Religious leaders should stop bleating about global warming

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley sends this article by Grant Goldman, a popular radio host in Sydney, Australia.

In July 1937 when the Marco Polo Bridge incident launched Japan’s aggression against China, that was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against Japan.

In March 1939 the German occupation of Czechoslovakia was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the Nazis.

In November 1956 Soviet troops overrunning Hungary was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the USSR.

In October 2013 the massacre of Syriac Orthodox Christians and destruction of 14 churches in Sadad in Syria was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the Jihadis responsible.

clip_image002

The likelihood that there are more slaves in the world today than at any previous time in human history is not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the slave trade.

Three terrible genocides were perpetrated in the twentieth century.  By the Turks against Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christians in 1915, by the Soviets against the Ukrainians in 1932-1933, and of course by the Nazis against the Jews from 1939 to 1945.

None of these horrible events prompted Australian religious leaders to act with one voice.

Why am I telling you all this?

What is important enough for Australian religious leaders purporting to represent Anglicans, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews, to get together and write to the Government and the Opposition demanding action?

Well, a person named Thea Ormerod, representing a numerically insignificant outfit called Australian Religious Response to Climate Change, drafted a letter for them all to sign, calling for a 40% cut in the level of carbon dioxide emissions compared with 1990 levels by the year 2025, and an 80% cut by 2030.

clip_image004

We are talking here about the comprehensive economic destruction of Australia, with mass unemployment, grinding poverty, widespread hunger and disease, shocking child mortality and truncated lifespans for everybody who is not amongst the elite.

Thea Ormerod is likely related to Neil Ormerod, who is Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University.  Oh yes, this is the educational institution which a month ago awarded two scholarships, each for full tuition fees for four years, to honour executed drug smugglers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.

This leads me to observe that the worthy goal of getting Australia to lead a worldwide campaign to abolish capital punishment is not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action.   But strong action against carbon dioxide is what they want.

The Church of England has been pushing the anti-energy barrow for some time. They actually ran a Global Divestment Day on February 14 this year.  It attracted little attention because St Valentine’s Day is the day when most people are busy chatting each other up and eating chocolate.

clip_image006

What issues do you want your Church to concentrate on?  World peace? Ending poverty?  Defeating disease?  Combatting crime?  Protecting minorities? Saving children from sexual abuse?  Helping the homeless?  Maybe, just maybe, even campaigning against sin?

What about preaching forgiveness?   That is what churches used to do.  Or do you want your church to act like basically a subsidiary of the Greens?

It’s your Church, and it’s your money that pays the bills.  If the Churches do forget that, then people will get baptised, married and buried online.  It’s cheaper.

The Church of England is part of a push to reduce Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions compared with 1990 levels by the draconian figure of 80% in the next fifteen years, which would make Australia unable to feed, house and clothe Australians.

In Britain, North America and Australia the Church of England has declared war on coal, through a combination of divestment programs and propaganda from the pulpit.

Time for some facts about coal.   The gerontologist and evolutionary biologist Caleb Finch tells us that since the early 1800s life expectancy in Europe has doubled.  The single greatest factor in the longevity revolution has been coal.

clip_image008

Beginning in the eighteenth century and accelerating into the nineteenth century, coal made possible stunning increases in productivity.  Coal saved from destruction the forests of Britain which by the mid eighteenth century were rapidly disappearing.

Coal dramatically reduced pollution caused by cooking and heating with wood and animal dung.  Coal permitted large scale smelting of metals. Coal made possible modern medical science and modern agriculture. Coal opened the way to commerce and freedom of movement on a scale never before imagined.

Thanks to coal, for the very first time ordinary workers who were not members of the aristocracy nor of the clergy had leisure time.  Life was still tough, but thanks to coal life rapidly improved.

Instead of being permanently enslaved to tasks like collecting wood to heat and to cook, women had the opportunity to learn to read and become educated or musical or artistic or political or charitable as they wished.

Coal made possible the growth of democratic institutions and, vitally important, the abolition of slavery.   Nineteenth-century Britain saw the flowering of culture with bands, orchestras, choirs, drama societies, literary societies, trade unions, and, of course, the flowering of the Church of England.

clip_image010clip_image012clip_image014clip_image016

clip_image018clip_image020clip_image022clip_image024

I’ll mention some of the great hymnists of the late eighteenth century and the nineteenth century.  In chronological order (top left to bottom right): John Wesley (1703-1791); Edward Perronet (1726-1792); William Cowper (1731-1800); John Newton (1725-1807); Reginald Heiber (1783-1826); Joseph M. Scriven (1819-1886); Matthew Bridges (1800-1894); Carl Gustav Boberg (1859-1940).

Thanks to coal, hymn books could be printed cheaply and thanks to coal there were trees left in the land to make the paper.

In Britain, by 1860 around 400,000 coal industry workers were each producing around 175 tonnes of coal in a year for an annual total of seventy million tonnes of coal.  In 1913 around 1,100,000 coal industry workers were each producing around 264 tonnes of coal in a year for a total of 290 million tonnes.

This great increase in coal production coincided with wonderful progress in every aspect of society.  People lived longer, ate better and their purchasing power increased year by year.

clip_image026

As the twentieth century dawned, coal was already popularising the wonderful blessing of electricity.  The former major disadvantage of coal-fired power – sulphur dioxide emissions – was overcome with fluidised bed combustion using limestone, and coal has continued as the world mainstay of electrical power.

clip_image027

Tragically, 1.3 billion people – eighteen percent of the world’s population – have no access to electricity and so are deprived of all the wonderful things we take for granted.  Expansion of coal production is vital as part of the energy mix necessary to offer the poor and disadvantaged of the world an escape route from poverty, misery and short lifespans.

clip_image029

By declaring war on coal, people who purport to represent the Church of England are committing a terrible crime against the world’s poorest people.

My suggestion to the people purporting to lead the Church of England is re-read the Parable of the Talents.  It’s still there in Matthew Chapter 25, verses 14-30.

clip_image031

The Parable of the Talents (etching): Lucas van Doetechum (floruit 1554-1572)

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
241 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Larry Wirth
May 30, 2015 11:34 pm

WarrenLib, I don’t think this particular thread is about what you think it is about… The suggestion that what is going on here has “zero effect on” your enumerated categories reflects only your own wishful thinking. To the contrary. Go back to the top and read (and understand) WUWT’s mission statement.
As a long time reader and occasional commenter here, I’ve seen the change in attitudes, both here and in the larger universe. Rome wasn’t built in a day, nor will CAGW be crucified in an afternoon, but rest assured, the evidence is clearly before us, available to all, and CAGW will shortly be seen as a greater scientific hoax than Piltdown Man. And conspicuously less convincing to begin with.
You might want to start thinking about devising a “Plan”B.”

Reply to  Larry Wirth
May 31, 2015 10:14 am

Wirth
A mission statement is about intent, and says nothing about results, which appear to be ZERO since:
ALL University and Secondary School Education, ALL The Institutions of Science, ALL Peer reviewed science journals, and nearly ALL world leaders accept the Scientific Consensus that ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’.
So far the ‘wishful thinking’ appears to be yours entirely.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  warrenlb
May 31, 2015 10:45 am

Warrenlb does not know enough science to understand that it matters not how many are said to support a supposed “consensus”: the fact of that support, if it were a fact (which it is not), would tell us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which everyone is supposed to have assented is true or false.
The facts are these. The proposition that most of the (small) global warming from 1950 to date was caused by Man is explicitly endorsed by only 0.3% of 11,944 reviewed papers on climate science published in the 21 years 1991-2011 inclusive.
There is no need to plead consensus to the effect that CO2 emissions – all other things being equal – will cause some unquantified warming: for that fact has been demonstrated empirically as well as explained theoretically.
The Russian Academy of Sciences privately opposes the “consensus” proposition that most global warming since 1950 was caused by Man, but was ordered by Putin to endorse it publicly in 2004/5.
A group at the Japanese Academy of Sciences has described belief in the IPCC’s documens as “akin to belief in astrology”.
A group of 40 influential fellows of the Royal Society persuaded it to tone down its half-baked original statement on global warming.
A larger number of fellows of the American Physical Society has also protested at its me-too statement on global warming.
As to the question whether the effects of global warming are likely to be net-negative, that depends on how much warming is to be expected. On present evidence – no global warming for 18 years 5 months despite record increases in CO2 concentration – there is no basis for assuming that the mild warming we may expect from CO2 enrichment of the air over the coming century will be at all harmful. Usually, warmer is better for life on Earth than colder.
And the economic peer-reviewed literature is near-unanimous in concluding that adaptation even to the exaggerated warming predicted by the now-discredited models would be cheaper – and some papers say 10-100 times cheaper – than wasting trillions trying to mitigate it, pointlessly and futilely, today.
If Warrenlb is incapable of thinking for itself, and can only parrot a supposed “consensus”, it is wasting its time here and should go away and do something constructive. Here, scientific argument is expected, not mere parroting of partisan political pietisms.

Reply to  warrenlb
May 31, 2015 12:03 pm

@Moncktpon
I think this article is the universal refutation of your bogus claims:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-climate-change-talk-denial?CMP=share_btn_link

Alan Robertson
Reply to  warrenlb
May 31, 2015 12:21 pm

warrenlb- Just as with this latest post of yours, all you have ever offered in your statements, is a series of logical fallacies (and inaccurate claims) to support your position. Your credibility is so completely nonexistent that I wonder why you even bother posting.

Reply to  warrenlb
June 1, 2015 1:47 pm

@Monckton
Did you read the link I provided that refutes your claims?

Michael Darby
May 31, 2015 2:05 am

As an Australian fan of broadcaster Grant Goldman, and having had the privilege of meeting the admirable Lord Monckton of Brenchley, I am double grateful to WUWT for publishing this Grant Goldman article edited and illustrated by Lord Christopher Monckton. I have gained valuable information by reading the discussion which includes further valuable contributions by Lord Monckton himself. A leading mover in the Church of England’s campaign against coal is Rev Professor Richard Burridge who occupies a Chair of Biblical Interpretation and sits on the General Synod. In January 2014 Rev Prof Burridge described “Life of Brian” as “an extraordinary tribute to the life and work and teachings of Jesus”. This interested me because I had taken exception to the Government-controlled SBS television network running Life of Brian during Easter 2015. All energy comes at a cost in terms of public safety. What we do know is that the cost of lack of access to energy is much higher.

Michael Darby
May 31, 2015 2:50 am

J Leach is annoyed by Grant Goldman’s mention of Caleb Finch. His value to the article is simply to confirm that humans in the modern world have doubled their lifespans since the early 1800s. Grant Goldman does not enlist Caleb Finch’s support for any other proposition. Other correspondents have drawn attention to omissions – for example listing only three genocides. Grant Goldman works within the very tight time restraints of a popular radio program and Lord Monckton skilfully blended and illustrated two of Grant’s editorials. Wherever we are in the world, at http://2smsupernetwork.com/ we can listen to Grant’s editorials soon after 7am, or the whole program from 5am to 9am Australian Eastern Standard time (GMT+10),

Michael Darby
May 31, 2015 3:44 am

Among the many gems contributed by readers of the Goldman/Monckton article, David Cage wrote something especially worth repeating: “As a young junior engineer, in the acid rain opposition way back in the sixties I did some measurements on various sources to compare the power station effluent with other forms of heating. A properly equipped power station heating about thirty thousand houses was about the same as around fifty coal fires or forty wood fired homes.” Coal replacing wood reduced pollution, and coal-powered electricity reduced pollution by a quantum leap.

Reply to  Michael Darby
May 31, 2015 7:24 am

Continuing the progression, natural gas powered generation is reducing both particulate pollution and CO2 emissions, and nuclear will eliminate both. Coal has made its contribution and now deserves replacement with the next steps of technological progress, which will be celebrated by your descendants, in turn.

Michael Darby
Reply to  warrenlb
May 31, 2015 10:24 am

Thank you warrnlb. No rational person will object to the success of any form of energy, provided that it does not receive a subsidy.

cedarhill
May 31, 2015 4:33 am

Go to the Vatican web site and read the section (very short) on Social Justice. I think it starts with canon 1935 or there abouts. It started at Pope Leo and incorporated the “revolutions”. After all, the Church survived Nero, survived Kings, survived Queens, survived El Duce and even seem to be surviving the modern Progressives. The Church has always been adept at supporting the powers (sort of a doh?). Recall the originiation “steward of the land”? The Church simply amplified what the nobles wanted — the peasants and serfs to take care of the nobles property.
The Church is “evolving”, mostly out of necessity, into just another agency of Western Government Socialism (WGS). Plus, there’s lots of money out there for the true believers of WGS. Oh, and don’t imagine it’s only the Pope. Guess who elects the Pope?
And, as usual, large Protestant groups will comply with the theology of the Church. After all, who wrote the New Testament?

thomho
May 31, 2015 4:44 am

When I first read that the Pope may be about to issue an encyclical on climate change my reaction was to ask hasn’t the Catholic Church done enough damage to science and its own reputation, given the last time it intervened in scientific matters it persecuted Galileo, only centuries later it had to back- track conceding it had been wrong.
However I have re-thought my position because maybe the religious leaders are just being consistent in talking yet again about something which does not exist.
Continued belief in climate change caused by mankind flies in face of the lack of evidence -which means it shares a lot with religious belief in a heaven that no one has seen and after- life from which no one has returned.

tmlutas
Reply to  thomho
May 31, 2015 11:35 am

The Church erred with Galileo because the Inquisition allowed itself to be swayed by Galileo’s disagreeableness out of the proper neutral examination of the problem. The problem was that the Church wanted to remain neutral on the question of planetary motion until final proofs had been provided. Galileo and his geocentrist enemies both wanted to push the Church out of its neutrality onto their own side of the question and Galileo was put on trial because he insisted that his theory was true as a physical reality even though he couldn’t prove it and that geocentrists were theologically incorrect.

David L.
May 31, 2015 5:59 am

Thanks to coal, people now have the leisure time to think about and despise coal.

Monna Manhas
May 31, 2015 7:01 am

Some very good points. I haven’t read all the responses, so I apologize if someone has already made this point. I would just add to your list of hymnists probably the most prolific hymn writers of all time: Fanny Crosby (1820-1915).

Michael Darby
Reply to  Monna Manhas
May 31, 2015 10:34 am

In reply to Monna Manhas, the great blind American Fanny Crosby made an enduring contribution to Christian singing with a feast of wonderful hymns including “Safe in the Arms of Jesus” and “Blessed Assurance”. It appears that Grant Goldman confined his attention to British hymnists for the express purpose of reminding aberrant Church of England clerics that their Denomination flourished mightily with the leisure time and prosperity brought to Britain by coal.

May 31, 2015 11:29 am

Thea Ormerod is married to Neil Ormerod according to her facebook page. They wrote a book together in 1995.
As for religious leaders, it’s perfectly appropriate to do “if/then” commentary. If global warming exists and harms the poor most of all, we need to stop it. If global warming measures are fighting a phantom and the measures themselves harm the poor, then we must be against such measures.
What the problem consists of is when religious leaders make statements about the physical world which are incorrect and apply their theology to a world that does not exist in reality. Even the best theology will yield incorrect policy when it is informed by incorrect physical data.

hunter
May 31, 2015 7:19 pm

The Church is at its best focusing on salvation and and interior conditions of the human soul, followed by a very close second of serving the poor, orphaned, widowed, hungry and sick.
The Church is at its worst playing in politics and its very worst playing at science.

June 1, 2015 5:00 am

Now even the Pope has called for a reduction of CO2. So far in Germany, the german Lutheran church were the worst, I often wondered what stories they are trying to sell us, the Gospel or Global Warming and will the sorting of garbage soon be declared another of Gods Sacraments.
Regarding your other point, about coal, when South Africa voted in 1994, the plan was cheap electrczity for all, as South Africa has known coal deposits, that should last for thousands of years. A child in Africa is about 20 times as likely to die of a lung disease before reaching adulthood, than a child in Europe and the reason is that most african children grow up in huts that have constant fires burning in them with no proper chimneys. Availability of cheap electricity would have solved many problems, also improved the quality of life significantly and made Africa competitive in many industries, instead donations coming from EU countries are subject to conditions that wind generators and solar panels are installed. The result is that nowhere in Africa a service relying on solar or wind power works reliably.

June 1, 2015 9:45 am

Preach it Brother Christopher!

June 1, 2015 1:36 pm

Good point, though I have a remark. In my opinion, it’s ok for the religious leaders to speak (leaders, not no matter who runs a church and calls himself a leader!), since they have many parishioners, but to speak only if they are really knowing the subject. It’s better for them to remain silent despite preaching stupid ideas or push the people into error. Secondary, let’s think: global warming or climate change? The precise meaning of the terms used should be clear.This question should not be taken lightly as it means quite a lot in understanding what’s really happening around us.

htb1969
June 1, 2015 2:15 pm

While I often enjoy Mr. Monckton’s contributions, I have a bit of trouble with this one. What if these organizations had taken a strong stance against CAGW policies saying that they are regressive towards the poor? Would you let their opinion stand then? If so, wouldn’t that be inconsistent logic? Either these institutions have a right to express an opinion or they don’t, and the particular opinion shouldn’t preclude that right.
These organizations are made of individuals who have opinions, and they may use their positions of power to express those opinions, which is no different than any number of institutions including corporations. The same could be said of personalities, sports figures, and other people with the ability to get a message out. The fact that this particular institution is a church doesn’t change that. Many churches have been at the forefront of addressing political injustices, and you can’t applaud their efforts when it supports your particular political beliefs, then turn around and decry it when it holds a politically different stance.
All that aside, the argument at its core it wrong. Once we go down the road of supporting or denying positions based upon who someone is, then we arrive at the “appeal to authority” stance which is the mainstay of the CAGW camp. This issue, as with any science issue, should rightfully be waged in the arena of ideas where facts and logic rule no matter who says it. To correctly oppose this church’s stance address the science of it, and leave aside all that noise about who they are and what their business should be.

Michael Darby
June 3, 2015 10:13 am

Christian Ministers of Religion customarily lead prayers on matters of concern, for example for the healing of the sick, or for the release of hostages or for the discovery of a missing person or for rain to break a drought. I have not heard any Minister of Religion pray for an end to global warming. Has any reader of this excellent site heard such a prayer, especially from one of the clergy who clamour for draconian controls on industry with the intention of slashing carbon dioxide emissions? If, as I suspect, the clerical devotees of the Global Warming Cult do not pray to God for alleviation of global warming, then there are three possibilities. 1. They do not believe in global warming OR 2. They do not believe in the power of prayer OR 3. They believe in neither, Someone please identify at least one cleric who seeks the support of the Almighty in saving the world from climate change,

Max Totten
Reply to  Michael Darby
June 4, 2015 1:05 pm

The true believers in CAGW worship Gaia not the God of the Bible.
Max