New Page 1

CR does it yet again. This is the SEVENTH time I have had to contact you pointing out what I maintain are gross and dangerous FALSEHOODS in the CR Review. This time they appear in the Michaelmass 2024 edition, in an article purportedly written by Barbara Keal, who I understand is a known and self-proclaimed activist (and, interestingly, whose contact details are unobtainable).

Why is CR once more trumpeting a position readily discernible as extreme, unproven, unsupported, unscientific and dangerous? Why does CR persist in promulgating fabrication (as previously revealed evidentially) through its official publication? How can a group of men apparently committed to the teachings of our Lord continue to indulge in spreading (as previously disclosed in detail) serious misstatements?

How many more times do I have to tell you - and supply multiple scientific sources in full and unquestionable support (all of which you have hitherto obviously totally ignored) that there is NO, repeat NO “Climate and Ecological Emergency” as is damagingly mentioned in the CR Review?

How many more times do I have to explain to you that Carbon Dioxide emissions (97% of which occur naturally, i.e. they are NOT man-made) DO NOT “create global heating that destabilises the climate”, as stated in the article? Such an assertion is merely a regurgitation not of facts, not of science but, instead, of complete scaremongering made-up nonsense. As I have repeatedly previously demonstrated, any variations in climate experienced in specified locations are within historic tolerances by a very wide margin indeed and any such tiny changes are NOT being exacerbated by human activities.

How many more times do I have to aver to you that Carbon Dioxide is NOT, repeat, NOT a pollutant - as the article avows - but is a molecule which is vital for ALL life on earth? Without it, life ceases and at just over two parts per million less than the present atmospheric levels of it all plants die (which would lead to the same outcome).

How many more times do I have to state, clearly and unequivocally, that there is NO “mass extinction and ecological breakdown” (as is written in the CR Review) taking place?

Anybody can write any words about anything but unless these are supported by FACTS, they have no merit whatsoever. I could write that God does not exist, Jesus was never crucified, there was no Resurrection and no outpouring of the Holy Spirit but you would never publish such blasphemy. Why? Not just because you happen to believe otherwise but because you have the benefit of 2000 years of accumulated experience of the outpourings of Grace and personal knowledge of such matters. Why then do you continue to choose to give credence to opinions which are equally as demonstrably false as the ones in my illustration immediately above? You have already admitted to me - in writing - that you “are not climate scientists” yet you persist in publishing statements by yourselves and others on a subject about which you know absolutely nothing. Many would see these continual occurrences as a gross dereliction in your duty always to follow the truth and to declare that truth, not the easily demonstrable invalid position and entirely false belief which you so obviously have and which can be so easily debunked with real science and empirical observations.

Knowing, as stated earlier, that you have totally and utterly failed to take any notice whatsoever of all the evidence to counter your position which I have supplied in my previous communications, I am not on this occasion even going to go to the trouble, as I have before, to break down in detail why the statements which appear in the Michaelmass edition of the CR Review are not only incorrect but are not even remotely credible. Instead, I resend three graphs (primarily for the benefit of those BCCd into this e-mail who may not have seen my previous communications) and, importantly, I refer you to two easily digestible recent articles - links to which are below. I PLEAD with you to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest these:

Every time I point out - as politely as my now wafer thin patience allows - your errors and the danger of bellowing these far and wide, I also plead that you cease and desist in repeating these in the future. I do so again here.

I have opined to you before that the Community has seemingly lost its way and appears out of control. This latest breach of even basic scrutiny when publishing an article in your widely-read periodical fully supports that view. Unlike any recognition or acceptance by you that the stance (by your own admission acquired through ignorance) which you have taken on climate matters might be utterly wrong, I would love my view of a Community no longer apparently under management, direction or regulation to be proven wrong.