Reform the IPCC for the sake of science

I do know what kind of reception I would get from my senior management if I put the IPCC business case in front of them to ask for a $45 trillion spend. I would be laughed out of the boardroom in 5 minutes flat.

The global warming movement urges immediate action to avert a claimed catastrophic outcome. "Lukewarmer" is a bit of a euphemism. If you don't think global warming is a major problem, you are a sceptic.

It may be an error to think "if this problem really is important why do its proponents feel obliged to lie about it so much?" But it may not be.

Thanks for your excellent piece. I believe your position on Climate Change is shared by almost all those who aren't breathless acolytes of the IPCC faith.....but unfortunately you, like they, are sure to be tagged as a "Climate Change Denier" for your views. I'm afraid common sense was one of the first casualties of the hype surrounding the IPCC.

Well said sir. Now please convince the politicians.

I totally agree with you.

The scientific establishment and its elite have let everyone down, including scientists.

Excellent summary! If I could force all politicians to read one update on the state of climate 'science', this would be it - but I somehow doubt that we will ever get our tax contributions back!

A very good summary Matt. The latest review (which raised all the wrong questions) barely scratches the surface of the problems with the IPCC bias and exaggerations, and the recommendations it makes are so vague and feeble that nothing will change.

Your last two paras are spot-on. AGW is a minor issue with a grain of truth in it. Other environmental issues are much more pressing, yet are being ignored in favour of CO2 hysteria.

There is another angle of criticism against the IPPC: their reports might also be inaccurate because of the immense influence of governments of the scientist. The way I see it, all observations are worse than even the IPCC's pessimistic models. To all "climate change is not a big problem"-chanters: even if the probability of catastrophic consequences were low, we better change our way of life now, than take the risk of it being changed for us. Because it will be anyway, once we have exploited the natural resources our current society is addicted to. The costs of recovery are always higher than those of preparation.

Who is the author? This page shows no information on that.

Yes, Cathryne, we better tax people into obscurity and destroy all industry in case we're too late. Build useless windmills and wave-power generators.

This is only the latest in a series of population scaring stories. Keep 'em scared, keep 'em controlled.

You say "IPCC reports are supposed to be the gold standard account of what is — and is not — known about global warming"

No, their remit is to produce a gold standard report of how mans activities affect climate - much more restrictive in scope than what is commonly assumed to be report on "what is known about global warming". As such why would they investigate or report on natrual effects beyond that needed to quantify mankinds climatic influence.

Unless their remit is broadened it does not matter how much the IPCC procedures and ethics are tighened, the next report will still be unbalanced and focused on telling us of could, worst, tipping points , unless, 97%, certainty, when referring to possible disaster scenarios that demand mankind changes his behaviour.

"The costs of recovery are always higher than those of preparation."

Says who?

Aye, even if 'twere true, this AGW, all the climate advocacy being practised by these charlatans, in the name of science has done such a disservice to science that people will no longer trust science so blindly. Perhaps that's ultimately a good thing, 'though not one they deserve any credit for.

The IPCC shows the broader problem of bending science and free inquiry backwards according to the whims of dogma, political or religious.

It was a sorry day for me I ever bought a book written by a clown like Matt Ridley.

He condemns 4 IPCC reports on the basis of a single error, and supports the fakery of the like of McKittrick, Goklany and Michaels. It is pretty thin gruel he serves up. The report actually makes it clear that the IPCC has served the world community well, and that the basic science of climate change is unchallenged.

Pat Michaels admitted recently he receives "about 40%" of his funding from Big Oil. Sure, Pat, and the other 60% comes from Big Coal. This man was once a scientist, now he has his ass on a chair at the Cato "Institute", a self-styled "libertarian think-tank" with the super-rich Koch brothers as paymasters and puppermasters. And Ridley's touches his forelock and doffs his cap. "Truth to power"?

I read that Ridley's adeventures in high finance have not been visited with the same success. Good. Clearly, he needs a few bob hence his fawning cap-and-bells act for a few crumbs from the rich man's table.

I think we stand today at an important fork in the road. On one path, science continues to be manipulated and used by politicians and pundits and therefore loses much of its credibility. On the other path, scientists and other rational thinkers fight hard to change what is happening and science and reason enjoy their finest hour.

Good article. But the truth is that the IPCC is a public policy advocacy group, much like Greenpeace etc. IPCC may have been reasonably scientific once, but these days the science is just a veneer, (and a very effective veneer until recently). In order to restore its public credibility, they desperately need Pachauri to go, but he probably wont.
Even if Pachauri does go and some reforms occur, (read; lots more salaries), the leopard wont change it's spots.

To Cathryne:

I quote you:

"[...] even if the probability of catastrophic consequences were low, we better change our way of life now, than take the risk of it being changed for us."

My commentary:

First,the threat of the so called catastrophic AGW is not necessary in order to change "our way of life". All kinds of (mesurables) pollution (real ones), are enough. Remember the 60' and 70', time where the environnementalist movement has grown, without the AGW argument.

Secondly, to consider that the worst scenario is the thing to rely on it in order to decide our future actions, is to refuse any kind of risk. As it is in life, this irrational fear of the unknown can lead us to really bad decisions.

By the way, excuse my english.

Those in power will fight to push through their climate communism by hook or by crook. The fight is far from over.

To Cathryne:

I quote you:

"[...] even if the probability of catastrophic consequences were low, we better change our way of life now, than take the risk of it being changed for us."

My commentary:

First,the threat of the so called catastrophic AGW is not necessary in order to change "our way of life". All kinds of (mesurables) pollution (real ones), are enough. Remember the 60' and 70', time where the environnementalist movement has grown, without the AGW argument.

Secondly, to consider that the worst scenario is the thing to rely on in order to decide our future actions, is to refuse any kind of risk. As it is in life, this irrational fear of the unknown can lead us to really bad decisions.

By the way, excuse my english.

Is there, I wonder, any connection between scientific theory-bubbles, economic bubbles, government funding of science and government intervention in attempting to centrally plan an economy?

I think there's entirely too much faith (or the wrong sort of faith) placed by the media and public in the peer review process. The way science (and peer review) works is that over time it will tend to move from less complete to more complete understanding. Peer review is a pretty blunt instrument - as those of us who are subject to it in our working lives understand - and is not a mechanism for arriving at definitive truths in a short time frame. It depends very heavily on consensus (which often turns out to be wrong); allows prominent individual scientists (operating as reviewers) an effective veto on what is published; and it contains no mechanism for ensuring that significant publications contradicting the majority view are ever addressed (they are often just ignored). Science works at all because it tends toward truth over a long time period; but what is published in peer reviewed literature this year (or decade) is often quite wrong.

Obviously the effect of a political body like the IPCC is to amplify the shortcomings of the peer review process, by assuming that the current state of the literature is definitive and correct.

BTW, if you ask any practicing scientist 'What proportion of the papers published in your area of knowledge are good or useful?', you'll be told 'Maybe 5%' (more like 1% in my area of expertise). Peer review does not prevent the publication of bad science; its purpose is to reduce the volume of publications to a manageable level by applying some basic checks on quality. Often this process is performed extremely poorly, for a variety of reasons. Only the passage of time can really determine which publications are useful.

Matt, which Times was this published in?

John: The Times of London

Sorry, Matt, but this op-ed contains loads of evidence you are not skeptical enough. Take the "voodoo science" comment. Anyone who read the report that triggered that remark (by ONE Indian scientist) will be hard pressed to find anything that even remotely comes close to attacking the 2035 claim. It isn't mentioned in the report at all! What *is* claimed is that the Himalaya glaciers are melting(!), but the author claims global warming maybe has nothing to do with it, because, you know, err...because we haven't studied them all, and several were already melting before the 20th century, so there. That would indeed be "voodoo science": I haven't looked at any climate data at all, nor done any statistical analysis, but still I make large claims. Seriously, Matt, read the report, stop depending on certain bloggers on what it supposedly says and what Pachauri reacted to.

Then there's the McKitrick & Michaels paper, which found a reasonable correlation(!), which went down in shatters when they corrected an embarrassing error. Of course, correlation is not causation (apparently unless you suddenly are on the 'skeptic' side), especially when you ignore confounding factors. Note that correcting the error didn't make M&M change their claim, despite the correlation getting a lot smaller. Of course, the warming of the oceans is a bit of a problem in the M&M analysis, so that was conveniently left out. Just like the fact that Northern Canada warms faster than the Canadian regions where the economic activity is located. Not too much detail, please! Takes away the correlation. More interestingly, they completely ignored the satellite records, which also show significant warming (only slightly smaller rate for RSS than GISTEMP or HADCRUT or NCDC), and which can't be linked to economic activity. Eh, details. Oh, and Benestad 2004 showed M&M used inappropriate analysis. Eh, more inconvenient details, so let's ignore that one, too.

Then there's your disastrously wrong claim that "the “experts” who compiled one part of the 2007 report included three from Greenpeace, two Friends of the Earth representatives, two Climate Action Network representatives, and a person each from the activist organisations WWF, Environmental Defense Fund, and the David Suzuki Foundation."
Amongst the *reviewers* of the WGIII report were such people:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex4.pdf (directly from a link to the link you yourself provided). Oh, and if anyone goes through that list, they will also find climate disinformer Hans Labohm, Energetech (a company helping you get energy), EUROFER (iron & steel industry), a representative from the cement industry, Toyota, Alcoa (aluminium producer), etc. etc. I guess their involvement is just fine, it's those darn greenies that are not to be allowed!

Seriously, Matt, you can be as optimistic as you want, but it apparently has made you very unskeptical about the large claims made in certain parts of the blogosphere.

C'mon Matt, don't you realize that scientists are unbiased protectors of humanity, except, of course, the ones that aren't.

Follow the associations, Matt, and you will discover the truth: Scientists who are members of political environmental movements, funded by environmentalist movements, funded by energy companies that stand to make a bunch of money off of carbon rationing, or funded by nonstop government research into policy recommendations are vigilant, honest bastions of light, unconcerned with the professional advancement, political advocacy, and financial well-being that may be gleaned from their research. Those who consult libertarian think-tanks, receive contributions from oil companies, or just basically disagree are dastardly sorts out to destroy the credibility of science.

I was once like you, Matt. I worried that the science around climate change had become too politicized and movement oriented. I thought the credibility of science could be jeopardized by conflicts of interest and institutional bias.

Now I realize that I was guilty of undermining science. If I don't trust the climatologists at the head of the AGW movement, I don't trust science in general.

But, like I said, don't trust the skeptics, they are just biased hack jobs, caring only about the money they make from their research.

<i>One of the most shocking things for those who champion science, as I do, has been the sight of the science Establishment reacting to each scandal in climate science with indifference or contempt. The contrast with the thorough investigation of the Hauser affair is striking.</i>

I am reminded of Lee Smolin and The Trouble with Physics:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0141018...

If the signal from reality is weak, and the signal from academic politics is strong, which signal will "science" pay attention to?

Looking back on the past 500 years, it’s obvious now what the myths were and how they were shattered. But, can it happen in today’s world? Are there beliefs that are currently accepted to be true that are candidates for shattering? What would those beliefs look like?

For starters they would be widely accepted by a large number of people. Criterion 2 stipulates that there can’t be any facts to support them. People simply chose to believe based on their own volition, sans facts.

A couple that come to mind are two of the most insidious beliefs ever to grace the annals of science:

• Chronic exposure to low levels of man made ionizing radiation cause health problems.
• Manmade emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming.

In both cases the beliefs are based on assumptions - not facts. In both cases the manmade contribution of the ionizing radiation, or the carbon dioxide, when compared to the natural contribution, is trivial. Yet, beliefs declare both of these manmade sources of naturally occurring material dangerous to the health and safety of the public and the environment and demand that they be regulated down to miniscule levels.

The radiation belief creates irrational fear which is amplified by the media and restricts the development of nuclear power. Paradoxically, if the carbon dioxide belief is true, nuclear power is the only currently proven technology capable of generating large amounts of electricity with minimal carbon dioxide emissions. Go figure.

So, a dilemma presents itself that may or may not be resolved at some future space in time. What is apparent is that truth hates delay and the sooner these beliefs are resolved the better.

Matt,

If you are going to make obviously false statements like this (which you surely know to be false so I won't bother with a link):
"The panel boasts that it uses only peer-reviewed scientific literature."
...you immediately undermine your credibility in the minds of people who have a brain and the capability for independent thought (sadly, apparently that isn't all of us).

Of course, the congregation will whizz right past without batting an eyelid. Repeat after me: "you've got to think for your selves. You're all individuals!" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes)

Similarly you make selective mention of grey literature from what you emotively title 'pressure groups' without mentioning grey literature from corporations or instruments of the capitalist globalisationist world order (or to use less emotive language, companies and the likes of the World Bank).

The IAC report has a lot of thoughtful and interesting constructive criticism of IPCC, a fair bit of which is to do with how important it is in maintaining credibility to be at all times accurate, consistent and transparent.

But one thing IAC certainly doesn't do is undermine conclusions such as this from AR4:
"It is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the warmest in at least the past 1300 years. The data supporting these conclusions are most extensive over summer extratropical land areas (particularly for the longer time period; see Figure TS.20). These conclusions are based upon proxy data..."

Of course this statement has been picked over extensively in the meantime and could now, if anything, be more strongly stated.

That covers current warming. There is alot of other evidence on projected future warming, as I'm sure you realise.

All of which makes it rather odd for you to say:
"I am now a “lukewarmer” who has yet to see any evidence saying that the current warming is, or is likely to be, unprecedented, fast or tending to accelerate."

You are welcome to not agree with it, but at least you could admit there is evidence out there. And by the way, using the word 'unprecedented' here is a bit of a canard. Like some of the dodgy statements by IPCC it is, by design, constructed to be hard to refute.

simon

Why is this page undated?

Thanks for well thought-out comments. I agree with you. I too am not a denier. The physics is pretty clear and the evidence supports at least a modest temperature increase over the next century by which time we will hopefully not be dumping Gt's of CO2 from fossil fuels into the air. But there's a kicker. This CO2 dumping is some giant geo-engineering experiment and we don't really have a good way of understanding it. This is where the deniers are bang on. So what we don't know is whether the feedbacks (eg. albedo changes, methane releases) are going to be +ve or -ve and their magnitude. If negative, then consequences should be minor but if positive, we better be prepared - it could get really nasty.

Global Warming ...No! Climate Change...Yes!

I think the climate has been like that for a year or two now - maybe a bit longer (tongue in cheek).

The cause I don't know but I am inclined to the view that it is natural unlike air pollution which is something we can all do soemthing about.

Frankly I don't have any confidence in the IPCC and it does little for the image of the UN to deny that their reports are not worth the paper they are written on.

I don't care about being called a sceptic - I am and proud of it. Better that than a sheep and blindly swallow everything I am told unquestioningly.

LA STORIA DE ‘I DUE CANARINI DEL SINDACO DI FIRENZE PROFESSOR GIORGIO LA PIRA’. Da Premio NOBEL?
La stampa li fece diventare famosi. Nella causa per la sua beatificazione non se ne parla. Glieli aveva dati però, a Lucca, un altro futuro santo: Monsignor Enrico Bartoletti. Perché?
Una delle molte volte che sono andato a trovare a Lucca, all’arcivescovado, Mons. Bartoletti, e cioè dopo il 1958, entrato nella sua stanza, che ha una finestra che guarda il dietro della Cattedrale di san Martino, lui mi fece notare di avere due canarini in gabbia: quasi mi volesse indicare un nostro simbolo autobiografico. Mi venne da rimanerne sorpreso è dissi, più o meno: “Ma come si fa a tenere degli uccellini in gabbia. Io non vorrei starci. Liberiamoli!!! Lui, della mia meraviglia, quasi se ne offese e mi rispose: “Se gli liberassi morirebbero, non saprebbero dove andare a dormire, e anche per procurarsi il cibo. Ma come puoi pensare che una persona come me, tanto amante della LIBERTÀ, possa, non so per quale motivo, tenere due animali prigionieri?” Capii che aveva respinto indignato l’osservazione al mittente, ma non si dimostrò adirato. Quando la volta dopo ritornai i due canarini però non c’erano più. Li aveva regalati al professor La Pira in quale credo li tenesse a Palazzo Vecchio. Anche i giornali ne parlarono.
La volta prima dell’incidente dei due canarini Mons. Bartoletti mi aveva fatto notare che io e Giorgio La Pira arrivavamo sempre senza prima avvertire, ed eravamo gli unici. Ma, per lui, disse che tutto ciò andava bene lo stesso, ovviamente trattandosi di noi. Anzi, riempiendomi di orgoglio trovò il modo di dirmi anche che, fra me e Giorgio La Pira, preferiva me, mentre fra me e Giuseppe Dossetti preferiva Dossetti. Dopo dettolo, notò che io ero rimasto male, che avevo fatto il broncio, e perciò aggiunse: “Questo lo penso io, ma non è detto che universalmente, oggettivamente, debba essere così.” E poi cambiò discorso.
Cosa ne fece il Sindaco La Pira, poi, dei due canarini? Dove andarono a finire? Forse una risposta potrebbero darcela il fratelli GIOVANNONI, O GIANNI, O GIORGIO, che, di La Pira, conoscevano tutti i particolari mentre io l’avevo visto sempre da lontano, o di sfuggita, anche perché non era effettivamente il mio tipo, né io il suo, pur essendomi io stesso rovinata l’esistenza per aver seguito la sua delibera. E si tratta della delibera dell’Amministrazione La Pira contro gli APPALTI del DAZIO, o Imposte di Consumo. E si tratta della Deliberazione Consiliare 5 ottobre 1964, n. 5555/710/C e del coraggiosissimo ricorso di La Pira, in data 16 Gennaio 1965, contro il Prefetto di Firenze che l’aveva bocciata, all’uopo ovviamente autorizzato con deliberazione d’urgenza della Giunta Comunale in data 15 Gennaio 1965, n.383. Gran parte di questa storia, che sta all’origine dell’approvazione in ITALIA dell’ IVA (Imposta sul Valore Aggiunto) non appaltabile, al posto dell’ I.C.O. appaltabile, ovviamente il tutto per l’intervento del Bartoletti, è stata pubblicata sulla rivista ‘SOTTO IL VELAME’, dell’Associazione Studi Danteschi e Tradizionali, di Torino diretta da RENZO GUERCI ( Il leone Verde Edizioni – Torino, Settembre 2005, n. VI, pp. 147 – 163). Questo numero VI della rivista potrà ancor oggi essere ricevuto da tutti telefonando a Torino, a RENZO GURCI, al n. 011 22.64.721. Email: dantesca@tin.it. Sarebbe però interessante infine sapere anche chi, a Lucca, regalò i due canarini a Mons. Enrico Bartoletti, se, chi lo fece, è ancora vivo, o qualcun altro ne sa qualcosa. Siamo di fronte a due futuri santi uniti anche dalla storia di questi due canarini in gabbia.
Mons. ENRICO BARTOLETTI, quale Profeta, predisse a GIOVANGUALBERTO CERI, da giovanotto, lo dico per inciso, che avrebbe fatto scoperte su DANTE e sul suo MEDIOEVO, per importanza simili a quelle di HEINRICH SCHLIEMANN su Troia e la Civiltà micenea. Ai postulanti la Sua beatificazione probabilmente questo, forse, non interesserà molto, poiché avere ottenuto la GRAZIA di Profezia non è aver raggiunto la capacità di poter compiere dei MIRACOLI. Pur tuttavia, per chi scrive e rifacendosi alla DIDACHÉ, dovrebbe ugualmente pesare. Tale profezia il Bartoletti me la fece pochi giorni prima di andare a vedere insieme, autobiograficamente, il 20 Agosto 1955, a San Miniato, la prima de ‘IL POTERE E LA GLORIA’ di GRAHAM GREENE. Che io abbia fatto queste scoperte è del tutto oggettivo, ed vidente: Cfr. l’intervista fattami da UMBERTO CECCHI: DVD di TV CANALE 10 su YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV4vEG15yjA. Che i Docenti di Italianistica e il Vaticano non siano interessati a divulgarle è altrettanto evidente. Nella verità siamo soli, lo ha detto anche Graham Greene. Bisognerà vedere, in relazione ai prossimi decenni, chi avrebbe avuto ragione. F.to GIOVANGUALBERTO CERI 

LA STORIA DE ‘I DUE CANARINI DEL SINDACO DI FIRENZE PROFESSOR GIORGIO LA PIRA’. Da Premio NOBEL?
La stampa li fece diventare famosi. Nella causa per la sua beatificazione non se ne parla. Glieli aveva dati però, a Lucca, un altro futuro santo: Monsignor Enrico Bartoletti. Perché?
Una delle molte volte che sono andato a trovare a Lucca, all’arcivescovado, Mons. Bartoletti, e cioè dopo il 1958, entrato nella sua stanza, che ha una finestra che guarda il dietro della Cattedrale di san Martino, lui mi fece notare di avere due canarini in gabbia: quasi mi volesse indicare un nostro simbolo autobiografico. Mi venne da rimanerne sorpreso è dissi, più o meno: “Ma come si fa a tenere degli uccellini in gabbia. Io non vorrei starci. Liberiamoli!!! Lui, della mia meraviglia, quasi se ne offese e mi rispose: “Se gli liberassi morirebbero, non saprebbero dove andare a dormire, e anche per procurarsi il cibo. Ma come puoi pensare che una persona come me, tanto amante della LIBERTÀ, possa, non so per quale motivo, tenere due animali prigionieri?” Capii che aveva respinto indignato l’osservazione al mittente, ma non si dimostrò adirato. Quando la volta dopo ritornai i due canarini però non c’erano più. Li aveva regalati al professor La Pira in quale credo li tenesse a Palazzo Vecchio. Anche i giornali ne parlarono.
La volta prima dell’incidente dei due canarini Mons. Bartoletti mi aveva fatto notare che io e Giorgio La Pira arrivavamo sempre senza prima avvertire, ed eravamo gli unici. Ma, per lui, disse che tutto ciò andava bene lo stesso, ovviamente trattandosi di noi. Anzi, riempiendomi di orgoglio trovò il modo di dirmi anche che, fra me e Giorgio La Pira, preferiva me, mentre fra me e Giuseppe Dossetti preferiva Dossetti. Dopo dettolo, notò che io ero rimasto male, che avevo fatto il broncio, e perciò aggiunse: “Questo lo penso io, ma non è detto che universalmente, oggettivamente, debba essere così.” E poi cambiò discorso.
Cosa ne fece il Sindaco La Pira, poi, dei due canarini? Dove andarono a finire? Forse una risposta potrebbero darcela il fratelli GIOVANNONI, O GIANNI, O GIORGIO, che, di La Pira, conoscevano tutti i particolari mentre io l’avevo visto sempre da lontano, o di sfuggita, anche perché non era effettivamente il mio tipo, né io il suo, pur essendomi io stesso rovinata l’esistenza per aver seguito la sua delibera. E si tratta della delibera dell’Amministrazione La Pira contro gli APPALTI del DAZIO, o Imposte di Consumo. E si tratta della Deliberazione Consiliare 5 ottobre 1964, n. 5555/710/C e del coraggiosissimo ricorso di La Pira, in data 16 Gennaio 1965, contro il Prefetto di Firenze che l’aveva bocciata, all’uopo ovviamente autorizzato con deliberazione d’urgenza della Giunta Comunale in data 15 Gennaio 1965, n.383. Gran parte di questa storia, che sta all’origine dell’approvazione in ITALIA dell’ IVA (Imposta sul Valore Aggiunto) non appaltabile, al posto dell’ I.C.O. appaltabile, ovviamente il tutto per l’intervento del Bartoletti, è stata pubblicata sulla rivista ‘SOTTO IL VELAME’, dell’Associazione Studi Danteschi e Tradizionali, di Torino diretta da RENZO GUERCI ( Il leone Verde Edizioni – Torino, Settembre 2005, n. VI, pp. 147 – 163). Questo numero VI della rivista potrà ancor oggi essere ricevuto da tutti telefonando a Torino, a RENZO GURCI, al n. 011 22.64.721. Email: dantesca@tin.it. Sarebbe però interessante infine sapere anche chi, a Lucca, regalò i due canarini a Mons. Enrico Bartoletti, se, chi lo fece, è ancora vivo, o qualcun altro ne sa qualcosa. Siamo di fronte a due futuri santi uniti anche dalla storia di questi due canarini in gabbia.
Mons. ENRICO BARTOLETTI, quale Profeta, predisse a GIOVANGUALBERTO CERI, da giovanotto, lo dico per inciso, che avrebbe fatto scoperte su DANTE e sul suo MEDIOEVO, per importanza simili a quelle di HEINRICH SCHLIEMANN su Troia e la Civiltà micenea. Ai postulanti la Sua beatificazione probabilmente questo, forse, non interesserà molto, poiché avere ottenuto la GRAZIA di Profezia non è aver raggiunto la capacità di poter compiere dei MIRACOLI. Pur tuttavia, per chi scrive e rifacendosi alla DIDACHÉ, dovrebbe ugualmente pesare. Tale profezia il Bartoletti me la fece pochi giorni prima di andare a vedere insieme, autobiograficamente, il 20 Agosto 1955, a San Miniato, la prima de ‘IL POTERE E LA GLORIA’ di GRAHAM GREENE. Che io abbia fatto queste scoperte è del tutto oggettivo, ed vidente: Cfr. l’intervista fattami da UMBERTO CECCHI: DVD di TV CANALE 10 su YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV4vEG15yjA. Che i Docenti di Italianistica e il Vaticano non siano interessati a divulgarle è altrettanto evidente. Nella verità siamo soli, lo ha detto anche Graham Greene. Bisognerà vedere, in relazione ai prossimi decenni, chi avrebbe avuto ragione. F.to GIOVANGUALBERTO CERI