Categories
Climate Change Global Singeing

Open Letter to Chelmsford Diocese Environment Group

To : The Diocese of Chelmsford, Environment Group
Date : 30 May 2010
Subject : Motion for the Church of England Synod

Dear Environment Group,

I am aware that you are soon to decide on bringing a motion to Synod, in support of the Church of England’s Seven Year “Church and Earth” Climate Change Action Plan.

I am also aware of recent news that may affect your deliberations :-

“Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism”
The Times of London, 29 May 2010
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece

“Royal Society to publish guide on climate change to counter claims of ‘exaggeration'”
Daily Telegraph, 29 May 2010
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7778917/Royal-Society-to-publish-guide-on-climate-change-to-counter-claims-of-exaggeration.html

“Harrabin’s Notes: Getting the message : In his regular column, BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin looks at the fall-out from complaints that some of the Royal Society had oversimplified its messages in public statements on climate change.”
BBC, 29 May 2010
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178454.stm

May I commend to you the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, and in Great Britain the work of the Meteorological Office and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, in reaching resolution to your deliberations.

The robust findings of the IPCC in 2007 on the scientific basis for the risks posed by Climate Change have not been overruled by later evidence. In fact, they have been strengthened, as I am sure that the Royal Society will confirm and underline in their report in summer.

The recent reports by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America gives the nation’s administration and local government some tools to understand the likely impacts of Climate Change and how to communicate it and adapt to it.

The UK’s Met Office continues to work with a range of academic bodies, such as the international space agencies, to gather and process data on a wide variety of aspects of Global Warming and Climate Change, evidence that should not be disregarded, even when certain aspects of Climate Change future modelling have been shown to need refinement.

The Tyndall Centre is part of a network of academic institutions that affirm by their research that significant changes are afoot in the Earth system, already deleterious and likely to become critical. Climate Change is one of the stressors on the general environment, and is documented to be contributing to the loss of biodiversity, significant for the support of the food chain.

These and other research institutions are continuously engaged with the data and monitoring of changes in the global environment. They are part of a large, interconnected scientific community, whose conclusions are trustworthy.

By contrast, the journalists in the mainstream Media are almost entirely uninformed, and their opinions should be treated as mere commentary.

A BBC journalist, who shall remain unnamed, admitted recently that he has not even read the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, and yet he is regularly writing about Climate Change as part of his work.

Those members of the Royal Society who are not climatologists should make sure that they appraise themselves of the current facts before making pronouncements on the severity or verity of Climate Change.

Studies of changes in Earth history suggest that “climate sensitivity” is high, which means that rapid mitigation and reduction of Carbon Dioxide and Methane emissions are essential to maintain an equitable habitat for Life on Earth.

This is an ethical question, and so calls for spiritual reflection. I pray for wisdom and discernment in your discussions.

Yours sincerely,

Ms J. Abbess

One reply on “Open Letter to Chelmsford Diocese Environment Group”

actually recent evidence suggest climate sensitivity is low………

————–

The issue should of course be correctly called ‘man made climate change’ due to Man’s CO2, not the catch all ‘climate change’ which of course describe all the many natural process that have caused ice ages and warmed the planet up again aftwerwards.

The planet has naturally had experienced global warming trend, since a period known as the litle ice age ended some few hundred years ago.

ie man’s total co2 contribution is only 3% of co2 produced by nature in the world’s climate.

All scientists (me included) agree that CO2 is a minor green house gas (water vapour is the strongest and most abundant greenhouse at 95% of green house gases)

All scientists would agree that the theory of man’s contribution additional CO2 contribution COULD have an effect on the climate.

Many would agree that IF the CO2 in the atmosphere were to DOUBLE (this includes CO2 produced natuarlly by warming oceans to to the sun and from the biomass)
Then there COULD be up to 1.0C of warming in the next century…

What many people are sceptical about are the alarmist IPCC eco group predictions of +6.0 C or even recent predictions of +12.0C based on projections and assumptions programmed into a number of computer models…

What of course is left out of the discussions are that there are a number of models, Where even Bob Ward (Grantham Institute) confirmed on the BBC, these various models range from +1.0C to +10.0C in there projetions…It is only the lobby group, environmental alarmists that push the more extreme predictions.

If there was any certainity in these predictions, we would have only ONE computer model, the science would be broadly setled, the fact that there are many computer models with a wide range predicions demonstrates that care is required in depending on any particular output (ash clouds anybody)..

The computer models depend on various assumptions of climate sensitivity to CO2, and various assumptions of what degrees of positive feedback. The computer models use these different values to get different results.

Recent actual observed experimental data from the climate for these sensitivites and +feedback would indicate that the actual values, required for the predicions are much LOWER or even Negative, thus reducing total potential ‘man made’ warming to less than 0.5C

Absoultely nothing to worry about, in fact largely beneficial, as is the increased CO2 to plant growth…

The statements that we have experience ‘unprecedented’ warming in the 20th century, have also been shown to be false. Confirmation of with a BBC interview with Professor Phil Jones (CRU, UEA) confirmed that the rise in this period had not been statiscally greater in the rate of warming, or in the temperature achieved, compared to a number of other periods in recent human history (where the CO2 increase were much lower) thus demonstrating that the predictions of the models have been shown to be wrong.

Additionally, alrmist announcements that there would be increased, malria, ice cap melting , gulf stream shut of, ilsalnd sinking have al been shown to be false, unlikely or just propaganda..

Sea levels for example:
Tuvalu and kiribtati,(IPCC poster childs for global warming) have just had satellite observations published that demonstrated in the last 30 years these islands have actuall increased in land mass (as has Bangladesh) and due to the nature of how these islands are formed are at know risk of disappearing beneath the waves, ie coral grows, storm pick up debris and wash over the islands depositing mass. (something I learned in O level geography a quarter of a century ago) this seemed to surprise local ‘climate scientists..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10222679.stm

Additionally sea level predictions remain officially to be between 7.0cm and 59.0 cm in the next century (again a wide range based on computer models) observational evidence would indicate that the lower figure is more acurate. Whilst this entire range of predictions could not be said to be defiently due to man anyway, as this rate of sea level rise is completley inside previous rates of sea level rise naturally (for example, the english channel was did not exist 20,000 years ago – ancestors walked here, 6,000 years later, it is 45 m deep at the shallowest, a rate of sea level rise steeper than predicted with absolutely no human contribution.)

Please step back, thingk again before the trillions are wasted on a popular delusion. to the detriment of real environmental issues…

There are many real and pressing environmental concerns in the world, if the UK governnment could get off the man made co2 bandwagon) and actually spend the money due to be wasted on the man made ‘ climate change’ delusion.

One article (there are very many) may demonstrate a starting place to pause, reflect and think again..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

more on sea levels:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Or the government could have a chat with Lord Lawson (tory) author of Global Warming an Appeal to reason.

Or Christopher Bookers: The Real Global Warming Scandal
Or Andrew Montfords: The Hockey Stick Illusion
Or Professor Ian Plimer: Heaven and Earth (geoligiusts perspective)
Or Fuller/Mosher :Climategate – The Crutape Letters
As a start.

if you read for yourself IPCC working Group 1 report (the science)
and compare all the unknowns, coulds if, maybes in the ACTUAL science report..

with the the complete fiction in the IPCC reports for policy makers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.