A letter to CR April 2021

I am sorry this communication is lengthy but trust - at your convenience - that you will do me the courtesy, given the time I have invested in researching and constructing it, of investing your time to read it fully.

The cause of my deliberations has been my intense disappointment, frustration and anger at the Community’s repeated proclamations of the completely false gospel of global warming.

This first came to my attention in an outrageous article published in the CR Review. I immediately despatched a response, refuting the totally false assertions made therein. That response may be read in full here:


Fr George conceded to my response, considerably reduced and in bullet point form, being published in the next CR Review but with a link included therein to the full text. I had hoped this would be sufficient to put a stop to such silliness but imagine my incredulity when another article was published in a subsequent CR Review again propounding the same false gospel. Once more I despatched a response refuting the points made and endeavouring again to set the matters into a correct context. That response may be read in full here:


This time, in reply, Fr George was not at all conciliatory, refusing to publish it (or even a redacted version of it), appealing to his own (clearly warped) version of “the science" and stating "For those of us who are not expert we make our judgement on the basis both of the arguments presented by the different points of view and on the authoritativeness of their proponents".

However, it is blatantly apparent to me that no “different points of view" have in any way been taken into account, the Community having quite obviously closed its collective mind to any such and refusing to embrace the many prominent scientific voices continually being raised against the sheer scare-mongering nonsense pedalled by the mainstream media. It is this refusal, in the face of Fr George's assertions, even to entertain that he and the Community may be mistaken, which really hurts most.

That a group of - forgive me - mostly elderly individuals largely removed from the world and dependent upon limited media, the content of which is intent on pursuing its own political agenda, should mistakenly reach an erroneous conclusion I can entirely understand and appreciate. However, to dismiss right out of hand any contrary views presenting scientifically supported facts, as opposed to pseudo-science alarmism, I find unforgivable. If there is one thing I thought the Community stood for and would be determined to proselytise it is surely the truth, not an entirely scientifically unsupported fabrication designed by those intentionally seeking to gain wealth, power and control.

I was, further, deeply disappointed to learn that the Community is hell-bent on following an insane “carbon-neutral” path. One of the many advantages of the Community is that it stands largely outside the structures and strictures of the Church of England and therefore has no compulsion to follow all the latest fads and trends enrapturing a Church apparently intent on destroying itself. Further, I had always understood the Community to be supportive of the poor and underprivileged, the very same people in the world who will be most affected by pursuance of such a ridiculous policy.

It seems I cannot say in large enough letters - and these are not my unsupported personal views but the actual truth, readily scientifically verifiable - the following:

It manifestly follows, therefore, that the policies such as carbon-neutrality pushed by climate alarmists are not based on science. Causation is never even proven. Instead, as substitutes for science, emotion, stories, fantasies, dreams and promises are used. Policy needs to be based on specific, quantified cause and effect. That has never been presented anywhere in the world.

You should be fully aware that the two factors which have driven the rapid improvement in human standards of living over the last 170 years have been the use of hydrocarbon fuels and their derivatives plus the consequential relentless decrease in the price of energy from 1850. However, some countries have started to take a backwards trend, thanks to so called renewable (“green”) energy, which is in truth very far from being either renewable or environmentally friendly. Prices for electricity have started to increase; in some areas they have doubled and tripled and nothing has changed, save an increasingly unsustainable burden on the poor. Coal-fired power stations have become more efficient yet there has been an increase in the price of electricity because of the artificial regulations and the artificial impediments on the most productive and efficient source of electricity generation plus an imposition of massive subsidies for the dreams of weak, unreliable and intermittent solar and wind, which will never, ever catch up with coal, hydro or nuclear.

The lunacy of the climate alarmists, calling carbon dioxide ‘carbon’ - calling a gas a solid - is driving a de-carbonisation that is, in effect, a de-industrialisation. What will disappear are all the material benefits which have accrued over the last 150 years, to be replaced by a reliance on very scarce materials only capable of extraction in very limited quantities, under atrocious conditions and by the poorest and most underprivileged in society.

Further, without the continued reliance on hydrocarbons for energy, every tree on the planet would be cut down for fuel, the atmosphere would be thick with burning wood smoke and billions of people worldwide would die. Those still alive without fossil fuels would have a life expectancy of under 30 years.

Hydrocarbons and their by-products (e.g. plastics) have led to humans now living lives that are longer, safer, easier, more comfortable and more healthy than ever before and in us having far more choices than anyone could ever have imagined. Today we benefit from the more than 6,000 products which are all made from oil derivatives, most of which did not even exist in the developed countries before the 1900s. In its insane drive for “carbon-neutrality”, will the Community be discarding everything made of plastic (including the computer on which you are reading this) and only use those goods, medicines and protections which existed before the discovery of oil?

As for CR’s false gospel of global warming and climate catastrophe, it seems that, yet again, I cannot stress enough the following realities (these are neither fake nor hype and are merely a selection of some recent reports; there are very, very many more in similar vein which I could supply. I am NOT making up this stuff):

Eliminating carbon-based energy and carbon dioxide emissions will impose far greater human and ecological costs than hitherto. It is fossil fuel replacements which will inflict incalculable damage to people and the planet. Replacing coal, oil, natural gas and internal combustion vehicles would require millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of battery modules, millions of acres of biofuel plantations, a complete overhaul of electrical grids and infrastructures, on millions of acres. That will require billions of tons of steel, aluminum, copper, lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, concrete, plastics and other materials, which will require digging up and processing hundreds of billions of tons of ores and minerals. This will be carried out often with slave and child labour and with few or no workplace safety, air and water pollution, toxic substances, endangered species or other rules.

Only seven times in the last BILLION years have average global temperatures ever been at the rather arbitrary present day global average temperature and then only when going into, or emerging from, an ice age. The long-term global average mean temperature is actually three to five degrees centigrade above the present level. As recently as the mid-1800s, parts of China were up to three degrees centigrade warmer than today

It is manifestly evident to everybody that the earth's climate has always changed and always will change, quite naturally. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no global warming. There is NO climate catastrophe. The very idea that mankind can predictably manage natural changes in climate by manipulating at the margins one politically selected atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide, is as misguided as it gets. It is scientific nonsense. Trying to change the climate by moderating humanity's carbon dioxide emissions is thus a Canute-like exercise in futility.

Accordingly, I PLEA with the Community immediately to come to its senses and revert to its constitution, which states that it is called to public, prophetic witness to the Christian hope of the Kingdom, not to promulgating a monstrous lie. Please, please stop following and, particularly, promoting the totally false gospel of global warming, anthropogenic (man-made) climate change and “carbon-neutrality". None of these is God’s message, particularly when pursuance of the current cult-like desire for “decarbonisation” policies - which have absolutely no basis in science - would result in worsening the environments and lives of the very people the Community should be supporting and would foster severe negative consequences on future generations, all without affecting climate one iota.

The Community now has the opportunity, some might say a duty, to take its rightful place in the fightback against the climate nonsense pedalled by others, many of whom know better but fear for their employment if they were to voice their concerns. It is time for the Community to stop its woke, virtue signalling and get back to its core fundamentals. The insistence that humans should limit future access to fossil fuels and the products made from oil derivatives has a dramatic cost, because cheap and accessible power and products from fossil fuels are life saving and one of the best ways out of poverty. Abandoning fossil fuels and moving into unreliable and intermittent electricity from wind and solar will deprive at least 80% of humanity, or more than 6 billion people in this world living on less than $10 per day, from enjoying the same products which benefit the developed countries. Further, of all deaths in those countries, heart disease accounts for around a third and cancer for around a quarter. Why, therefore, is the Community not directing its efforts to aligning itself alongside the worthy causes of research into alleviation of such morbidities, when - and not a single one of the following are caused by carbon dioxide - cold kills just six percent, heat kills less than one third of one percent and extreme weather kills a miniscule 0.015%?

I would be pleased to provide supporting evidence at any time for any or all of the above FACTS.