Statement from the Church of England’s College of Bishops on Climate Change

Posted by Kendall Harmon

As Christians we are called to love God, follow the path of Christ and love our neighbour as ourselves. From these aspects of Christian vocation and witness we derive an ethic and practice of care for God’s creation and action for justice and peace in safeguarding the environment on which all depend, which belongs to God, and which is in our care as faithful stewards and servants of God.

As a Church we recognise the gravity of the ecological problems facing our world and the need to deal with them in ways that offer justice, hope and sustainable livelihood to the poor of the earth. We are committed in the spirit of the Christian faith to work with others, especially those of other faiths, for sustainable development – development that brings justice and decent living standards to the poor and marginalised, that uses wisely the resources of the earth, that safeguards the richness of God’s good Earth for future generations.

With less than four months to go before the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, in December 2009, this year’s Time for Creation provides an obvious occasion for the Church to join with others across Europe in prayerful reflection on those political decisions that need to be taken by governments to safeguard the integrity of God’s creation.

Read the whole release.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalAnglican ProvincesChurch of England (CoE)CoE Bishops* Economics, PoliticsEnergy, Natural Resources* TheologyEthics / Moral Theology

8 Comments
Posted September 27, 2009 at 3:26 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Jeffersonian wrote:

But how does one determine if there’s global warming (or even the retrenched “climate change,” a tautology if there ever was one) if there’s no data?

September 27, 8:11 pm | [comment link]
2. CanaAnglican wrote:

Have you had a look at data provided by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center?  Some of them are found at:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1

Perhaps some other climatologists would comment on these data.

September 27, 9:12 pm | [comment link]
3. Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] wrote:

Good-oh

September 28, 7:34 am | [comment link]
4. Billy wrote:

Astronaut Harrison “Jack” Schmidtt said today that he has been involved with the scientists who have been studying climate change for many years since his retirement from being an active astronaut, and that the factual data supports that the sun is the only force causing climate change, just like it did in past ice ages and warm ages.  He said further that the scientists who support a global warming theory are those who base all of their conclusions on computer models, but that almost all scientists who have tried to set up computer models agree that the issues are too complex for any current computer models to be accurate, other than the fact that the sun actually is in control of climate.  Like so much of our new age of enlightenment, we think we are in control and can change anything in our world by our own will.  It just ain’t so, and God knows it, even if we don’t.

September 28, 4:06 pm | [comment link]
5. Sick & Tired of Nuance wrote:

What will the exact temperature range for the day be in Boston three weeks from now on the 19th of October?  Exactly how much cloud cover and rain will there be?  What will be the precise wind speed[s] and direction[s] for the day?  What will be the exact amount of precipitation for the day?

If the “science” of predicting climate change over the next twenty years is so accurate and so compelling that we must radically change our tax structures and entire industries to prevent global warming, then there should be no difficulty in providing precise three week forcasts for a specific city, should there?

On the other hand, if the models cannont predict the weather only three weeks from now, for a specific known geographic point, with at least a century of recorded weather history, how accurate can they be?

Yeah, I’ll just wait for the answer on that one…

September 28, 7:05 pm | [comment link]
6. CanaAnglican wrote:

The study of climate change has nothing to do with what will happen in a specific place on a specific day, or any such questions as:  “What will the exact temperature range for the day be in Boston three weeks from now on the 19th of October?  Exactly how much cloud cover and rain will there be?  What will be the precise wind speed[s] and direction[s] for the day?  What will be the exact amount of precipitation for the day?”

On the other hand, if you examine the NOAA graphs at the top of the link given in #2 above you will see a definite warming trend.  Anyone not interested in the data shouldn’t bother.  I expect Astronaut Harrison “Jack” Schmidtt has looked at these graphs and has talked with the “sun only” crowd.  They don’t talk much with the “greenhouse gas only” crowd.  The answer may be in between, but if we are past the tipping point no one can do anything anyway.

September 28, 8:34 pm | [comment link]
7. Sick & Tired of Nuance wrote:

The study of climate change has everything to do with predictive computer modeling and my point was that if they can’t even manage to accurately make relatively simple predictions about short term local weather conditions, how can the models be trusted to accurately predict the enormously more complex global climate variables? 

We are currently experiencing global cooling, which coincides with reduced solar activity.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658580/posts

September 29, 12:20 am | [comment link]
8. CanaAnglican wrote:

Ah, but the long-range models can make some reasonable predictions about the gross trends in global patterns.  The short-range models are doing an ever better job predicting local features.  I have been tracking the quality of forcasting for over 40 years.  The new NAM (North American Mesoscale) model is better than the NGM (National Grid Model) which it replaced in March of this year.  The NAM looks ahead 72 hours and is about as reliable as 12-hour forcasting was 40 years ago.  Other products from NOAA’s Model Output Statistics Office reach out 8 days and while not perfect, provide amazing guidance.

I am not a reader of the “Free Republic,” but I think I can support their statement in the second line of the article you posted :  “Actually, global warming is likely to continue”.  As the trend marches hortter, of course there will be years that drop slightly —it is a “jagged” rise, not smooth.  Still it is a convincing trend.  Here is a quote from NOAA:

“The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.”

I think their data covered only the seven years 02 -08 — seven of the eight warmest years on record.

September 29, 9:45 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Jordan Hylden reviews Benjamin John King’s new book on John Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers

Previous entry (below): Jonathan Sacks—Holy days are an annual check to mission drift

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)