Orthodox religion of climate change needs rejection

Dear Editor,

Recently I was reading an article in the New York Times Digital Library from Oct. 31, 1992 entitled, “After 350 Years, Vatican says Galileo Was Right: It Moves”.

This article brings back one of history’s greatest conflicts between true science and religious dogma posing as science.

The prevailing theory in Galileo’s time was that of Ptolemy; that the Sun and the rest of the universe orbited the Earth.

Copernicus had proposed in 1543 an alternate theory with the Sun at the centre.

Meanwhile, Galileo invented the telescope and through it could detect motion, particularly the moons of Jupiter and proposed the revolutionary theory that the earth orbited the sun.

This was violently opposed by the orthodox powers of science in that day — governments, church and educational institutions.

Without the support and protection of the powerful Medicis family, he would have had been unable to advance his theory.

As it was, he was called before the Inquisition.

Old, frail and in poor health, he did recant to avoid being burned at the stake.

This story is significant today as we see a similar revolution in science being waged by lonely figures such as

Dr. Willie Soon, a scientist whose research and data shows that the sun-centred theory is the correct explanation for climate change.

He is a modern day Galileo, shunned, denied funding and demonized by today’s orthodox power establishment of UN-backed governments, government sponsored universities and the mainstream media.

While the orthodox religion of climate change believes in man-induced climate change through increased carbon dioxide, they refuse to address the data presented by the solar scientists, using ridicule, the erroneous 97 per cent argument and the unscientific statement, “The science is settled”.

The only thing settled is government policy and the abuse of science to support it.

I will show but one graph from an article in Earth Science Reviews, Volume 150, pp 409-452, by Soon, R. Connolly and M. Connolly.

In Graph A, one can easily see that the temperature (blue) does not at all track carbon dioxide (red). Graph B one can easily see that the temperature (blue) much more closely tracks solar intensity or TSI (red).

If you can read a graph at all, you would reject the carbon dioxide hypothesis.

Sometimes I simply feel I should give up. The powers that be are too strong.

There is no Medici family to help.

Perhaps it will take another ice age to bring people to their senses.


Doug Munro

Killam, Alta.

About the author


ECA Review Publisher


* indicates required