Press release Clintel Foundation

By uncritically embracing climate catastrophism, Pope Francis, perhaps unwittingly and most certainly unwillingly, rejects the God he clearly tries to serve wholeheartedly. That is the main conclusion of the essay Pope Francis’ Climate Crusade or the erosion of faith in God, a tale of two encyclicals, written by Jaap C. Hanekamp and William M. Briggs and published by Clintel.

Pope Francis outlined his views on climate change in two encyclicals, Laudato Si’ (2015) and Laudate Deum (2023). Concisely, the Pope fears that the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point because of climate change. In fact, the Pope announced in his encyclicals that there is a “global climate crisis.”

In the essay Pope Francis’ Climate Crusade or the erosion of faith in God chemist and theologian Jaap C. Hanekamp and statistician and meteorologist William M. Briggs reflect on both encyclicals, though they do not assess the scientific information on climate change as such. Instead, they examine the Pope’s use and understanding of models, and delve deeper into the overarching philosophy that sustains both encyclicals. They conclude that the Pope, carelessly in their view, embraces scientism, and not science, which inadvertently weakens his position, and those that follow his scientistic prescriptions.

Scientism is the ideology that science alone is deemed capable of elucidating and resolving all genuine human problems, and that all human affairs can be reduced to science. Accordingly, scientism is the effort to expand science to all other fields of human affairs, even theology, and to usurp them in a reductionist fashion.

Hanekamp and Briggs conclude that the climate scientism Pope Francis peddles stands diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview. “Scientism of any stripe is incommensurable with not only the Christian faith but also with science.”

About the authors
Jaap C. Hanekamp is a chemist by trade and received his first PhD in 1992. In 2015, he defended his second dissertation: Utopia and Gospel: Unearthing the Good News in Precautionary Culture. He blogs at https://jaaphanekamp.com/. William M. Briggs holds a PhD in Mathematical Sciences and an MS in Atmospheric Physics, and has served in various roles including professor, consultant, and statistician. He blogs at https://www.wmbriggs.com/.

The essay can be downloaded here.

ABOUT CLINTEL
The Climate Intelligence foundation (Clintel) was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Clintel’s main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change, as well as the effects of climate policy. Clintel published the World Climate Declaration, which has now been signed by more than 1900 scientists and experts. Its central message is “there is no climate emergency”. In 2023 Clintel published the book The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, in which it documented serious errors and biases in the latest IPCC report.

Dr Kelvin Kemm

Over the past 25 years, the world electricity demand doubled. All indications are that it will double again over the next 25 years. In fact, the time span is likely to be much shorter. The emergence of more electricity-intensive consuming technologies such as data centres is causing electricity demand to rise more steeply. Then one must add the rising demand of developing countries in which. People are moving from cooking dinner over an open fire outdoors to acquiring an electrical stove and fridge.

The image of electricity demand is a large boulder rolling down a hill, it is not stopping or slowing. In fact it is rolling faster and faster.

Without doubt fossil fuels will continue to be the backbone of world electricity generation for decades to come. But equally certain is that nuclear power is making a rapid advance across the globe. That means not only for the traditional large, industrialised countries, but also for the less developed, or much smaller countries. Rapid development of Small Modular Reactor technology is also accelerating the options for the adoption of nuclear power on a large scale. South Africa was the first country in the world to start developing a commercial Small Modular Reactor, and has continued with the work for over 30 years.

Some years ago, South Africa announced its intention to add an additional 2500 MW of new nuclear to its existing nuclear base. Early in 2024, the energy minister confirmed the acceleration of this goal. The intention, from inception, was to build a new 2400 MW coastal nuclear plant, but also to dedicate 100 MW to the development of SMR’s for inland use. In September 2024, the energy minister gave a public address in which he stated that we must go ahead on the basis of science and facts, and not be ‘fighting in the mud’ with activists who rely more on emotion than reality.

South Africa is forging ahead with a new nuclear build. This is excellent news. The current initiative is for an additional 2500 MW of nuclear, composed of a 2400 MW new large nuclear power station on the coast, plus 100 MW dedicated to Small Modular Reactor (SMR) development.

The announcement of the continuation of the project was greeted with applause by many, but as always, the anti-nuclear lobby were frothing at the mouth about all the imagined problems associated with nuclear power.

But let us digress for a moment, to consider the macro-implications of this initiative.

Building a large nuclear plant is essentially following in the footsteps of the traditional route, that being; placing a large plant on the coastline at an ideal site. The resulting power is then transmitted over some distance to consumers.

But what of SMR’s? The crucial difference with a gas-cooled SMR, which does not need a large body of water for cooling purposes, is that you can take the reactor to the consumer. You can place the rector anywhere you like. This reality enables planners to embrace. Embark on a highly flexible. Nuclear solution across the entire country.

Think about it!

Let us now make a comparison with a cell phone system. Prior to the advent of cell phones, a telephone network consisted of major exchanges, interconnected by means of long-range connections. Then cell phones arrived. The cells are something like the honeycomb of a beehive, and each cell has its own main base station antenna. Each cell handles calls within the cell.

The emergence of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) systems onto the modern scene, essentially makes a nuclear cell system a reality. One can now place a gas-cooled SMR anywhere, and it can serve its own ‘cell.’ This ‘cell’ could be a mining complex, a municipality, a collection of factories, or an agricultural area encompassing the farm, proceeding to processing, packaging, and transport. Such a ‘cell’ does not even need to be connected to the National Grid, and can be owned by a Province, Municipality, or private company.

The SMR revolution effectively means that the fundamental planning options available for the distribution of electricity have changed significantly.

A gas-cooled SMR, such as the South African HTMR-100 is walk-away-safe. The fuel cannot suffer a meltdown under any circumstances. Such an SMR emits absolutely nothing during normal operations, no solids, no liquids, no gases. The fuel is in the form of balls, the size of a tennis ball, and each ball lasts between two and three years in the reactor. So, the amount of refuelling required is extremely small, in comparison to coal, gas, or oil plants. So no continuous refuelling structure is required, such as a conveyor belt, pipeline, or railway line.

What all this means is that small nuclear plants can be safely and effectively placed in industrial areas or agricultural areas, or near an idyllic town. One of the accusations of the extremist anti-nuclear lobby has always been that nuclear reactors are ugly industrial structures which spoil beautiful scenic coastlines

With modern SMR’s we can totally remove that accusation. Since then is a bomb, it’s nothing during operation. And what’s more? Is totally silent. It can be integrated into the Vista of any setting. With this in mind, the developers of the HTMR-100 range of reactors approached Johann Koch of Johann Koch Design Architects (JKDA) with a proposal to work together to develop SMRe complexes for a range of customers.

Stratek Global originally developed the HTMR-100 for a classic industrial setting in South Africa, such as a gold-mining complex, far inland, and far away from any large water body. However, Stratek Global has been approached by potential customers from around the world, including the Middle East, Australia, a number of African countries, and also island states.

Furthermore, site factors such as the altitude, have varied from sea level to high altitude. The prevailing weather conditions have varied from hot and dry, to cold and wet, including snow.

As a result, Stratek Global is in a position to offer any type of nuclear power complex which can be designed to fit, not only any site but which can also be skilfully designed to match the scenery or cultural nature of the people and area.

Since nuclear is completely clean and green, emitting no gasses, liquids, or anything else, during normal operations, there is no reason why nuclear power stations must be viewed as ugly industrial buildings. They can be made as attractive as a hotel complex or holiday resort.

Illustrated here or four of the designs developed as a result of customer requests. They are named; the Impala Design, Kudu Design, Oryx Design, and Sable Design.

The Kudu Design was developed for an African savanna setting. It is shown here with a single reactor of 100 MW thermal output, or 35 MW electrical output.

Kudu Design: For a temperate setting near a town or agricultural cluster

A most useful aspect of the. HTMR-100 is that an SMR complex can be designed to take up to ten reactors. All ten can be run from a single control room. Obviously, building more reactors per site reduces the unit cost, because you don’t have to duplicate the administration building, the workshops, or a variety of other facilities. Furthermore, if a site is designed for, say, ten reactors they do not all have to be constructed at the same time. An owner can add reactors, in later years, as the demand rises, or as finances become available, thereby allowing for immense planning flexibility.

The Oryx Design was developed as a result of a request from the Middle East. It also features a single reactor, but can easily be adapted for more reactors.

Oryx Design: A one reactor setup for a desert region

Computer graphic showing the interior arrangement of the reactor building. Approximately 60% of the reactor is underground. Ground-level is at the bottom of the ventilation stack.

The single reactor Impala Design is a workhorse design for an industrial setting such as a South African gold mining complex. This design was developed to fit into any existing industrial complex. It illustrates that other than the actual nuclear reactor itself, in the cylindrical concrete containment vessel, the rest of the power station consists of perfectly normal industrial buildings.

Impala Design: A basic one reactor design for an existing industrial setting

The Sable Design was developed as a result of a request from a country which experiences snow conditions. The request was for a ten-reactor complex. The reactors can be added, over a period of some years, as the customer sees fit.

Sable Design: Showing eight reactors, in a snow region

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and is Past Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa). He is currently Chairman of Stratek Global, a nuclear project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. The company carries out strategy development and project planning in a wide variety of fields for diverse clients. They are working towards building an HTMR-100 nuclear reactor in Pretoria.   Kelvin.kemm@stratekglobal.com.

http://www.stratekglobal.com

From You’re The Voice | by Efrat Fenigson

Co-hosted by Tom Nelson & Efrat Fenigson

🎙️ My guest today is Prof. Steven Koonin, co-hosted with Tom Nelson – host of The Tom Nelson Podcast. Prof. Koonin is an American theoretical physicist and former director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at NYU, as well as a professor in the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering at NYU School of Engineering. In the past he was the Chief Scientist of BP’s oil and gas division, served as Under Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy, in the Obama administration, and was the vice-president of Caltech, one of the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world.

Steven is the author of the book “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters”, where he argues that while there are some basic facts about climate change that experts agree upon, the meaning of those facts is not so settled, and mainstream scientific studies do not support the notion that there is any kind of climate crisis at all.

This conversation discusses Climate Realism – the sane approach to the “Climate Change” alarmism, and the role of media in shaping public perception. We touched on topics such as the use of the term ‘climate denier,’ bias in the energy industry, the challenges faced by young scientists who question the climate narrative, the role of journalists in spreading misinformation, and the influence of organizations like the UN and Covering Climate Now. We talked about the viral documentary ‘Climate the Movie’ and censorship attempts. Lastly we touched on the funding dynamic in climate research, and geoengineering / chemtrails. Steven emphasizes the need for open scientific discussion and the importance of prudence in considering these interventions. We end with the challenges & optimism in maintaining integrity and truth-telling in a corrupted world.

“For young scientists, speaking out against the climate narrative can be a career killer” — Prof. Steven Koonin

This episode is on Twitter, Spotify, Fountain and more.
Got value? please like, comment, share, subscribe & support my work!

We talked about: 

00:00 Coming Up
01:14 Introductions
03:54 Challenging the Term ‘Climate Denier’
06:43 The Climate Discussion “Silence”
09:03 Impacts on Those Speaking Out
10:53 Steven’s Evolution to Climate Realism
16:33 Misrepresentation of Facts
21:37 Organized Online Propaganda
27:34 Climate – The Movie
32:03 Geoengineering & Chemtrails
41:10 Red Team, Blue Team
44:33 Dating CO2 in Deep Ice
45:55 Playing Bongos with Richard Feynman
49:06 Message of Hope

My takeaways: 

• The term ‘climate denier’ is offensive and misleading, as sceptics like Steven Koonin base their arguments on scientific evidence.
• Experience in the energy industry can provide valuable insights into how to effectively change the energy system.
• Speaking out against the climate narrative can be a career risk for young scientists due to funding and publishing challenges.
• According to Koonin, misinformation in the media is a result of journalists not digging deeper and scientists not correcting the misrepresentations.
• The UN’s claim to ‘own the science’ and collaboration with Google to control search results proves bias and censorship.
• The documentary ‘Climate the Movie‘ faced attempts at cancellation but gained widespread attention and support from viewers. It has been well-received and has sparked open discussion about climate change, unlike platforms such as Facebook that label it as misinformation.
• The funding dynamic in climate research is discussed, with the observation that adding climate speak to a project can qualify it for climate-related funding. This raises questions about the integrity of research and its bias.
• Geoengineering, such as stratosphere aerosol injection and cloud seeding, is a topic of interest and debate. While it may be technologically feasible to lower the surface temperature of the globe, there are concerns about unintended side effects and the long-term viability of these interventions.
• There is a need for a red team, blue team approach in climate science to encourage open and rigorous scientific discussion and challenge the consensus. However, this approach is not currently favored by the Biden administration.
• Maintaining integrity and truth-telling in the face of corruption is a challenge, but it is essential for scientists to lay out the facts and let people decide for themselves.

---

Watch on YouTube:

Watch/listen on Spotify:

Follow Prof. Steven Koonin & Tom Nelson:

Prof. Koonin’s book | Tom’s Twitter | Tom’s links 

The above interview is archived on our ClimateTV page