A letter to CR April 2021
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.
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.
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:
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:
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".
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.
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
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:
CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTANT. It is non-toxic and non-noxious; it is colourless, odourless and tasteless. It is ESSENTIAL for life on this planet, being the vital chemical compound which every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for all humans and animal life. Everything green which is natural relies upon carbon dioxide and it benefits when carbon dioxide levels are far higher than now
Those promoting climate alarmism apparently fail to understand that carbon dioxide is not carbon; they say we need to cut carbon dioxide from the use of coal, oil and natural gas but then they talk about carbon. Carbon dioxide is a gas but carbon is a solid and is in every cell of our bodies. What makes our planet so liveable and unique is the fact that we have more carbon concentrated on our planet than is the case across the universe. Carbon, like carbon dioxide, is essential for life.
Carbon dioxide constitutes just 0.0415% (naught point naught four one five per cent) of Earth’s air, i.e. just four parts in every million. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is scientifically classified as a trace gas because there is so little of it. By contrast, when you or I exhale carbon dioxide we do so at 40,000 parts per million; that is 100 times greater. In their headlong rush to be “carbon-neutral”, is the Community proposing that all the Brethren should stop breathing?
Some may say ‘Oh but cyanide can kill you with just a trace’. That is true but it is a chemical effect. However, the claimed effect of carbon dioxide promoted by alarmists, i.e. global warming, climate catastrophe and the so called greatest existential threat that we now face - which are all complete lies - are physical effects yet the trace gas carbon dioxide has no physical effect which can be recorded.
Importantly, carbon dioxide which nature produces (and this is from the United Nations climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is 97% of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. In other words, each year, nature produces 32 times more than the entire human production of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide does not discolour the air. Carbon dioxide does not impair the quality of water or soil. Carbon dioxide does not create light, create heat, create noise or create radioactivity. It does not distort our senses. It does not degrade the environment, nor impair its usefulness, nor render our environment offensive.
dioxide does not harm ecosystems, plants, animals or humans. In fact, we put
it in soft drinks; we put it in champagne, beer and soda water: we carbonate
these by putting carbon dioxide in there (will the Community be banning all
such fizzy drinks in the future?). Carbon dioxide does not cause discomfort,
instability or disorders of any kind. It does not upset nature’s balance.
It remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it into
plants, animal tissue, the oceans and natural accumulations. It does not
contaminate, apart from nature’s extremely high and concentrated volumes
of carbon dioxide from volcanoes and even then it is only locally and
briefly under rare natural conditions when in very high concentrations and
amounts, far higher than anything humans can produce.
Carbon dioxide is not a foreign substance. In the past, on this planet there have been times when carbon dioxide levels were 130 times higher than the concentration in the earth today. In fact, in the last 200 years, scientists have measured carbon dioxide levels in places up to 40% higher than they are today. No scientific body (for example the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO]) has ever said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a threat or a danger.
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, all life on earth would cease to exist. No
plants would grow and no oxygen would be produced, carbon dioxide being the
sole source of the molecular oxygen which we breathe. Indeed, without the
steady supply of carbon dioxide from thousands of active volcanoes and
fumeroles, life on earth would already have come to a standstill and the
oceans and most freshwater on the earth would have become acidified.
one of those volcanoes, the most recent major eruption to take place in
Iceland, negated in just four days EVERY SINGLE
HUMAN EFFORT made in the preceding five years to control carbon
dioxide emissions on our planet. All of the emission savings accomplished by
individuals whilst suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving
electric vehicles, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up to midnight to
finish their children’s "Green Revolution" science project,
throwing out all of their “non-green” cleaning supplies, using only two
squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in their toilet cistern, selling
their petrol-cars and boats, holidaying at home instead of abroad, riding
everywhere on their bicycles, replacing all of their 50p bulbs with £5
ones; all of those actions were rendered futile in just four days.
Not only that, there are around 200 active volcanoes on this planet spewing
out carbon dioxide every day. When the volcano Mount Pinatubo erupted in the
Philippines in 1991, it disgorged more so called “greenhouse gases” into
the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its
years on earth. The Community’s absurd drive to
“carbon-neutrality” will not stop a single volcano from erupting.
is no correlation whatsoever between the earth’s temperature and the
percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Both have fluctuated widely over time (please see the attached graphic): ice
ages have occurred when carbon dioxide levels have been high whilst high
temperatures have occurred when carbon dioxide levels have been low. At one
point the level of carbon dioxide dropped to 180 parts per million, within
just 30 parts per million of the level at which all plants die. At other
times in the relatively recent past it has been as high as 2,500 parts per
million, at which time life on earth flourished. It is universally accepted
that climate varies quite naturally, most of it cyclically but sometimes in
a combination of cycles which makes it look like it is highly random.
dioxide does NOT drive temperature.
From at least 4,800BC, carbon dioxide was rising and temperature was
drifting down. From 1750 (the start of the industrial revolution), carbon
dioxide continued to rise but temperatures kept falling. Even after 1850,
when carbon dioxide rose even faster, temperatures keep falling. Not until
1930 do they start moving together and then only for 14 years. After that,
carbon dioxide keeps rising but temperature does not until 1980. From 1981
to 2000 they both rise but then temperatures stop rising. On any scale that
is studied, no relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature is found:
in fact, they both move in the same direction only 15% of the time. Many
scientific experiments have proven that increasing levels of carbon dioxide
do NOT give rise to any increase in temperatures, a basic scientific fact
ignored by the first and subsequent proponents of climate alarmism.
bodies aver that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented and indeed,
generally speaking, there has been no global warming in the last two decades
despite an increase in the amounts of carbon dioxide - natural and man-made
- in the atmosphere.
scientists, including members who are lead authors for the United IPCC such
Dr John Christy, have left the United Nations climate body (and others)
because of the corruption in place therein. He and many other scientists
have confirmed that nowhere in the world has anyone ever presented any
empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human
activity affects climate and needs to be cut; not NASA’s Goddard Institute
for Space Studies, not the UK Met Office, not the Australian Bureau of
Meteorology, not the CSIRO, not any university, not any academic, not any
science paper and not any scientific journal.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.