Australia Creation Politics Technology the Church Theology


Eternity magazine this week published an article stating that the Climate Change debate was over.  They agreed to publish my response which you can read here – (the text is below).   I feel like a bit of a lone voice in the church in this one.  I believe that climate change is happening and we should do something about it – but I also believe we have largely got it way out of perspective and the Church is in great danger from being taken captive by the philosophies of this world (on all sides)…I thought the original Eternity article (link below) was actually quite well written, interesting, but also harmful….which is why I wrote this in response…


The debate is over. Kylie Beach informs us in Eternity, that apart from a few holdouts (10 per cent of Australians), we are all in the same boat – we are all agreed that we need to take immediate action to prevent climate change. She cites a survey from 2016 which showed that only 14 per cent of Christians thought no action should be taken – 48 per cent thought it should be taken even if costly and 38 per cent said we should be more gradual. The debate is over.

But is it really that simple? It all depends on what the debate actually is. Do human actions affect the environment in which we live (Genesis 3:17-18)?  No Christian would dispute that. Are we to be stewards of God’s creation (Genesis 1:27-28 and 2:15)? Again, no bible believing Christian (is there any other kind?) should deny that. We know that a time is coming when God will destroy those who destroy the earth (Revelation 11:18). But is that ‘the debate’?

It is sometimes framed in that way. If you don’t accept the current consensus of our culture re climate change, or the proposed measures to alleviate it, then the simple equation is made that you don’t care for the creation. Sadly, the article falls into this trap. ‘Climate change is about caring for the Creator’s creation’. Does that mean that if we don’t buy into all the current theories we don’t care? The trouble is that if you baptise a political position and turn it into doctrine you make heretics of all who don’t agree with you. This goes on all sides. There are those of a more conservative political disposition who question your Christianity if you don’t agree with their political positions; just as there are those of a more ‘progressive’ disposition who question your Christianity if you don’t share theirs. Now it appears that Green politics are the new religion.

Why Says Its Over?

The trouble is that once you declare ‘the debate is over’, you shut down debate, you breed intolerance, and you create division. Especially in today’s world, where to disagree with anyone on social media is to personally hurt them. If you don’t accept the debate is over – then you are either ignorant or just being stubborn. You are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of politics, and you are on the wrong team. You are like the football player who stays on the field kicking the ball, when the referee has blown the whistle! But who has blown the whistle? When one team just announces ‘we have won, the game is over’ – it does not mean that it is the end of the game! One sure and certain way to shut down debate is to state it is over. But Christians should not lay claim to that level of omniscience!

What is ‘The Debate”?

‘The Debate’ is not about whether we should care for the Creation – it is about just how much the temperature of the world is rising, or likely to rise? How much of it is created by humans ( this is a disputed figure – some argue that 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not human-generated – the IPCC says that only 5% is human generated. Koonin states that it is estimated that there are 750-850 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere (1.9 billion on land and sea) and that 29-30 million of that comes directly from human activity. All agree that the majority is not human generated but that the increase in the past 200 years almost certainly is – and that even small amounts can have significant effects).  What could we actually do to change things? Could the proposed ‘cure’ be worse than the illness?    There are many, many questions. Despite the article telling us that the time for asking questions is now over – and declaring that instead we should be standing with our fellow human beings.

It is precisely because I want to stand with my fellow human beings that I will ask questions. I don’t just faithfully accept whatever the current consensus of our society is. Of course, questioning must be questioning – not accusation or just seeking confirmation of our own bias – which far too many of us do. But being threatened with the charge of the heresy of “not caring” is not a good way to shut down the debate. What if it is BECAUSE we care for the Creator’s Creation, that we dare to question some of the suggestions that are being made?

The article itself is a great example of just why the debate is not over.

It is debatable whether we should either believe opinion polls or base our opinions on them. Since when was Christian doctrine determined by majority vote? Imagine Athanasius (contra mundum – against the world) being told “the vast majority are against you; the debate is over?” Or Luther being told, “here you stand, you can do other…. after all the majority is against you.” This isn’t how Christianity works!

It is debatable (to say the least) to argue that “the overwhelming majority have already looked at the evidence and reached a conclusion.” The vast majority of people have not looked at the evidence.  They have heard the soundbites, seen the images, been told in school and constantly have it ingrained into them, that the planet is dying because of us, and we can save it. For example, at COP26 a number of broadcasting organisations have signed up to a climate change charter – this is not to do with them reducing their own carbon footprint – but rather with them promising to produce only “news” stories which promote the climate change narrative.

The vast majority of people believe in the climate change narrative because they are told that the vast majority of people believe in the climate change narrative and ‘the debate is over’.

The whole scenario is an ‘emperor’s clothes’ moment. In the fable everyone is told that everyone else sees the ‘invisible’ glory of the emperor’s new clothes – and so everyone ‘sees’ because they are told everyone does. It’s only when a young child points out the obvious that their eyes are opened. The vast majority of people believe in the climate change narrative because they are told that the vast majority of people believe in the climate change narrative and ‘the debate is over’. I confess I was in this camp. Until I started to look at the evidence. Not the wacky conspiracy stuff (although another way to shut down debate is to claim that everything that disagrees with you is wacky conspiracy!), but people like Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish Environmentalist and author of “The Sceptical Environmentalist’, or Michael Schellenberger’s Apocalypse Never – an outstanding book from another Green activist which shows just how harmful the climate change hysteria is to us and to the planet. Schellenberger states in his latest essayNo global problem has ever been more exaggerated than climate change. As it has gone from being an obscure scientific question to a theme in popular culture, we’ve lost all sense of perspective.”

I would suggest that anyone thinking the debate is settled read Obama’s former science advisor, Steve Koonin’s “Unsettled” which at the very least will unsettle your conviction.

It is debatable that if we don’t buy into the climate change agenda we are ‘privileging contemporary Western economies above all else.” Whilst the poor will suffer most in some poor nations because of climate change, just as the poor suffer most from Covid; it is also the case that the poor will suffer even more from the measures put into place to combat climate change, just as they suffered most from the measures to prevent Covid.

Unless you are prepared to ask India, China, Indonesia, Brazil and Africa not to develop further – thereby leaving billions in poverty – the climate change measures taken by the rich Western nations, who have already developed and who can afford them, will be little more than meaningless ineffective gestures. They will however affect the poor in the Western nations enormously. Let me give one example.  You want to reduce the carbon footprint of flying – so do you ban flying? No, you just make it prohitively expensive so that ordinary people can’t fly. There was something deeply ironic about 400 private jets flying into Glasgow for the Cop26 conference (including Jeff Bezos with his $100 million private jet) to tell us all that we should be flying less! Each one of those jets emitted enough carbon to account for a whole year’s worth for 1800 ordinary Scot’s homes!

I agree that “If the impact of climate change is going to hurt people, then Christians are going to care.” But I would add that if the impact of climate change prevention measures is going to hurt people, then Christians are also going to care. Or should.

There are other debatable things in the article. To cite a website ( whose sole purpose is to attack scientists who are sceptical about climate change, as evidence that there is an almost total consensus, is a bit of a circular argument.  A bit like ‘proving’ that Donald Trump is the greatest US president by citing the Donald Trump website! Citing Proverbs 24:6 as a reason why we should just humbly accept the majority is a bit of a stretch of Scripture. The point about the ‘many advisors’ is not that they are all saying the same thing – but that we get different perspectives. We should read from different sides. At least balance the skepticalscience one with something like

Real science works by being challenged. It is falsifiable. If you only read one side, then of course the debate is over… although we seem to have now moved to a situation where if you question you will not be published or reviewed, or cited by the media. And if you dare to mention climate change YouTube will flag you and add a Wikipedia article to your video!

Humility does not mean that “we accept what the majority of climate scientists say”. Apart from the fact that most of us don’t know what the majority of climate scientists say, humility means that we admit the limits of our knowledge (including that of the majority of climate scientists – whose modelling has so often in the past proved to be wrong). Some of us are old enough to remember the “end of the world is nigh” reports from the UN and others in the 1970s and every decade since. All of which have proved wrong.

Humility means that we reject the notion that we can save the planet, whilst not rejecting the truth that we are responsible for caring for what we can.

Humility means that we reject the notion that we can save the planet, whilst not rejecting the truth that we are responsible for caring for what we can. The author Rebecca McLaughlin tweeted this week that her child came home from school having been taught a reworked version of an old Christian song. ‘He’s got the whole world in his hands’ has now become, “We’ve got the whole world in our hands”. Our children are simultaneously being taught that the world is ending (and therefore there is no point in having children), but that we can save it – if we do the right thing. They are also being taught that it is the fault of the evil capitalists, whilst at the same time being told to follow the agenda of the big capitalist corporations who are the most enthusiastic proponents of climate change action! Go figure!

Christians, Creation and the Debate…

Christians MUST care for the Creation. Those who argue that because God is sovereign therefore we need to do nothing are both inconsistent and unbiblical. Inconsistent because they don’t argue that about caring for their own body or homes! Unbiblical because the sovereign God has commanded us to care for the Creation. But we must not follow the ways of the world. I am not arguing that climate change is not real – the planet is getting warmer and human activity is a contributing factor – nor that we should do nothing.  I was “Green” and even voted green long before it was fashionable. But instead of joining a movement which sees politics, big government and the big corporations as the answer, I prefer to do what I can at the micro level as well as seek to influence the macro. I wonder if the 48 per cent who said that we should pay more to stop climate change were thinking of themselves? Are we prepared to go without in order to help – or, like so many in our society, do we think that there is a ‘they’ who will pay? So personally, and privately I seek to work out what I can do to save and care for the environment. At the macro level I cannot help but wonder why so many who claim to care about climate change are opposed to the most effective and carbon free form of energy – nuclear power? But I don’t claim divine sanction for that. The debate is not over.

However, where the debate is over is where God says so. He is the referee who comes on to the pitch, the judge who announces the verdict. I have recently been looking at Romans 8. It strikes me that the church is in danger of getting side-tracked on this issue. We need to refocus. Not to buy into the false dichotomies and divisions created by the ‘world’; not reading the scriptures through the lens of the culture, but rather reading the culture through the lens of scripture. We will then be those who worship the Creator and care for his creation – as he wished.  We will then have the hope of Christ, rather than the despair of Greta.

Quantum 171 – He‘s Got the Whole World in His Hands – including Cleo, Cop26, Brandon, Terry and Jordan,

The Church has something distinctive to say about climate change – if only it would say it – CT



  1. Thank you David! The thing I keep wondering about is why the sovereignty of God seems to be overlooked in so much of this debate? As a young Christian, AW Pink’s “The Sovereignty of God” was one of my first purchases…

    1. Afternoon David
      Thanks for the balanced comments. The issue has been unbalanced for a considerable time.
      I met a met a US marine biologist (she worked at a leading US marine institute) on holiday. I posed the question to her “was the climate on a 800 year cycle, 400yrs up and 400yrs down, give or take”, her answer was immediate “yes, however we are speeding it up”.
      Nobody, as far as I can see is addressing that question and there would appear to plenty of evidence for this cycle.
      David, we both know, God has it all planned out.

  2. Amen! Well said David. You are not a lone voice in the true Church. As you say, for any true Bible believing Christian (and there should not be any other) it has to be solely a Bible based world view. “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible” applied to what is going on around us. Every blessing!

  3. What about the mundane remedies to car and airline pollution? Giving the over 60’s free local travel passes might be a wise policy direction. It reduces old age poverty and social isolation, as well as getting cars off the road. It encourages people to travel or tour locally. Avoiding expensive or earth destroying long haul flights is wise. Being content with less, spreading wealth around and taking joy from simple pleasures, is possibly where sane environmentalism should be taking us. Consider a person drinking ten pints of strong lager a day, as well as having diabetes and high blood pressure. Reducing to five pints might be the first step on the road to recovery. We need achievable and sensible objectives on climate change.

  4. Thank you for continuing to write balanced and helpful articles which are sadly so lacking on this topic.
    I listened to this podcast last night which was so encouraging to me as it presented a sound and challenging Christian perspective. One of the contributors was Rev Dr William Phillips who was responsible for the banner outside the Tron which was torn down. after only 2 days

    1. I wonder how you judge if a person is ‘credible’? I prefer to look at what the person is saying and see if that is credible. If you have some reason for disputing what Tony Heller says then it might be interesting to hear about it.
      But if, for some reason, you don’t like then perhaps you might have a look at as an alternative way of ‘balancing’ what says.

      1. Mike17, three things which cause me to wonder about the ‘balance’ in what Tony Heller says about climate change.
        (1) A website which seems to rely on newspaper reports without context and dots on world maps without context or commentary;
        (2) A post where pictures of Cher’s “Florida Getaway” and DiCaprio’s yacht are seen as relevant comments on climate change; and
        (3) Tony Heller’s own claims:
        “You will be hard pressed to find anyone with a broader and more successful career in science, education, environment and engineering” and “Your computer/game consoles work, partly due to my efforts. By contrast, climate science doesn’t work, because it is done largely by dishonest, incompetent hacks who don’t follow or even understand any legitimate methodology.” [ 8Nov2021]
        Thanks for the other website to look at. In what ways does this ‘balance’
        But I guess being in the 48% in the NCLS Attender Survey means I don’t really understand ‘balance’ nor, it seems from some comments here, do I belong to the true church or believe in the God who creates.

  5. As ever David, it’s the presuppositions that you rightly raise concerns about.

    This debate is also like the atheists who invoke an appeal to universally held objective moral values, but openly deny their existence!

    This is just another example of how Satan will misrepresent the truth to mankind, and despite the heavens and the earth declaring the Lords handiwork leaving him (mankind) without excuse, man (kind) exchanges the truth for a lie.

    Much of the naturalists seek to invoke obligation to save the world, which they claim falsely is ‘our world’, as if it is ours. It is not and never had been ‘our planet.’ We are merely stewards according to the truth under God, under atheism there is nothing to appeal to.

    Yet the same naturalists deny the one fundamental issue, that make any obligation or stewardship relevant. Creation.

    The question has to be asked and answered by climate change advocates. ‘Are you created? Is the earth and universe created?’
    That is the question the church must ask, because our response to whatever is happening will derive from our position on that question. And that position is critical.

    Why? Because as Paul told the Romans, it will determine what it is we worship. Many climate changers would be considered honourable and good people, but the reality is, these people have exchanged the truth for a lie, and worship the creation (but they call is nature) instead of the creator.
    What we worship will determine how we act, and much of the proclaimed virtues about saving the planet is nothing short of idolatry and worship of objects God has created, whilst showing indifference and hostility toward the God who created them.

  6. David, will you be responding to Mick Pope’s first essay (of three) on the Eternity website about climate change?

    1. No – I want to live. I can’t be bothered with the abuse….and to be honest there is no point in arguing with someone who thinks there is no possible argument against them. I have no interest in arguing with such fundamentalism….I will leave you all to confirm one another in your beliefs and mock and abuse those who disagree.

      1. Or could it be, David, on this one, Mick Pope actually knows what he is talking about and you misjudged your readership? Why accuse someone of mockery and abuse when they are simply questioning your statements or arguments?

      2. I read his articles – there is little to answer. Much I agree with. I’m talking about the abuse, sneering and mockery (which you seem more than happy to join in), which I get online and in their comments. I’m not setting myself up for that again. And of course Mike knows more – but he is not absolute. And his figure of 97% of scientists is just false.

  7. Hello David, I found this article a lot more illuminating and nuanced than the last one I read of yours on the subject. Despite my rereading of that first article before commenting, I now think I came away with the wrong impression of your views. My initial interpretation of your position had me painting you as someone who was blasé and dismissive of climate change. I now think I was wrong.

    While I suspect that we would disagree on how significant our actions are and the urgency with which we need to change our behaviours with regards to climate change, I now have a greater sense of where we may agree.

    In order to make a worthwhile change to the volume of greenhouse gases that we emit we would likely have to deny less developed nations the benefits we enjoy and think far too little of the continued poverty that many people would endure as a result. A consequence that I am all too guilty of being blind to. It is always easier to expect others to change then to do so oneself.

    While we are still most likely in disagreement on many points of the issue and the actions we need to take, I thank you for reminding me of the greyness of a topic that is often viewed in black and white.

  8. “some argue that 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not human-generated – the IPCC says that only 5% is human generated.” Can you give chapter and verse for these statements?

    I am utterly baffled. Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280ppm pre-industrial to 420 ppm today ('s_atmosphere and refs therein), and isotopic data show ( that this extra CO2 comes from fossil fuel burning.

    Yet I know you to be an honest, sincere, and thoughtful person, so I do not think you could have said what you said without what you thought was good reason. Something here just *does not add up*

      1. Thank you. It is much as i had suspected. You have confused the percentage human-caused total annual emissions (around 5% of the annual budget) with the percentage human-caused cumulative contribution to the inventory. This is spelt out in the rebuttal that, on the admirable skepticalscience site, immediately follows the statement that you refer to .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: