Like Rupert Wyndham at Climaterealists, I have had some clashes with senior clergy over social issues including climate change.
However, I don’t think I have ever written to an archbishop in tones quite like this:
And, dare it be said, for those such as yourself, in the vanguard of so called “faith communities”, who arrogate to themselves the role of moral leadership, this gives rise to serious questions, does it not? Indeed, in many ways, “Climategate” is less about the “science” – which anyway is garbage – than it is about the integrity of the scientific process, an issue of immensely greater ethical significance for all who value truth as well as democratic accountability. AGW science has been exposed as a fraud, by far the gravest in the entire history of science. The AGW hypothesis itself is no better than a glib and distorted misrepresentation of a 100 year old speculation relating to the so-called Greenhouse Effect allied to invented evidence concocted within the guts of a computer by individuals with a predetermined agenda coupled with huge personal vested interests – financial and otherwise …
That, of course, leaves you in a quandary, does it not? Either you repudiate this ethical obscenity and, in a spirit of Christian repentance, exercise moral authority or you continue to promote it and abrogate moral auhority. Although religious leaders often seem to find the concept seductive, what you cannot do is both to wolf your bun and hang on to your penny. Your predecessor thought he could. He was wrong.
Ouch! But quite right.
It is one thing to have gangs of scientists saying ‘We’re scientists. The world is ending. Give us billions of dollars and we’ll fix it.’
It is another thing entirely to have religious leaders telling people they are stupid or immoral if they disagree.