Dear Rev.
Hannah,
I have seen a
news article that you proposed and Oxford Diocese passed a motion to
divest its investments from fossil fuels, which is part of the campaign led by
Bill McKibben of 350.org.
Can I ask what
is the Christian, moral and scientific basis for doing so?
What is the
evidence for global warming when the satellite temperature record, arguably the
most accurate, has not shown any rise for the last 18 years, when the globe’s
ice mass balance is increasing, led by Antarctica, and all severe weather
trends, including for floods, droughts, wildfires, tornados, etc., according to
the observational data records are level or down and not up? There has also
demonstrably been much tampering with some government ‘official’ temperature
records by those in control of them and activist for the global warming ‘cause’
to lower past temperatures and increase recent ones, to exacerbate the apparent
warming and maintain the rhetoric.
As Christians,
we are supposed to be truthful and honest, but to propagate the politically and
environmentalism motivated hypothesis that man’s CO2 (not carbon!) emissions
are the sole driver of global temperatures despite the long record of evidence
of CO2 being entirely divorced from temperatures, including through the last
ice ages, is placing that Christian character into question by such a
divestment action.
The scientific
evidence from the empirical observational record (which does not, indeed,
cannot, include the IPCC and other climate models, they are conjecture, not
evidence) does not bear out or agree with the global warming hypothesis in any
way or shape at all. Further, basic physics demonstrates that the greenhouse
gas hypothesis is not a valid one, as a colder substance, the atmosphere, even
though it has a temperature and does radiate, simply cannot make a warmer
substance, the surface, any warmer; it is physically impossible; and a gas such
as CO2 cannot trap heat but can only spontaneously absorb and emit it. There is
a huge error of understanding too that an increase of water vapour adds to the
warming. It does not, but actually aids cooling. Have you ever felt warmer when
it’s misty, or when a cloud covers the sun? No. All water vapour does is slow
heat transfer, down and up, due to its latent heat capacity.
Is a slightly
warmer earth such a bad thing? Who decides? Doesn’t the earth experience vast
swings of temperatures every day and season as part of God’s design? Doesn’t
man live in all extremes of climate, from the frozen lands of Alaska to the
heat of the Sahara and Middle East? Doesn’t man adapt to these environments
using the skills and resources God has provided for just such a purpose?
Doesn’t a warmer world open up new agricultural lands in the northern
hemisphere, adding to the crop production capacity to feed the world’s
population (which has been growing steadily over recent decades as agricultural
technology and methods have developed and improved)?
You may cite
consensus, but the notion of ‘consensus’ is not a scientific one, as a large
number of major scientific advances have happened against a prevailing
consensus. Have you ever asked why, if God designed the feedback loops in the
climate system to be positive, why has there never ever been a runaway and
catastrophic warming throughout earth’s history? The answer is because the
feedback loops are fundamentally negative. Even past ice ages have recovered,
and as we are still exiting the last mini ice age, we should expect some
warming. For a critique of the physics involved in the GHE conjecture, please
read the articles at climateofsophistry.com (excusing however the author’s
sometimes ‘colourful’ language, which I do not desire). The physical evidence
defies the consensus belief.
Consensus
however is a political construct designed to further a belief. Even the 2
studies that purported to show a ‘97% consensus of scientists’ did no such
thing, and have been repeatedly debunked, shown up for what they are,
pseudo-scientific malfeasance from overtly biased sources. Even the IPCC, which
claims to be ‘scientific’ is no such thing. It is a manifestly political
organisation, hence its name “intergovernmental”. It is politicians and
bureaucrats that debate the content of the summary report (behind closed doors)
that politicians and other groups, e.g. churches see, and that (i) often
contradicts the main technical reports, and (ii) doesn’t convey the scientific
uncertainties, replacing them instead with statements of ‘confidence’. I ask
you to read the book “…Delinquant Teenager…” by Canadian journalist Donna
Laframboise, which is a damming critical analysis of the IPCC (with every
factual assertion referenced to the original material). It will open your eyes.
What is the
moral case? Fossil fuels have brought us incredible wealth as a society, and I
don’t mean for the few at the top, but right down to the bottom, to the very
poorest and infirm. The availability of electricity to power our developed
society is not to be scorned at as the move to divest from and so reject fossil
fuels would have us do. What heats and cools our homes, cooks our food,
transports us to work and our food, water, clothes and goods to us? What powers
agriculture that feeds us, factories and offices that employ us, hospitals that
treat us? Certainly not the erratic, unreliable and highly expensive renewable
energies, wind and solar, which require enormous subsidies levied onto fuel
bills that hit the poorest the most, and no, fossil fuels don’t receive
subsidies in most western countries, but generate a large amount of tax revenue
to pay for our social services, health, transport, police, etc. etc. Why do you
despise this? What moral justification do you have to wanting to deprive us of
this God given fuel set that lifts society out of poverty and oppression,
brings relief, work, enjoyment and comfort? Didn’t God ask us to “comfort my
people”? Rather than divestment being moral, it is an outward sign that shows
an antipathy towards our neighbour, even a hatred, pointing the finger at man
as a plague on the earth. Divestment is fundamentally immoral.
What is the Christian case? What do you think God thinks of
those who throw the creation He called “good” back in his face, calling it
“evil”? Yes, God created fossil fuels as part of the wonderful tapestry of the
physical earth He created, and He did call it “good”. We should not even dare
to question that judgement, lest we call His judgement on us. What do you think
God thinks of those who do not show love to his neighbour by wanting the major
fuel set that He’s provided to be prevented from being used to provide the
comfort we now know? We are indeed called to care for God’s created earth, but
that cannot mean to deny people access to the resources He created and gave to
us to use. How can we hope to enable poorer countries to lift themselves out of
poverty so each person can get a job and receive a fair day’s pay for a day’s work,
a true biblical principle, when we deny them the fuel to create the industry
and jobs that would pay them that, but force upon them the highly expensive
renewable energy that cuts into businesses’ baseline cost and destroys jobs and
the ability to create jobs? That is not Christian love. That is not caring for
our neighbour. Why would we deny these nations the reliable and affordable
energy/electricity to power their hospitals and schools that are so important
to health, welfare and basic survival? Why would we deny our own poorer
parishioners that too?
The Pope recently commented that God forgives, but the earth
does not. I find that an incredible statement! To even suggest that God’s
creation could ‘forgive’ betrays a deep lack of understanding of why Jesus came
to this earth and the relationship between God and His creation. It also
displays a deep misunderstanding in the belief that man could decide earth’s
destiny. We are clearly told that God is in control of this earth’s future, and
there is nothing whatsoever that man can do to change the nature or timescale
of God’s future plan. We do not know when Christ’s second coming and the end of
the current age and this earth as we know it will happen, but we can be sure
that God has it planned. In the meantime, our task is to bring people to faith
in Christ, not to impose a political, pseudo-scientific, anti-Christian and
anti-human world view based on the primacy of ‘gaia’.
The whole global warming movement, started by unaccountable
uber-organisations (e.g. Club of Rome and UNFCCC), and taken up by so many in
the environmental movement, governments and now churches, has become a religion
in itself, a ‘green god’, and is fundamentally anti-Christian. I implore you to
recognise this, and to turn away from it. It is evil, repressive and
destructive. No good will come of it.
In Christ’s love
