Monthly Archives: March 2010

God is Green

Menlo Park – 15th March 2010

Begins by comparing two visions for the environment – both with Christian roots.  The first is Lynn White’s famous paper which assessed that Christianity was inherently hostile to nature – that it saw humans as different and above nature, and therefore legitimised violence towards that nature.

The second comes from Stuart Pimm, a Christian winner of the Heinenken prize who attributes his own ecological sensibilities to his faith as a Christian.

Then surveys the human relationship with nature in Genesis 1 and 2 (preferring to talk about Creation), and then Jesus’ lordship over all creation especially from Colossians 1.

8mins quote from Abraham Kuyper

“There is not one square inch in all creation over which Jesus Christ does not cry out “This is mine!””

If you love the art, then you learn to love the artist.

16 mins – to love creation is to love what God loves.  God loves trees, a tree glorifies God by being a tree – the verse in Deuteronomy 20 – when you lay siege to a city, do not destroy that city’s trees.

Jesus would go into creation when he wanted to experience the presence of God.

The creation is God’s refrigerator

22 mins – caring for oxen in the scriptures (do not muzzle and ox), or the ten commandments – the animals are glad if their owner gets converted because then they get to have a sabbath.

23 mins – Richard Forster

“We plant evergreens and compost garbage

We clean a room and put coasters under glasses

And in this way we help to tidy up Eden.”

24 mins – Francis Schaeffer, we are not the same as other parts of creation, we are different, otherwise we would be a species that wiped out other species. So we have to have the correct relationship with creation – we are stewards.

The Bible is lived around three trees – the tree in the garden, the tree on which Jesus died, and the tree which is for the healing of the nations in Revelation.

Letter to a climate sceptic – part 2


Look at the page you sent me from Booker’s book (The Real Global Warming Disaster – page 22) – he quotes temperature records from Central England (paragraph 1), Greenland (paragraph 1), the Thames (paragraph 2), Russia (paragraph 2), Washington DC (paragraph 4).  None of these measures used global temperature readings.  In other words you can have local variability without similar global changes.

But Booker never mentions the Baliunas and Soon controversy; never deals with it at all as far as I can see.

So I have to ask: why?  Is he pathologically contrarian? (likely)  Does he have links to the oil industry? (less likely)  Is he one of these people who won’t back down from an argument, even when the evidence keeps coming out against them?  (highly likely)

And I also have to ask : can I trust him to independently mediate the truth to me?  Every time I press at Booker’s research (and I have done so with an open mind), I have found it flawed.  He does not deal with his sources fairly, he praises the people who agree with him, and disparages those who do not, without actually dealing with their research.  In short, in this subject he cannot be trusted.  He should stick to literature.

Finally, let me show you this graph.  It shows ten different climate reconstructions, and is based on the graph here .
Temperature Reconstruction
What really struck me when I read this was the red line which rises very steeply at the end of the graph.  I thought this must be some rogue study.  However, if you look at the key, this is the actual instrumental record.  This is not a reconstruction, this is what has actually been measured.  The actual recorded data is even more worrying than the reconstructions.

In my previous letter I had asked you “What actually convince you that global temperature rises are taking place?”
Your answer (implicitly dismissive of the predictive powers of science) was that you would be convinced if it “continued unabated”.  This graph here shows it continuing unabated at the moment.  Your test has been met.  The question I suppose now is “How much unabatement would leave you convinced.”

Thank you again XXXX , I really am so grateful to have had the chance to learn more about this subject, and I do await your thoughts,

Neil