I attended a briefing on ‘Eco-Church’ recently, but unfortunately it was more a case of eco-alarmism.

The good news is that we're not in a climate crisis. I can understand why the speaker at the briefing tried to convince us that we were (which I also used to believe), given it's the dominant narrative, with any challengers being dismissed as 'deniers'.

Contesting the ‘Narrative’

However, we've seen a number of instances over the last few years where the official/MSM narratives have proved badly wrong. I made the decision to start researching the topic more thoroughly, as it affects us all in so many ways; with so many restrictions and costs placed on ordinary punters seeming to depend on the climate-CO² argument.

there are many critics of the official narrative whose evidence is highly persuasive because they rely on sober scientific enquiry.

It turns out that there are many critics of the official narrative whose evidence is highly persuasive because they rely on sober scientific enquiry.

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore observed in January 2011: "We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food."

Many key scientists agree; note, for example, the conclusions of the World Climate Declaration, a global network of over 1800 scientists and professionals, who insist there is no climate emergency.

CO² is good for you!

The speaker at the symposium I attended highlighted greenhouse gases – but only noted their negative features. In fact, just 0.7% of the atmosphere is taken up with greenhouse-effect gases. Of these, 95% is H²O. Without our 'greenhouse', the temperature on earth would be an incredible 33C lower! It's the lack of water vapour that makes clear nights in the UK or deserts nights so cool. Of the remaining 5% of CO², the human-related element may be around 0.25% - the rest consists of natural CO². The greenhouse effect of CO², a trace-gas, decreases with volume and is currently nearly at the maximum effect.

The vast majority of the CO² in our atmosphere forms part of the carbon cycle, where carbon is emitted from geological and biological processes into the atmosphere. CO² is absorbed in the cooler sea areas, transported in currents, and emitted when the sea warms (which is why its peaks follow temperature rises, rather than precedes them (as Al Gore had to admit when cross-examined in Congress). As we learn in biology, plants need CO² to grow. NASA has shown that the small amount of extra CO² in our atmosphere has actually been 'greening' the planet. The air in commercial greenhouses is actively enriched with CO².

In fact, just 0.7% of the atmosphere is taken up with greenhouse-effect gases. Of these, 95% is H²O.

Atmospheric CO² has been much higher in the past and therefore the carbon-cycle – part of the complex interactions between hydro, geo, atmo and bio-spheres – is self-correcting (as designed!). It is not running out of control, as our speaker asserted. The temperature has also been higher in the past, most recently during the Middle Ages – though this was edited out of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph, which many scientists remain highly sceptical of.

In fact, CO² is just one small aspect of the overall climate change argument. Clouds are the biggest mediator of energy from the sun and a very small percentage change in cloud cover would account for all the recent warming. The earth gets all its energy from the sun, so changes in the earth’s orbit and sun activity affect the energy we get and are the main drivers for the temperature increases we are currently experiencing.

Our conference speaker went on to fuss about the effects of global warming through wildfires, hurricanes and droughts. However, it is apparent that wildfires have decreased in recent decades; hurricane intensity is at a low, and there has been no increase in droughts.

So what's going on?

Climate seems to be a useful tool to serve political ends. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (note its political nature). Dr Steven Koonin (Undersecretary for Science, Department of Energy under Obama) relates his experience of the skewing of science in his popular 2021 book ‘Unsettled?' As a senior insider, he was alarmed that the IPCC summary reports did not reflect what was actually being found by the scientists - instead it was being altered to fit a pre-determined conclusion. He challenged this repeatedly, but to no avail.

the IPCC summary reports did not reflect what was actually being found by the scientists - instead it was being altered to fit a pre-determined conclusion.

The UK House of Lords picked up on this in 2006, noting in its understated way; ‘If scientists are charged with writing the main chapters, it seems to us they must be trusted to write the summaries without intervention from others...’

In the 2009 Climategate scandal, leaked emails between activist scientists at East Anglia University showed that they discussed how to suppress reports or cancel scientists whose work did not align with the cause (2019 update).

The IPCC models have been shown to be hopelessly inaccurate, forecasting results much worse than actually observed, despite numerous 'parameter adjustments' (fudges). This is because the world's climate depends on complex interactions between all four ‘spheres’ (hydro, geo, atmo, bio) that happen at different rates, though many of these are not well understood. However, instead of acknowledging this, the IPCC claims 95% accuracy and does not seem to mind how much incredulity this arouses from external experts.

the world's climate depends on complex interactions between all four ‘spheres’ (hydro, geo, atmo, bio) that happen at different rates, though many of these are not well understood.

There seems to be, at least, a political aspect to this. IPCC's Ottmar Edenhofer said 'one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.' Ex-Senator Timothy Wirth (now UN Foundation) at the 1992 UN Earth Climate Summit noted: 'We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.' (i.e. redistribution of wealth).

In similar vein, Christine Stewart (Canadian Minister of the Environment 1988) said 'No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.' Lots more could be said of the underlying motivations, which will be reviewed in a future article.

Doing the right thing

Of course we want to be climate-conscious and eco-friendly. And it’s only right and natural that consumers would want to insulate buildings and use energy efficiently, as it should save us money. We should also have a sense of duty to restore, reuse and recycle (as practical people always have).

The World Bank is also diverting normal development funds to climate-related spending from where it's actually required.

But there’s significant cause for concern. Dr Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out (including in his recent book 'Best Things First') that a lot of the money being spent on the UN's Strategic Development Goals (SDGs) is not what would really help the world's poorest. The World Bank is also diverting normal development funds to climate-related spending from where it's actually required.

Where eco-alarmism is appropriate is in the way our money, resources and freedoms are being eroded with climate as the excuse. Getting this right does matter. And maybe we should 'follow the money' to see who is really benefiting, both around the UK and abroad.

Ethical issues

There are a number of genuine ethical issues at stake here that we all want to take seriously:

• Truthful science is important - it's a joy to discover how intricately the world is made.
• Efficiently husbanding scarce resources is important – but eco-projects do not always score well.
• In helping others (including those overseas), we need to be as practical as possible – refraining from being ideological or politicised
• It’s all too natural and easy to go along with what the world asserts, but other drivers and motivations are in play, and we're called to be wise in all things.
• Unjustifiable taxes and surcharges are unjust – indeed, they are a form of theft.
• We should not scare people needlessly – many young people have been terrorised unnecessarily by the climate change myth.

Efficiently husbanding scarce resources is important – but eco-projects do not always score well.

I think Eco-church is a sound idea, but it needs to be re-imagined with solid science and practice. We have a great opportunity to speak good news here.

Christians can serve their communities by challenging unwarranted alarm and advancing evidence-based approaches. Without this, we will all be impoverished – spiritually, emotionally and practically.

Jon Sharp has worked as a software dev and latterly as a cultural apologist. He is founder of the website Knowing the Times