles. But
anything that is associated with “morals,” male, and 10 were a very strange mutation
Chaput pointed out that morals are not with male and female features,”.
necessarily the same as religious beliefs. Researchers were able to trace the
A “moral duty,” he explained, “is a cause back to “antibiotics, caffeine and
different, universally shared thing. The especially the hormones from birth
word ‘moral’ comes from the control pills which can
Latin word mores, meaning seriously contaminate a
common habits, customs region’s drinking water,”
the prelate said, citing
or ways of doing things. It
several local newspaper
relates to principles of right
articles. One report quoted
and wrong behavior which
are inherent in humans. a biologist as saying
These principles have been that “the water effluent
“imposed” by human nature he found in Boulder
and reality, not by religion. Creek has unintended
Morality is the wisdom of a contraceptive effects in
society discovered through human beings.”
trial and error. The scientists expected
Boulders Creek, Colorado
“Human beings have a natural to hear an uproar from
sense, reinforced by experience, that environmentalists when their findings
things like murder, cruelty, theft, adultery, became public but instead they heard
lying, greed, pride and exploiting the silence. “Nobody is to blame for this, and
weak are wrong. Faith and reason can I don’t have a solution,” one well-known
walk that common moral ground of environmental activist said.
the human conscience and, if we’re In contrast, Archbishop Chaput lodged his
serious about protecting the disagreement with activists,
environment, they must walk insisting with the conference
that common ground.” he attendees, we “should
stated. have a solution. a moral
solution.”
To illustrate his point,
Any solution, he insisted,
Archbishop Chaput related
should take the form of “a
the story of what researchers
found downstream of the response flowing from a
University of Colorado in Boulder. respectful encounter of faith and reason;
“When scientists at the University of a response that will help us, collectively,
Colorado studied the trout in Boulder to make the behavioral changes necessary
Creek downstream from that city’s sewer to protect this beautiful world we share,
plant a few years ago, they found that, ensuring not only its God-intended
out of 123 fish, 101 were female, 12 were harmony, but our own well-being”.
www.flionline.org e-mail greg@flionline.org FLI - PO Box 4771 London SE9 4XA 3
that man is separate from the rest of
nature operate with the unconscious
belief that “civilization is a ‘cocoon’
aimed at shielding humans from
nature: We build cities, comfortable
homes, cars, airplanes, computers
and machines of all sorts to ‘protect’
us from nature, to defeat or
conquer nature,” Archbishop
Chaput summarized.
While this world view
correctly understands
that “nature, including
human nature, is somehow
inadequate and needs to
be fixed,” it fails when it tries to fix
man and creation with technology, he
cautioned.
On the other side of the debate, he
explained, are those who see human
beings as “simply another part of
nature. We’re not finally unique in our
dignity. In fact, we’re no more and
sometimes even less important than
other parts of nature.”
Moreover, the archbishop noted, “this
view argues that we humans have no
right to use more than our fair share
of nature’s resources. Nor do we
have any right or entitlement to rule
nature.”
“Ironically, this latter approach –
which comes from a uniquely human
thirst for justice -- is self-defeating. If
we’re just another piece of the ‘nature
puzzle,’ why should we be held more
2 www.flionline.org e-mail greg@flionline.org FLI - PO Box 4771 London SE9 4XA
accountable than polar bears or
whales or coyotes for what happens to
the environment? And why should we
care about creation at all, beyond our
immediate, individual self-interest?”
he asked.
The Christian perspective on creation
recognizes that “we have
a responsibility toward
the created world because
we have a higher dignity
given to us by the Creator
Himself. Human beings
bear the unique mark of
being created in the image
and likeness of God, and we are
God’s cooperators in preserving his
creation,” the archbishop told the
assembled experts.
As many around the world ponder
how to respond to the need to protect
creation and mankind, Archbishop
Chaput urged the conference
participants to engage in a dialogue
that includes faith and reason.
“The suspicion of religious believers
toward science in centuries past is
well documented and unfortunate. It
often had sad and damaging results.
But what’s admitted less often is
the disdain science can sometimes
show toward religious faith. Science
needs to regain a respect for the
moral and religious dimension of the
environmental debate.”
Noting that many in the scientific
community seem to be afraid of
an examination of gender roles still fails
to reach the root of the issue. No human
person is defined purely by the role that
they perform. To reach the root, we must
ask: what is the intrinsic nature of man and
of woman?
Feminism hasn’t merely redefined the roles
of men and women; it seeks to redefine
their very nature.
If God was revealed by Jesus as intrinsically
a father, surely this reality must hold a key
to understanding the nature of our own
particular gender.
Maternity
I would find it almost impossible to talk
about the meaning of paternity without
some treatment of its complement - mater-
nity. The eminent philosopher, Dr. Alice
Von Hildebrand, is fond of saying that every
woman, no matter what her vocation in life,
is intrinsically a mother. Therefore, wom-
anhood and maternity are inseparable. To
understand the meaning of this proposition,
one must not think of maternity only within
the confines of biology. Even if a woman
does not physically bear a child, she is cre- age of a ship is also used for the Church but
ated and called to be a spiritual mother - to she is more profoundly likened to a bride
give birth to the world spiritually.
Though God is completely self-sufficient,
his ardent desire was to have a mother for
himself. Archbishop Fulton Sheen used to
say that God and men love first in ideal and may help to consider that the greatest and
then in reality. God’s ideal of woman was
Mary. What was her greatest attribute? It
was her maternity. The Church recognized
this with her first formal title - the The-
otokos (Mother of God)11 as defined at the
council of Ephesus in 431 AD. God loved
Mary first in ideal out of all eternity and in
his benevolence, He was to share his most
beloved with sinful mankind.
The Domestic Church
At Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution
on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Paul VI af-
firmed a teaching from the earliest centuries
of the Church. The joining of one man and
one woman in the marriage covenant cre-
ates the Church in miniature - the Ecclesia
Domestica or Domestic Church.
This specific description of the Christian
family was also used many times in John
Paul II’s apostolic exhortation Familia-
ris Consortio On the role of the Christian
family in the modem world. He said that,
“We must examine the many profound
bonds linking the Church and the Christian
family.” He also said that as a matter of
urgency, “Every effort should be made to
strengthen and develop pastoral care for
the family, which should be treated as a
real matter of priority, in the certainty that
future evangelization depends largely on the
Domestic Church.”
The Church Has a Maternal Heart
Why is it that sailors invariably refer to
their ships in the feminine gender? The im-
adorned, with Christ as the groom. How is
it that a Church full of sinners can be called
the Spotless Bride?
To gain insight into this vital teaching it
most faithful disciple of Jesus was His
own Mother and that the Church loves
her children with a love that is wrapped
in the mystery of the woman’s heart. It is
particularly the woman’s heart that has the
ability to love for no reason other than for
the beloved’s own sake. We commonly call
this, unconditional love. This kind of love
is easier to love in return. That is why the
hardened criminal can hate his father with
11
bitterness but still have ‘Mum’ tattooed
in a heart on his arm. He knows that she
still loves him. If love is the greatest of all
realities then we must treasure the presence
of mothers’ hearts wherever they are found
- in our daughters, our spouses, our biologi-
cal mothers, religious sisters, Our Blessed
Mother or Our Mother, The Church.
Men must realise the power that lies in
the heart of a woman. It is a paradox that
unconditional hearts are both powerful and
vulnerable. They are willing to risk more.
Rather than fear this vulnerability, women
must realise that their maternal hearts will
inspire the innately protective and paternal
nature of men. Should it surprise us that men’s
paternity is not aroused when women sup-
press and deny their maternity? When women
exercise this great power of loving with a
pure heart, many more men will naturally pro-
tect these hearts - not use and abandon them.
St Paul tells us in Ephesians 5:22-33 that
Christ loves his bride, The Church, like his
FLI’s ProLife - ProFamily Conference
Saturday 8th May 2010
Westminster Cathedral Hall, Francis Street, London SW1P 1QW
Challenging Talks from a Catholic Perspective
www.flionline.org e-mail greg@flionline.org FLI - PO Box 4771 London SE9 4XA
own body; and that a man who does not
cherish his wife is a man who hates his own
flesh. Sadly, we see so many men today who
use and abandon women and end up in self
loathing.
The Hearts of Fathers
I believe we live in a time when even the
best of our priests and bishops need to be
reminded that their vocation is a call to pa-
ternity. Archbishop Fulton Sheen used to say
that men tend to need a reason to love but
love does not reside in the intellect. If men
are to have a conversion of heart the begin-
ning point may be the realisation that Love
is a decision. Love is in the will and is an act
of the will.
In conclusion, I would like to quote a pas-
sage of scripture that has been a guiding light
for me but also serves as a grim warning:
“And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to
the children, and the heart of the children to
their fathers: lest I come, and strike the earth
with anathema.” (Malachias 4:6.)
Protecting Environment must Involve Morals
At the Allenspark two-day conference
which had the objectives to promote a
better understanding of the Church’s
teaching on the environment and
brought together experts in the fields
of outdoor recreation, philosophy and
several disciplines under the umbrella
of environmental studies. Archbishop
Chaput was the keynote speaker
and began his opening remarks by
highlighting the fact that Benedict
XVI is developing “the most detailed
corpus of official Catholic thought on
the environment in Church history.”
This body of teaching will be further
enhanced this coming January when
the Pope delivers his World Day of
Peace message on cultivating peace
In This Issue
What’s Inside
Protecting the environment must
involve Morals
Sex Education and the Catholic
Church
By Greg Clovis
Global Warming Science?
Nope, Global Warming Scam
By Steve Mosher
The Heart of Paternity
By Scott McKendry
January 2010
by protecting
creation, the
archbishop said.
“But a Catholic
concern for the
environment is Archbishop Chaput
not at all new,”
he noted, citing the ancient Christian
belief that man’s sin wounded creation
and that he, along with creation, was
redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice on the
cross. “Human reverence for God’s
creation is a natural consequence of
Christ’s call to all human beings to be
reconciled with God and with their
fellow human beings,” he explained,
pointing to St. Francis of Assisi as one
obvious example.
“St. Francis, as I’m sure you
know, is seen by some as ‘the
first environmentalist’,” said the
archbishop explaining that the saint
addresses two ideas that have given
rise to “some of today’s bitter debates
about the environment.” These
arguments find their root “in the
philosophical tension between those
who believe that human beings are
separate from and opposed to nature,
and those who say that humans are
merely ‘nature’ and nothing more.”
Those who advocate for the position
1