Romans 8:22 – This week as many world leaders gather in Glasgow discussing how they can save the planet – and many church leaders just echo the politics – we ask is there any word from the Lord? The answer is Yes – way beyond any agreement or communique that comes from Cop26 – this word from Romans is what we need to hear.
Also on YouTube
Romans 8 Road to Hope – No.9 – Christ’s Answer to the Climate Change Question.
Thank you, David. Such a needed perspective, and helpful unfolding of the ‘creation groaning in travail’. A heart grief that the church is failing this opportunity to be biblically prophetic.
No matter what it is our Lord is saying …the politicians are collectively in the 3 Monkeys mode.
Blindfolded, fingers in their ears, hands covering mouths
Hi David Amen to all you said so needed saying. We need more voices speaking out , Keep up the good work, may God bless you.
Amen to all the above. Good message David, thank you.
Sadly, the world & the Church forget God destroyed the world by the flood a few thousand years ago, ironically because it had fallen into much of the state of today’s Godless world; and they forget or ignore the fact the Bible clearly states the world is currently reserved for destruction by fire & everything will be burnt up, culminating in God creating new heavens & a new earth according to the Bible I read.
So the Environmentalists who are determined to save the planet & mankind are going to be sadly disappointed. Only Jesus can save mankind. Everything that can be shaken will be shaken, and is being shaken, but praise the Lord we are receiving a Kingdom which cannot be shaken. Hence, as you say David, we preach the Gospel. Oh, that every Christian & Church Leader preached this, then the world would surely know, but as said they are without excuse as all Creation reveals the glory of God.
BBC News has just rounded up its latest Cop 26 slot by saying that the future of the planet is in the hands of the delegates.
We are in far more danger from this conceit than we will ever be from climate change.
The earth will be purified and renewed as by fire. God is not going to burn up and destroy the world made for jesus. We are to exercise Godly authority – for the benefit of those under authority. We are stewards of God’s resources and to keep, as David so rightly emphasises, the needs of the poor and vulnerable front and centre. David: others are teaching and proclaiming the gospel as you suggest. Try Widcombe Baptist Church, Bath, on YouTube tonight where my husband is speaking with Godly wisdom along the lines you too see in the Bible, David. Thanks for encouraging us to put our hope in the lord and to love flowers!! Sue
Dear Sue,
2 Peter 3 seems clear on this issue, verse 7 stating “the heavens & the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgement & perdition of ungodly men”, confirmed by verses 10-13 which culminate with the statement “Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens & a new earth in which righteousness dwells” confirmed in Revelation 21.
The purification by fire you speak of is different as foretold by John the Baptist, and whilst the world (and universe) was made BY Jesus, it was not made FOR Him. His Kingdom is not earthly or worldly, it is Spiritual & Heavenly (the New Jerusalem).
We are to be good stewards of this Creation, but this is distinctive & entirely different to the Environmentalists Agenda which is Godless fleshly & earthly. It may seem a subtle distinction, but I suggest it’s a very important one for clarity of 6the Word of God. Every blessing!
Hi. We disagree! That is fine. But thank you for clarifying. Ivp have just published a wonderful book by the English L’Abri Director, Dr James Paul ‘what on earth is heaven’ which is v clear about the hope of a renewed creation and is c well written with a pastoral heart. I commend it to readers. Sue
Well done, to Tron church.
But as it is Reformation Day, I feel a a comment on Luther’s 95 Theses might be appropriate.
What did Luther claim in his 95 Theses? Some of his claims might seem surprising.
He claimed that the Holy Spirit spoke through the Pope:
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
He claimed that Purgatory exists.
17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.
He claimed that it is proper to pray for the souls in Purgatory.
26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.
He claimed that the Pope had the power to issue indulgences. (Notice that the 95 Theses did not take issue with the existence of Indulgences but only with their misuse.)
41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved.
So nothing about ‘Faith Alone’ or ‘the Bible Alone’. They came later.
David can you please say more about the words of the Bible where Peter wrote that the world would be destroyed by fire? Is that not close to what Paul is referring to in Romans 8?
Sure Ray – I have just published an article on Christian Today about this and will post it here soon. Paul is talking about what is happening now – Peter is talking about the final judgement. But both point to the eventual renewal of all things.
Dear Mike 17,
Interesting comments on Luther’s 39 Articles, showing just how deceptive & heretical Roman Catholic Doctrine really is, but not sure what relevance this has to David Robertson’s message above?
Pope to Biden : ” Do you reject Satan and all his works ? ”
Biden : ” Personally or Politically ? “
David – am reposting this, as previous posting removed all paragraph breaks.
God the Father created the visible and invisible universe in, through and for God the Son – the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. John 1:1-4
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:15,16
The goodness, beauty and glory of God’s physical creation is all around us, and speaks of the goodness, beauty and glory (along with so much else) of God Himself.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
The pattern of prayer that the Lord Jesus taught to His disciples begins with honouring God, and ends with glorifying Him. As God’s children, He calls us to honour and glorify Him in all we think, say and do.
“Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name…for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.” Matthew 6:9,13
Honouring God entails honouring His creation. This includes our own bodies and the whole earth – the physical environment He has given us in which to live.
…you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies. 1 Corinthians 6:20
The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it; the world, and all who live in it. Psalm 24:1
All people – whether Christians or not – have been rightly concerned by the Coronavirus pandemic during the last two years, and have made efforts (driven by the political will and action of governments, as well as of the public) to combat and reduce its effects for the sake of saving people’s health and lives. Though the pandemic is not yet over, we clearly see, in large part, successful outcomes to these ongoing efforts across the world. We also see widespread benefits to human life worldwide in countless other ways through the advancement of modern technology and medicine.
In the same way, all people – whether Christians or not – have no good reason not to be rightly concerned about the dangers to human life (not to mention all other life on earth, and the earth itself) by what is termed the current ‘climate crisis’.
The ‘climate crisis’ results from cumulative unwise actions of mankind that have had a destructive influence on our physical environment – primarily and credibly identified by science at this time as a level of global warming, due to greenhouse gases, whose physical effects will cause widespread devastation to the earth in the near future if left unchecked.
The yearly UN Climate Change conferences (COP) have taken place to address this issue. The Paris Agreement on climate change was negotiated at COP21 in 2015. There appears to be a greater sense of urgency to COP26, partly fuelled by the increased levels of public outcry about the lack of progress (driven by the greater or lesser political will and action of governments over the years) that has been made.
What, as Christians, ought to be our response to this, based on what God says?
Well, it seems to me that our response should NOT include disparaging responsible and peaceful efforts by the public to draw attention to the severity of the problem. Let us not fall into the trap of making “environmentalist” a dirty word. It is simply irresponsible for Christians to say “there is no use taking action to address climate change” (and even more so to erroneously state that climate change is not a real issue). To take that approach on the flawed basis of a statement such as “God’s word says that everything is going to be burned up” (which I have indeed heard Christians say) is dishonouring to God and His creation and all it speaks about Him.
It seems to me that, at least in part, our response should be to pray for wisdom for our political leaders, whether they are currently Christians or not.
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:1-4
It may be wise for us to live out such prayers by joining the public in highlighting issues and in urging government and industry leaders to act in responsible ways to address the current climate crisis. I don’t believe that we have any room in such prayers and action for a cynical or pessimistic attitude towards our leaders (or towards the public) and the beneficial things that can be achieved by political means.
Alongside this, of course, is our primary calling to live in Christlikeness by the indwelling Holy Spirit, and to spread to others the good message of God’s salvation by His grace in Christ alone – won for us by His death in our place upon the Cross – through faith alone.
These two positive responses are not mutually exclusive 🙂
—
I would like to comment on some of the things you say in your video.
You say: “What I’m hearing is people [in the church] just agreeing with a political point of view, and coming up with the same non-solutions.”
Non-solutions to what, though? What is it that you or they are looking for a solution to? Do you want a solution to it? What do you mean by “a political point of view”? The view that climate change is a danger to human life is not a “political” one. What is a “political point of view” as distinct from a “point of view”? What is wrong with agreeing with a valid point of view, whether “political” or not?
You say: “Now, as Christians, we disagree about the politics of many things, but I don’t hear a word from God. And yet here, in Romans 8, ‘…we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.'”
I think you are saying that you are not, in general, hearing a Biblical response to the world’s changing climate from ‘the church’. You may be right. I don’t really know as I am not too abreast of what ‘the church’ is saying on it. It’s most likely saying various things, many of which are misleading or untrue, given the sad state of division and deception in ‘the church’ today. Some may interpret your quotation of Romans 8:22 as meaning that we ought to accept the climate crisis as part of God’s plan and play no part in addressing it. I think this is not helpful. I didn’t hear acquiescence from Bible teachers concerning the outbreak of the Coronavirus, for example. Just because God’s word is clear that creation is groaning and that birth pains will increase in hopeful expectation of ‘the end of the age’, does not give us carte blanche to ignore anything we can reasonably do to alleviate suffering now and in the immediate future, including suffering that is a result of our own actions.
You say: “The design [of creation] tells us something about God. The creation speaks. But the creation is also groaning with earthquakes, diseases, pain and suffering. But it’s not pointless. For the COP26 campaigners, it pretty well is pointless, because they believe that the earth is just going to disappear anyway at some point.”
You are right that the groaning of creation is not pointless, as it speaks of a coming end of the age, and the promise and hope of God’s renewal of all things. As Christians, we do indeed need to be aware of this, and not to erroneously imagine that we can “save the planet” in the sense of extending its life indefinitely. But we should be careful to understand that when the politicians and protesters talk of “saving the planet”, they are not talking about a hope to extend the existence of earth indefinitely. As you indicate, unbelievers are more likely to forecast ‘the heat death of the universe’ at some time.
You say: “Now, this is really important to grasp. The biblical Christian perspective is not that the creation is winding down. The Christian perspective is that these are birth pains for something greater that is to come. The frustration that the creation feels, that we feel, is in hope. The bondage to decay gives place to the freedom of glory. The pains of labour are followed by the joy of birth… It is wrong to believe in a non-material heaven, or to think that this earth is just merely going to be destroyed. The Christian hope is different, and secular [in the sense of relating to the physical world].”
All this is true in the Christian world view. It is not something that speaks against the legitimate desire and efforts of people to address the current problem of global warming and its effects, though it is helpful in putting those desire and efforts within their proper context.
You say: “COP26 won’t begin their meetings with prayer. No-one will be calling for repentance and crying out to God to have mercy on us. All will be saying ‘we can solve this’. You’ll have Boris Johnson with his hubris, Joe Biden with his hubris. All of them will be saying, ‘this is ours to deal with’. And most of us, if we’ve got any sense at all, don’t put our trust in politicians, and we know it’s rubbish.”
An international conference, in which people of all religions (and none) gather is not a place where we would expect there to be a collective time of prayer to God. They meet together, not as the Church, but as government and industry leaders to discuss and try to commit to agreed action plans to address a specific problem. It is the task of the Church to pray for wisdom, humility and courage for our leaders. I am not as sure as you are that leaders such as the UK Prime Minister and US President approach this situation with hubris. (The last US president approached absolutely nothing without it, of course, and what did he do? – he foolishly dismissed global warming as a hoax). I believe the situation is indeed theirs to deal with. That’s what world leaders are there for. There is some political will to address the situation, but there are no doubt road-blocks of various kinds, so it is not easy. It’s sad to hear that you think that politicians are not to be trusted with anything. They are leaders of the countries we live in, however imperfectly they may lead. You say “we know it’s rubbish” – but you do not say what “it” is, or what you mean by “rubbish”, so for me that statement is not very clear or helpful.
You say: “We know that China is going to carry on burning coal intensely for the next twenty years anyway.”
Do we? Isn’t that simply a cynical and pessimistic view? You may protest that it is “realism”. But isn’t realism better used to prompt attempts at positive change (just as the public protesters are doing) rather than to foster a despairing outlook?
You say: “We know that this fantasy world of re-creating a paradise, where technology ensures that no harm comes to the creation, that somehow we’re going to solve the creation groaning – that’s not true.”
Do you really think that any politician’s aim is to re-create paradise, without any future possibility of harm to the creation? I’ve never heard anyone claim that. That isn’t the goal. The goal, first and foremost is to take action to stop global average temperatures rising past a certain point by a certain time. That is proving challenging enough. I doubt any politician is seriously planning anything remotely as ambitious as a perfect, paradisal way of life on earth. On the contrary, big industry is in fact fixated on providing the means for humans to escape the earth and populate other planets! Everyone knows full well that nothing we can ever do will completely prevent earthquakes, storms, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and periodic famines and flooding on the earth in its present form. That is not the issue here.
You say: “I think the loneliness and the emptiness is seen in so much of our culture, music, literature. It is seen in the lost and the lonely and the vast number of suicides. It’s seen in the need to take drugs, and the empty sex and the futile anger.”
How sadly true that is. May God’s Kingdom come and His will be done on earth, just as it is Heaven!
You say: “God is not going to let His creation be destroyed.”
If that is so, He will not allow us to destroy it. But that is not permission for us to behave dishonourably towards creation, and to continue in ways that are destructive to it.
You say: “So, let me put it this way: the message for COP26 is ‘not burning fossil fuels won’t save the planet’.”
If that’s your message to COP26, how is that of any help to them? Not burning fossil fuels is indeed one way that their goals can be worked towards. If they speak of “saving the planet”, they are not speaking of saving it so that it can exist indefinitely, or of creating a paradise on earth.
You say: “I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything; of course we should do things.”
I think, in context here, you are talking about doing things practically to address the climate change situation (in addition to prayer). What should we do, and to what end, do you think? I think that encouraging whatever action can be taken to counter the global climate crisis is something we can certainly do.
You say: “But we can’t save the planet. Preaching the gospel will.”
You are using a different sense of “save the planet” to that used by politicians. There is nothing wrong with taking action to “save the planet” in the sense of attempting to reverse damage we have done, for the benefit of our children. And remember that we do not know the day or the hour that the Lord Jesus will appear. When you say that “preaching the gospel” will “save the planet”, you are talking about a different thing. The gospel is preached so that people can respond to the message of salvation in Christ. This message of salvation, of course, encompasses the ultimate making of all things new by God – which is what it seems you mean here by “saving the planet”.
You say: “The best thing these political leaders could do for our planet is to encourage the preaching of the gospel, and to encourage their people to cry out to God in prayer. They won’t, and that’s why we’ll be judged.”
Maybe so, but many (perhaps the majority) of them are not Christians. So it’s not in their current remit. But what is in their current remit is to tackle the problem of climate change wherever and however it is realistic to do so. The best thing the Church could do for political leaders is to pray for them. Perhaps it is we who will be judged if we do not.
You say: “But I’m just saying to you, and I’m saying to me – don’t be hopeless. Sometimes I do despair. But then I look at the beauty of the creation. I think of the Creator and I look at what He has done in sending His Son. What a fantastic hope.”
Let us not despair. The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it! Let us do what we can to honour God by caring for His creation, and by taking seriously the problems that exist.
I realise you are not delivering a sermon in the video, David, but rather offering some thoughts on the subject – some of which are timely and helpful. Thank you for this! I think my overall concern would be that the message is rather mixed and unclear. Christians happening upon this video may be encouraged to take a “que será, será” attitude, and those viewing it who are not Christians may get the impression that the Church couldn’t give an orangutan about climate change – which, ironically, might well in certain quarters be true.
===
Stephen – your post is somewhat lengthy – so I can’t respond to it all. I agree with the majority of it – however I would raise the following questions – statements.
1) The response to the Covid pandemic has not all been as positive as you state.
2) The response to climate change as well as climate change itself is a danger to human life. The political aspect is the view that the measures we take can control climate change. The view that if we adopt a non -capitalist system we will defeat climate change is political.
3) The climate crisis is not as simplistic as you state. Whilst there is undoubtedly a human impact – there is a great deal of doubt about just how much is human.
4) I don’t think environmentalist is a dirty word. I listen to environmentalists like Lomberg and Schellenberger….You are falling into the trap of assuming that those who don’t agree with your analysis are both wrong and don’t care!
5) We can agree with political points of view – we should not turn them into doctrine which must be believed.
6) No one is arguing that we should do nothing to alleviate suffering – that is a reductio ad absurdum.
7) World leaders cannot control the climate of the world. Until they realise this – their actions are likely to do more harm than good.
8) Yes we do know that China is going to continue to burn coal. That is not a cynical and pessimistic outlook. Xi has just ordered another 37 coal power stations to be built. China will continue to burn more than 1 million tonnes of coal per day for the next ten years. Any policy which doesn’t not take account of that is naive and foolish. As for people protesting on the streets – it’s not exactly an answer (nor is it that many – 1,000 out of 6 million here in Sydney this weekend) – nor is it happening in Bejing and Hong Kong.
9) What can we do to deal with climate change? Lots of things – stop flying private planes to go to conferences to discuss how to stop other people flying for a start! Develop nuclear power. Develop renewables. Look at means to alleviate the effects of climate change. Stop the catastrophising. Pray. and much more.
10) Yes – I was preaching a sermon and saying what the text says. The fact that people will choose to interpret it in the way you say just kind of proves my point that people see this issue in a very binary and ‘religious way’. There is nothing I can do about that. As they saying goes – haters gonna hate!
Thanks for your reply, David. I think we see some things differently on this. Below are some of my thoughts on your reply, recognising my own limited knowledge on the subject. God bless you in your work.
1) “The response to the Covid pandemic has not all been as positive as you state.”
Rather than to state that all about the response has been positive, I mentioned it simply to highlight the understandable and, in many respects, worthwhile and commendable political action worldwide towards the pandemic.
———-
2) “The response to climate change as well as climate change itself is a danger to human life.”
This is something for assessment. Governments and environmental experts evidently think that taking action to reduce the rate of global warming is worthwhile for many reasons.
“The political aspect is the view that the measures we take can control climate change. The view that if we adopt a non-capitalist system we will defeat climate change is political.”
We’re all free to either agree or disagree with those views.
———-
3) “The climate crisis is not as simplistic as you state. Whilst there is undoubtedly a human impact – there is a great deal of doubt about just how much is human.”
I did not unpack or analyse the climate crisis in any great depth. You don’t say who has the “great deal of doubt” or on what grounds they are doubting. The overwhelming consensus (98%) of the scientific community worldwide, based on credible science, is that the steep global warming seen in the last 100 years is due to human activity. It seems to me that there is no good reason to doubt the science.
———-
4) “I don’t think environmentalist is a dirty word. I listen to environmentalists like [Bjørn] Lomberg and [Michael] Schellenberger.”
And hopefully others too, who are not like them 🙂
“You are falling into the trap of assuming that those who don’t agree with your analysis are both wrong and don’t care!”
No, that is not true. That is to carelessly misrepresent me. Nowhere have I assumed, said or implied that those who don’t agree with my viewpoint must therefore be wrong and not care.
———-
5) “We can agree with political points of view – we should not turn them into doctrine which must be believed.”
I think this is a helpful statement which would have been good to include in the video. It’s a principle that could equally apply to various points of view or beliefs. Your statement that “world leaders cannot control the climate of the world” is a belief that could be worked up into quite a nice little doctrine by some 🙂
———-
6) “No one is arguing that we should do nothing to alleviate suffering – that is a reductio ad absurdum.”
To be clear, there was no such reductio ad absurdum argument by me. I didn’t say that we should do nothing to alleviate suffering, and I didn’t say that anyone else was saying so.
———-
7) “World leaders cannot control the climate of the world. Until they realise this – their actions are likely to do more harm than good.”
I am curious what you mean by this, and what you base this belief on. Are you saying that, in principle, to “control the climate of the world” is possible, but in practice it is not? Or are you saying that in principle it is impossible? And what makes you so sure either way? You say that “their actions” (by which you imply *any* of their actions) are likely to do more harm than good. On what basis do you say that? And why then do you go on to endorse other political actions such as the development of nuclear power and renewable energy?
———-
8) “Yes we do know that China is going to continue to burn coal. That is not a cynical and pessimistic outlook. Xi has just ordered another 37 coal power stations to be built. China will continue to burn more than 1 million tonnes of coal per day for the next ten years. Any policy which [does not] take account of that is naive and foolish.”
Yes, I think that is a sensible and realistic view. That is China’s current ‘political will’. China is, however, experiencing pressure from other countries about the issue, as far as I can tell.
“As for people protesting on the streets – it’s not exactly an answer (nor is it that many – 1,000 out of 6 million here in Sydney this weekend) – nor is it happening in Bejing and Hong Kong.”
The protest marches are not organised to be an answer, but to express a heartfelt “cry of the people” to governments to take action. No doubt it is a very small percentage of the population, but it can’t be denied that those voices are being heard.
———-
9) “What can we do to deal with climate change?… Lots of things – stop flying private planes to go to conferences to discuss how to stop other people flying for a start!…”
We can all see the irony about aeroplane travel to the annual COP conferences. For many people, it’s probably the only way to attend.
“…Develop nuclear power. Develop renewables. Look at means to alleviate the effects of climate change.”
Well, indeed. Those topics, and many more, including reduction in the use of fossil fuels, were under discussion at COP26. Given that you endorse the above actions (and therefore, presumably, the reduction in the use of fossil fuels, which shares similar aims) I want to ask you what you really meant by “non-solutions”. Clearly not these things, which COP26 (and now you) class as potential solutions – or, as you put it, things we can “do to deal with climate change”. There seems to be no good reason why governments should not be meeting together to address these things, with the hope (which it seems you share) of taking actions that have positive effects. So what did you mean by “non-solutions”?
“…Stop the catastrophising”
I don’t understand why you would say this. It’s legitimate to draw attention to potential catastrophes. If global warming reaches certain levels, there will be human catastrophes on earth that have never been seen before.
———-
10) “Yes – I was preaching a sermon and saying what the text says. The fact that people will choose to interpret it in the way you say just kind of proves my point that people see this issue in a very binary and ‘religious way’. There is nothing I can do about that. As they saying goes – haters gonna hate!”
I thought that your talk, following the reading of the Bible verse, was based to a considerable extent on your own political views. It’s an emotive subject, and if it is indeed one that people tend to see in an unhelpful “binary way”, that makes it even more necessary for the Church to deliver a clear message from God’s Word that is not open to misinterpretation or immediate dismissal. That is indeed something each of us can do about it, and then there won’t be any need to assign unhelpful labels to others.
Just a couple of responses.
2) The view that we can control climate change if only we give up capitalism – is political. It is also irrational, hubristic and anti-human!
3) The 98% figure is one of those internet myths that keeps being repeated. It has been thoroughly debunked.
5) World leaders cannot control the climate of the earth. Any one who believes in the providence of God and sovereignty over creation cannot cede that to human political leaders. They are not God.
7) We can’t control the climate of the world. But we can influence its impact and effects. Given that the man made impact on climate is around 1-2% and can be completely wiped out by one sun spot, or volcanic eruption or other ‘natural’ event, it is nonsense for us to expect we can control it.
8) Why would China bow to pressure from other countries? It doesn’t need to and its running the show at the moment. It’s interesting that you regard 1,000 people marching in Sydney as the ‘voice of the people’. Do you think 100,000 plus people marching in Melbourne against covid restrictions is the voice of the people?
9) FLying to COP was not a problem. Flying in private jets to Glasgow airport,, then flying them 45 miles to Prestwick to park – before flying them back that tiny distance – to pick up the leaders. Is hypocritical…
‘non-solutions’ are the reliance on renewables, the removal of coal, etc. There needs to be a much broader understanding – including the importance of allowing economies to develop to help the poor….rather than rich middle-class elites in the West telling the poor what they can and cannot do!
Yes – I think that ‘catastrophising’ is wrong and harmful. Especially when it is based on such dodgy modelling.
10) The talk was not based on my own political views at all. YOu don’t know my political views – and I resent your view that I base my sermons on anything other than the bible. It seems to me that you are more likely to have judged it through your political lens! I’m afraid that those who accept climate change (which I did not deny) as the new religion do not accept any deviation from their doctrines! Everything I preach is open to misinterpretation and immediate dismissal! It all depends on the hearer!
David,
The most basic of Google searches will point to the fact that the 98% figure is not an “internet myth”. In your view, it has been “thoroughly debunked” and yet you do not say by whom and by what means you’ve been convinced of that. Peer-reviewed science disagrees with you. Unfortunately, on this matter you are misguided and are unhelpfully spreading misinformation.
Your message is confused and not clear. You talk about “climate control” and “saving the planet” without being clear what you mean by those terms in the context of the climate crisis (and the political response to it, which you also address.)
And it goes without saying that world leaders are not God. No-one is saying they are. The climate change issue is whether steps can be taken by humans to reduce the rate of global warming which is the result of industrial processes during the last 100 years or more. That is what people mean if they ever talk of climate “control” (to use your word). They do not mean that humans are striving to have complete God-like control over all natural processes which may or may not affect the world’s climate. No sane person makes such a claim.
Your statement that “the man made impact on climate is around 1-2%”, is an expression of ‘climate change denial’ (a description of which can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial). This is because peer-reviewed scientific studies show that human activity has caused almost all the global warming that has been recorded over the last 70 or so years by virtue of the rapid escalation of greenhouse gas emissions during the industrial era.
In addition, you say that the man made impact on climate (i.e. global warming) can be “wiped out by a sun spot or a volcanic eruption”. But that is simply false. A sunspot cycle increases earth’s temperature by no more than about 0.1 degrees Celsius, and then only for a short time. Sunspots do not have a cumulative global warming effect. As for an erupting volcano – that actually has a temporary cooling effect upon the climate, due to the material it throws into the atmosphere reflecting sunlight away from the earth. It does not have a warming effect and the amount of cooling does not significantly impact cumulative man-made warming. The over-riding contributor to global warming over the last 100 years is the emission of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. The overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed science concludes that, and the data is readily available to view online.
Regarding China responding to pressure from other countries on emissions, I do not know if they will. But my ignorance on China’s politics doesn’t mean it could not. It seems to me that it is possible, in principle, providing there arrives the necessary political will over the prospect of disastrous global temperature rises caused by human activity. But I (along with many!) have doubts about whether such political will exists sufficiently, and recognise the very real possibility that we are too late in taking effective action anyway. That is the realistic view to take and I think it is best expressed in those terms. The view that humans are not largely responsible for current global warming is the cloud-cuckoo-land view.
I do not think your remarks are relevant concerning the numbers of people marching. Not everyone who cares about the climate crisis participates in marches. And as I already said: “No doubt it is a very small percentage of the population, but it can’t be denied that those voices are being heard.” That was the only point I was making.
Climate change activists choosing to fly can indeed be termed hypocritical, and there is naturally an understandable reaction to that. But the annual COP flights are not in themselves the thing that is going to cause a swing either way on the issue of global warming. According to you, “the man made impact on climate is [only] around 1-2% and that can be wiped out by a sun spot or a volcanic eruption” and that makes me wonder why you raise the subject of flying aeroplanes as a particular concern to you. Again, in this way I think your message is not coherent.
What is the “dodgy modelling” you mention? If the modelling concerning global warming is dodgy, what credible science are you pointing to in order to show it is dodgy? If there isn’t any, have you considered that the models you yourself believe might be the dodgy ones? Many Christians are rightly passionate about many social and political issues. That’s nothing to be up in arms about. There is no need to level at them the accusation that in general they are somehow disastrously indoctrinated on one of those issues. Why should anyone be pressed by you into going along with your climate change denial?
You say: “Everything I preach is open to misinterpretation and immediate dismissal! It all depends on the hearer!” But it doesn’t all depend on the hearer, does it? It depends to a very large extent on the speaker. If you make groundless claims, then immediately dismissing what you say is what many hearers will justifiably do. If people misinterpret you, it may very well be that you have not communicated clearly and unambiguously. Respecting your audience is key, and that includes not labelling those who disagree with your views as “haters” (which is ad hominem).
I don’t have a strong political lens myself, so have tended to take your points at face value. And my view is that credible science is nothing to be wary of. Good job too, otherwise most people would not have received the best COVID-19 vaccines we know of to date.
I’m sorry to hear that you feel resentful, but in the video and in the comments section, you have expressed your views on the political response to the climate crisis. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t, but I don’t see why you wish to imply that you haven’t.
Overall, I think we need to be careful about the messages we feed to others.
God bless you. Have a very happy Christmas time and a fruitful new year.
The most ‘basic of Google searches’ are not to be relied on. I read books. Try for example Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’. Peer reviewed science does not disagree with me on this. (could you name the peer reviewed papers which show the 98%?). IF you can’t I would appreciate an apology for accusing me of spreading misinformation on the basis of just a basic Google search!
There is considerable dispute about whether global warming (and how much) has been caused by industry in the past 100 years. And even more as to what we can do about it. It is not as settled as you presume. And please don’t rely on Wiki (as bad as Google) to make your judgements.
Yes – you are right – the few people marching are being ‘heard’ – because they people in power (the corporations, politicians and most media) want them to be heard. There is a lot of money to be made out of climate catastrophising.
I suggest you re-read your information on sunspots and volcanoes. Again Google doesn’t really cut it.
Why I raise the subject of flying aeroplanes should be obvious. If I believed that flying planes was contributing to the destruction of the planet I would not fly on planes. I don’t believe that so I don’t have a problem. But others do – to fly to a conference to discuss how you can stop other people flying is hypocritical!
What is the dodgy modelling? The modelling that the UN has used every few years to warn us about the coming disaster and which has proven to be wrong every single time. Why believe them now?
I agree completely that credible science is nothing to be wary of! I’m not sure why you suggest I don’t. Unless you are claiming that only the science you have gained from Google and Wiki is credible?! Which itself would of course not be a scientific position. One of the axioms of science is that it is falsifiable.
I don’t feel resentful. I’m just fed up of people making judgements based upon misrepresentations and Google!
Have a great Christmas!