.jpg)
Thankfully the Methodist Conference in Wolverhamptong hasn't set the world's media alight this year. When it does it is normally a negative story.However a daft press release has just landed in the "in-box". I hope it doesn't get any coverage and thats not intended to discourage our excellent team in the press office.
Apparently leading our lives, making the best use of God's resources, working to feed our kids is now a "SIN".
Based on dubious science we are now going to have to start beating ourselves and everybody else up as the world spins on its axis and climate gradually changes as it has for centuries.
If you want to see what I mean just go onto http://www.streetmap.co.uk/ and type in the word "vineyard". England was once a much hotter place that it is today and is shown by the place names that pop up.
But when we throw around words like "sin" we devalue the prophetic currency of the Christian witness. I wonder if the word "sin" has been used in any other context in any documentation coming out of this year's conference. No wonder people on the outside think the modern church is one big joke.
If you want to read the whole item you can do so here, if not this is a flavour:
The Methodist Church is urging Christians to repent of the sins that contribute to climate change. A report received by the annual Methodist Conference in Wolverhampton today encourages people to acknowledge their complicity in systems that exploit creation and prey on the powerless. But the Church also wants to empower Christians to make positive lifestyle changes, in line with the report’s title, Hope in God’s Future.
Revd David Gamble, the President of the Conference, said, “The first step in making a difference is the recognition of what we’ve done wrong so far. But we can’t just stop there. We must not be beholden to economic growth at the expense of our world and the lives of those who are most vulnerable."
There are a great many people in both developed and underdeveloped country who would welcome a little of that economic growth that our new President of Conference so despises.
As a local preacher I don't always feature sin, but when I do, I point out that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). That was written long before the Methodist Conference was ever convened and it wasn't about composting rubbish or taking the bus.
Someone should have got up at Conference and simply say "Ladies and gentlemen, time to get real".
Posts
33 comments:
"Based on dubious science"
Oh really!
Heaven And Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science, by Ian Plimer (Quartet, £25)
Just one example and another:
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
The spin is amazing. People don't care about the environment, they despise economic growth.
I have to say, David, that I don't really understand your economics. One really cannot a market that is determined by both: a) greed and free markets and b) community need. At some point, a trade-off has to be made.
Who on earth are any of you to judge the science of climate change?
James. That was my point. The conference report was based on the IPCC. Science will full peer review. Not me making claims but being willing to submit to the international scientific concensus.
Pam, thats why I am a socialist and a member of the co-op. I don't believe that economic growth should only be based on greed or free markets. Humankind constantly need goods and services which have to be created by an ever changing ever expanding economy. It beggars belief that a Western church condemns the very growth that could lift millions out of poverty. Now that doesn't give a blank cheque to Wall Street, but we should be reminded how that others have a stake in an expanding economy. For example a friend of mine in a developing nation is trying to establish a new industry in his African country.
He can see that if he can get the product onto British shelves it will earn a premium price. He will be able to employ more workers - many of whom are currently unemployed. Now I have offered to help him market in the UK.
Should I instead be saying "Sorry mate, too much sin involved. Think of the carbon emmissions your container will create between Mombasa and Felixstowe. I think it best if your neighbours remain poor. At least I won't be joining you and them in such a sinful actvity."
Dave I know you are at conference - saw you there on Monday - and I hope you are having a great time in Bridgnorth. Try to find time to go on the Severn Valley Railway. It is a real treat.
The railway doesn't go anywhere apart from Kiddy but the carbon emmisions are very low.
I think we need to be careful of "scientic consensus". A few years ago I was involved in a miscarriage of justice that depended on a "scientific consensus". It didn't help an innocent man who spent his life behind bars on the basis of that consensus.
There seems little doubt that climate is changing. Ten, fifteen years ago I was heavily involved in the issues of desertification in southern Europe. This has been happening over many years - basically the Sahara is, at the moment, moving north. This movement however predates current concerns about carbon emmissions or even the existence of the industry and activity which produces those emissions.
Taking everything into consideration I would opt for a gently precautionary approach mainly on the waste not, want not principle. The Methodist doctrine of thrift is a useful pointer to how we should behave in our economic and social lives. Having been involved at a political and professional level in waste disposal I can see that reducing the amount that goes to landfill, recycling where possible and composting fits that model of thrift.
However to use a strong word like "sin" as it was used in the President's press release devalues the seriousness of sin and therefore the possibility of redemption (a critical part of our creed),and provides more evidence that we are as a denomination out of touch with real issues that affect real people (why aren't we for example struggling with the growth in problem gambling?).
I'll tell you my view.
You disagree on climate change and, rather than believing that there are honest and different opinions on the subject, you appear to choose to believe that the church has got together and said 'How can we try to destroy the economy?' That's the generous interpretation. The non-generous interpretation is that you don't really think that the church is trying to destroy the economy at all but it sounds a lot more dramatic to represent it as doing so.
I understand what a socialist and I an understand what a laissez-faire businessman is. What puzzles me is that you seem to want to be both at the same time which is, in practice, an impossibility. If we believe that the government needs to make some decisions on behalf of the community in general, then there is going to be a trade-off. You don't get social housing, for instance, if you don't tax people more.
Final comment. I don't see how calling something a 'sin' devalues the impossibility of forgiveness. And, if destroying the human habitat isn't a sin, I don't know what is.
Now, I quite agree that there are going to have to be trade-offs from 'purity'. A number of people have noted that the developing countries are not the problem in terms of pollution even though their means of production are more polluting. The US and Europe are big polluters. And me choosing to be more economical with the CO2 I emit isn't going to stop Africa or India from developing economically.
Pam you start by saying that I don't believe there are honest and different opinions on this subject. Let me assure you: one of my very best friends is currently qriting a detailed report on climate change for a major environmental organisation. She often appears on the media putting the case that climate change has been instigated by human activity and campaigns for measures to mitigate the impact. We agree to differ and despite her PhD she respects my views just as much as I respect hers. So I appreciate that there are differences of opinion and these I respect. That doesn't mean that I am not allowed to express an opinion that is contrary to what is percieved to be a universal consensus.
I'm puzzled by your description of me as a "laissez-faire businessman". I have run several businesses and in all cases have scrupulously ensured that I respect all and every regulation put in place to protect my customers, suppliers and employees. Sometimes these regulations can be very fiddly (recent rules to prevent the employment of "illegal" migrants have, for example, created a lot of extra paperwork) but I always obey both the letter and the spirit of the law. Hardly laissez-faire!
I don't know where you get the idea that I follow a low tax and slash public spending agenda. I've spent the last 45 years or so being attacked by political opponents for being precisely the opposite!
Let us agree that waste in the economy is nearly always harmful: those of us who have worked in factories know that it is not always avoidable.
Let us also agree that pollution of any sort poses a potential danger - I was dealing with these issues in the Black Country in the 1970s.
But pleased don't use a strong word like SIN to describe lawful and socially responsible economic activity.
I can assure you Pam I have enough sins on my account without having the President of Conference signing me up to a whole new pile!
David, you are twisting my words. I suspect you will do anyway, but I'm not giving you more fodder, so I'm out of the discussion.
The problem with judging anything that is not part of our own expertise is that we have to rely on others who are expert. Experts tend to say 'Believe me, I'm right'. Often, they are; but not always. We have to look at motives and consequences, at the bigger picture and sometimes go back to first principles. We cannot always judge the research or the maths, if there is any, but we can sometimes follow the logic or lack of it.
As for International consensus, this is intellectual bullying. Science does not advance by majority vote. It advances by good research and sound theories eventually gaining acceptance. And sometimes, by those same theories being overthrown. The truth, in any discipline, does not always lie with the majority.
The international consensus on the Global warming/ Man-made climate change scam is unravelling. The book I posted a link to earlier is only one example - which , I note, was studiously ignored - great scientific technique! Later I will post some more examples, if I get the chance. However, the planet has not got any warmer overall for the past ten years. The polar bears are not dying out, the Maldives are not sinking and the sky is not falling.
Pam, a very brief note during a lunch break on a busy day. I always appreciate your comments on this blog. I do try to respond to them as I do others.
Sometimes my response has to be briefer than your comments deserve simply because I have limited time.
Sometimes I may have misunderstood your point.
But can I assure you that I have no wish to "twist" your words, nor do you have any grounds to "suspect" that is my intention.
This is not the first time you have left a discussion on these pages upset at the drift of the argument. But you are always welcome to return, as you normally do.
Thank you Ian for recommending Pilner's book. I may get a copy sometime. It has had some mixed reviews.
This is not the first time you have left a discussion on these pages upset at the drift of the argument.
David, as I have said many times, what upsets me is that you have a habit (and I honestly think I can say this in fairness) of paint those who disagree with your opinions as having malevolent intent.
You apparently think that this character assassination is 'expressing your opinion'. I don't.
Pam, you are always welcome on this blog.
Nowhere in this thread have I used "character assasination" towards you or anyone else.
I think you have a tendency to assume that a general argument is aimed at you personally. This has happened on other occasions.
Other readers have commeted to me about this.
If it pains you to join these discussions you are, of course, not obliged to contribute. But if you do, please do not assume that I am waiting to pounce on you. I have one or two other priorities.
David -
I can't imagine that I'd have any occasion to think that your post is personal to me, given that you didn't mention me at all.
To be clear. I think that, in this post, you have accused David Gamble and the Methodist Conference of having the motive of not wanting to see economic growth for the less fortunate in developed and in less-developed countries. (I was not part of Methodist Conference and I am obviously not David Gamble)
I accept the argument 'I don't agree with taking action to limit climate change and I think it will result in anemic growth of the economy.' That, in my view, is an expression of opinion.
I don't accept the argument 'There goes David Gamble and the Methodist Church, not caring about economic development for the less fortunate' as being an expression of opinion.
Call me pedantic. But this kind of mindless, emotion-whipping arguementation is part of what is wrong with our society today.
I have some sympathy with MP in respect of the use of the word sin in relation to the issues of global warming etc. but equally I can see where some folk might think the word was appropriate for this topic.
I think that there are certain things in respect of this whole area that strike me and I will share them as food for thought.
1. Many of our members have no interest in global warming given that most of them expect to be dead before there is any real problem.
2. Many of our members see the whole thing as some sort of media spin.
3. Many of our members doubt the words of scientists and experts. I remember some years ago we were urged to go to work on an egg and then all of a sudden they were bad for us (both views of experts as I remember)
4. Many of our members have no interest in conference, in fact no interest past their own chapel, and certainly would not know who David Gamble is. Perhaps on Sunday we might ask our congregations for a show of hands from those who know who David Gamble is - might prove very interesting or even very sad.
5. If we are throwing our weight behind efforts to cut carbon footprints, waste etc. I would be interested to know how the publication of a new hymn book scores in this respect. How many forests will it take to produce a new hymn book? (how many of our folk want it?)
6. It would be equally intersting to know how many tonnes of paper have been used in producing agenda, handbooks, publicity and other associated items for conference added to travelling from all over the place and how this squares up to the President's wanting us to do things better.
Just a few thoughts from someone who is yet to be convinced that we like many others are not just paying lip service to what is the current flavour of the month so to speak
Fat Prophet:
1) As ethical arguments go, that one has got to fail on so many levels. Gee, thanks, grandma.....
2) Point heard...possible answer at number 3)
3) Yes, I can appreciate that; it's hard for us lay people to genuinely understand the science behind it. To me, the attitude of 'Let's not try at all to cut down on our CO2 emissions' is something I don't get in the least. I do actually take David's point about economic growth to some extent but there are plenty of things I can do that are not going to stifle economic growth in India. 'I'm not going to do it because you're accusing me of sinning' isn't a great argument, in my view.
4) I realise that many of our members have no interest in anything outside their own chapels. And that inward-looking view is not confined to Methodist Conference!
5) I totally agree with you.
6) Is also a challenge. Computers and email just seem like an opportunity to generate more paper. I also resent the new trend of receiving a 50-page document and being told to print it out.
Pam,
Thanks for the response - just one point from my perspective is that my first point was not an ethical argument but an observation based on reality. I have heard the whole global warming being discussed in people in my age group and older and when someone says by 2070 such and such will be the case the response is often along the lines of 'well I won't be around then'.
It is very sad when people adopt this sort of view but I am not sure we can change them either within the church or outside of it. The problem too I think is that for many of our members they have no interest in what the President thinks about anything, especially when their main concern is keeping the door open each week and meeting the assessment, and don't start me on the new hymn book!
Fat Prophet, To also answer your points:
1. Many of our members are extremely concerned about the state of the planet that are leaving their children and grand children. Others are hearing the please such as the one at conference from a methodist minister in Bangladesh where they are facing the loss of huge amounts of land to flooding.
2. Many of our members are passionate about justice. Others understand science (especially those who teach it). They look at their own experience of climate change (eg the couple around here who got married over 50 years ago and remember people skating to Peterborough and recognise how much this country has warmed up).
3. Many of our members understand the difference between one scientist and consensus over peer reviewed science. They know the difference between independent scientists and those paid by oil companies.
4. Since David Gamble has only just taken office why not give him more tha n a week in the job before making that comment. Maybe if you looked at the travel schedule of presidents and vice presidents you might think about the huge number of methodists that will meet them this year.
5. a) We have not yet printed a new hymn book. b) we are promised it will be available digitally as well as on papere c) The Methodist Church has learned a lot about sustainable printing. Ask the experets for details. d) The voting was clear at conference. The elected representatives absaolutely wanted it and overturned many alternatives.
6. re agenda etc. a) It is much more efficient to print copies of such documents centrally rather than individually. When you look at the age profile of conference (remembering that it gets additional bias to retired people by being during the week) it is hard to argue that democracy could be fair wthout paper copies. As someone who is pretty IT literate I can testify as to how tricky it is to keep up with the business with electronic documents only (too many to juggle and moving fas through them). c) they printed them locally to reduce the carbon footprint and support local industry. If you research carbon footprints you will discover that this is not a major element in our own footprints (dwarfed by a holiday where you fly as one example).
You need to meet and hear from our world church partners who are saying this is more important than fair trade and pretty much every thing else as without dramatic action their countries are going to disappear. This is a huge issue of justice and Methodists have a strong record of acting on injustice.
More on Professor Ian Plimmer:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
It's not only worth reading the article, but trawling through the comments as well.
There are the 'heretic!' crew who claim all sorts of things without a shred of evidence.
There are those who try to give some evidence often with links to suitable sites.
There are those who have countervailing evidence. Again, often with links.
It is also worth looking at the way in which the argument is conducted and the tone of the arguments.
Malidives not sinking:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm
http://frank-segler.blogspot.com/2009/03/help-maldives-is-sinking.html
This last is full of useful links.
I shall consider myself well and truly put in my place. I do have much more idea about a lot of the issues that I raised than perhaps I am being given credit for - I think I was daring to raise another perspective, something I perhaps should not do.
The comment about the President was in no way a slur and I would certainly not wish to comment on his performance only a few days into his Presidency, and I really do think that if you asked the question about the immediate past president there would be many of our folk who would not be able to name him either and more shamefully I still believe there would be many who don't give a fig.
Again I think your last paragraph makes tremendous assumptions about what I may or may not know, however I still believe that much of what I said will apply to many of our members.
Ian G,
re Ian Plimer book.
"Given the errors, the non-science and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it." Prof David Karoly, Uni of Melborne School of Earth Sciences.
"Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not 'merely' atmospheric that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics." Prof Ashley, astrophysicist at Uni of New South Wales.
Facts.
1. The book uses a graph produced for the 2007 documentary "The great global warming swindle" on channel 4. The graph altered to timeline creating a false impression. After a scientific outcry it was updated for future releases but Plimer uses the original graph with the error.
2. He claims Mount Pinatubo releases large quantities of chloroflourocarbons but the source he quotes claims the opposite.
See today Guardian G2 for these and more quotes.
FP,
I am concerned when we paint only a negative picture of the people called Methodist. They have been very active in many issues over the years (trade justice, debt relief etc). So I may have over-reacted. Ordinary members of the Church were passionate at conference - several of whom spoke on this debate as their first ever speech at conference (so not just conference nerds).
My last sentence was not intended to be specifically to you and I regret that it was not clear that was the case. It was a more general response to this thread and others on the similar subjects happening at the moment.
Dave W,
I note you ignore the fact that the Maldives are NOT sinking; that the polar bears are NOT dying out and that you quote the Guardian G2 - the well-known international magazine of peer-reviewd science and home of George Monbiot.
Is there enough ice in the Antartic to raise ALL the oceans by, how many feet did Al Gore say? The Artic is a floating ice cube. Ice shrinks when melted. So the Artic is irrelevant to raising water levels. And as for the Ice mountains in Antartica ...?
I did say it would be worth trawling through the Speccie comments on the Plimer article.
The two things that become clear from following all the various links are 1) that the claim of an international consensus is, I think the polite word is hype? and 2) being accepted by the Establishment has nothing to do with being right, at least not in the first instance.
Ian G,
So you can quote The spectator for science but I can't quote the guardian?
I should read all the comments as science?
I had not ignored your Maldives comment, it came later after I had started my reply.
I had a quick check and it does not seem that there is anything like consensus on those measurements. I note for example the article is now 5 years old and there are concerns that the gauge used to measure changes has been sinking.
You confuse the Antarctic and the Arctic. The Arctic floats and so it melting does not change sea levels (although as it gets smaller it is one of the many feedback mechanisms as it reflects less sunlight and so the sun warms the sea more). Much of the Antarctic is not floating and so when it melts it does increase sea levels. As does the melting of Greenland which has broken records and which is having a significant positive effect on their economy (bad for the planet as again ice is melting from land and so can raise sea levels).
I reject your claim that there is hype about an international consensus. Plimer has found a way of making lots of money without having to do real science fuelled by people looking for any excuse to deny the impact our lifestyle has.
Oh and by following Plimer so that you can ignore the effects of out output you also need to find a way to ignore the supply side which is Peak Oil. Even if you deny Climate Change the fact that we are using oil, gas, uranium, coal supplies faster than ever and have are close to or passed peak supply has a very similar challenge to our behaviour.
I do not confuse the Arctic and the Antartic. 'The Arctic is a floating ice cube.' The Antartic is where ice will make any difference to ocean levels. 'Is there enough ice in the Antarctic to raise ALL the oceans by, how many feet did Al Gore say?'
It would seem that Al Gore said 20 feet. That's a lot of ice. 4/5 of the earth's suface rises 20 feet by melting ice. All that ice can only be in a few places. Antartica is the biggest source. Where are the ice mountains that would be needed?
The Spectator article and the comments provide links to various sources. It's the best non-experts can do without actually doing the research ourselves. Citations are an indication of some scholarship.
I've made it quite clear that it's following the links that makes the difference.
As for Peak Oil, we keep not getting there. It's worth googling Peak Oil Myth and Peak Oil debunked. They're not all crazy by any means.
As for consensus, you reject my claim but you can't refute it. There are too many scientists who disagree.
Plimer is a Professor of geology who, it seems has ceased to be a scientist. Why? Apparently, he is making money. But then again, he isn't the one getting the research grants. Now whose making money?
Consensus is not Science and never has been. Science is about better theories and usually involves overturning the consensus.
The problem with Uranium isn't finding it, there's plenty in Australia. The problem is in refining it, controlling its use and what to do with it when it's been used.
The bottom line for theologians is thst God sustains the Universe (not a Blind Watchmaker) and the end of the world is in His hands not ours. We can solve most, if not all of our problems by co-operative action. God Himself has said so - see Babel.
BUT - it is our sin and selfishness that will precipitate His judgement. I find myself far more concerned about the persecution of Christians, the psychotic hatred of Israel, the increasing limitations on free speech, the struggles betwen ideologies etc. These will lead to more deaths, famine and war than ever Climate change will.
I think that we should work with nature rather than fight it. I do not believe that we have beaten God to the draw and are about to eliminate all life on this planet before Jesus returns. Ultimately, that is what the Global-warming heresy teaches. Think about it.
Ian G,
You are responding to things I have not said. For example I have not mentioned Al Gore.
I fail to understand your leaps such as your description of climate change as heresy.
I remain convinced that the scientific evidence in favour of climate change vastly outweighs that against. The way you have ignored the incorrect data used by Plimer does not help convert me.
Ian G, assuming you believe that efforts like Fairtrade are Godly, then your theology of the end times is inconsistent.
If we believe that the Kingdom of God did not begin with the Resurrection but will only come for the first time when Christ returns, then who cares about the poor either? God is in control of their poverty and they will get their reward in the next life.
Theologically, we either care about the poor and about stewardship of God's creation or we write the poor off along with creation as part of God's sovereign purposes.
What I still find amazing is that Fairtrade has proven with the collective 'small acts' of ordinary people can achieve. I don't understand the anger aroused by the suggestion that we shouldn't profligate with natural resources.
Dave W , I am responding to things I have said, that you did not respond to and seemed to misunderstand.
The heresy is that our actions will determine the end of life/human life on this planet. I have addressed this in David's latest posting.
I cannot, personally, comment on Plimer's data and I doubt that you can either. I simply note that there are plenty of people who support him and who seem to be reputable scientists.
Pam BG - I'm sorry but I am having difficulty in following your arguments.
Fair Trade is about honesty etc. Plenty of stuff on that subject in the Bible. What's it got to do with the End Times which began with the Incarnation?
God cares about the poor. AGW often seems to exacerbate the poverty of the poor - see MPs' comments.
I do not know what you believe about the Kingdom of God, but I believe what Jesus said, to wit,'It is amongst you'.
I've been involved in a Fairtrade company that, sadly, did not succeed. As for profligacy, I was not advocating waste. You do draw the most amazing conclusions.
I just am not convinced by the CO2 AGW/MMCC advocates. Not least, because I have had some scientific education and am well aware that CO2 is essential to life on this planet.
As for profligacy, I was not advocating waste. You do draw the most amazing conclusions.
Boy, talk about taking things personally....
The whole point of bringing climate change to people's attention is that we are as Western society, profligate and wasteful in our use of resources.
The whole point of the sorts of things being advocated by the Methodist Church is to stop being wasteful where we are being wasteful and to start being proactive with the actions that we know about but have not implemented to any great degree. E.g. wind farms, heat pumps, safe nuclear energy.
I will confess that I don't have enough scientific background to discern which scientific expert is wrong and which scientific expert is correct. I do have enough science to have learned about natural fluctuations in climate over the long term - and I learned about this before anyone was ever worried about climate change. So I'm not going to claim that I can discern from the science who is right and who is wrong.
My default position of logic is that I don't see how ceasing to stop profligacy can hurt.
You say that God loves human beings and you also say that the people on low-lying Pacific islands who are begging us to stop global warming so that their homelands will not be displaced are dead wrong. I wonder why they would be lying to us about their land disappearing?
Ian G
I believe that the Kingdom of God is here and now as well as 'not yet'.
The 'here and now' belief is why Methodism has always advocated social justice. Against some other theological forms in Christianity which have historically said 'God in control of what is going on, so we are not to intervene.'
You used the 'no intervention' theology to explain why you thought we should not worry about changing our polluting habits. And I'm pointing out that, theologically, this is inconsistent with believing in action for social justice.
I applaud David's and your passion for social justice; I'm not so keen on the anger expressed at those of us who are trying to be good stewards of God's creation.
"You used the 'no intervention' theology to explain why you thought we should not worry about changing our polluting habits."
Pam BG. I have not argued this. You are putting words into my mouth.
I do not believe that CO2 is the pollutant that some people claim it is. I do not believe that the CO2 we produce is causing Climate Change.
I do think we should do something about waste, landfill etc. I do think we should take action on floating islands of plastic that everyone is ignoring.
It is not good stewardship to worry about something that either isn't happening or is caused by the Sun etc.
The waste of resources trying to stop the action of natural forces is bad stewardship.
Ian G - Thank you. At least that's an honest answer: that you don't believe CO2 pollution is an issue.
Now, if people could only agree to disagree at that level without all the histrionics about 'anyone who disagrees with my opinion doesn't care about the poor or is a heretic.'
Post a Comment