As I wrote previously, when you mention climate change, people generally fall into one of two positions. Either they believe all that they have read seen or heard or else they are skeptical and are often called ‘climate deniers.’ As I previously wrote, I am not taking an absolute position on this. I am not denying climate change. Rather, I simply want to draw attention to the aspects of climate change that have not always been reported in the mainstream media, at least in America.
We can see some of the differences when we take a look at both the reports on the bushfires in Australia and also the situation in China and India.
AUSTRALIAN BUSHFIRES
I grew up in Australia and could only watch from afar as a nation went up in flames. The Australian bushfires have become, for climate change advocates, a vivid example of the effect of climate change. The Washington Post ran an article entitled ‘In Australia, Climate Denial Goes Up in Smoke,’ as though bushfires ended any discussion on the subject. But is this so?
\Recently, I had a letter sent me from my old homeland which pointed out bushfires like these ones have happened before. Let me quote, “EIGHTY-ONE YEARS AGO (13th January 1939) with temperatures above 110°F (45°C) across Victoria and the state in drought, bushfires consumed 3,700 buildings across the state, 71 lives were lost and 5 towns COMPLETELY DESTROYED- never to be rebuilt. The ROYAL COMMISSION into ”Black Friday” concluded; ‘There had been no fires to equal these in destructiveness or intensity in the history of settlement in this State, EXCEPT PERHAPS THE FIRES OF 1851, which, too, came at summer CULMINATION OF A LONG DROUGHT'” This was written by someone who was there in the bush fires of 1939. The writer goes on to say, “Every child in every Australian school should be taught about the events of ‘Black Friday’ 1939 to give them an understanding and appreciation of the extreme danger of the Australian bush. However keeping them IGNORANT of Australia’s bushfire history makes it far easier to radicalise them and recruit them into the CLIMATE CULT. As Orwell noted; ‘The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.’ And yet today we are being told by our leaders that this is the NEW NORMAL??? Oh, no, this time is DIFFERENT —- now we are being brainwashed into believing the GOSPEL of the NEW religion of CLIMATE CHANGE!!”
On the same day, I received the above letter, I received another one with an opposite point of view stating, “Even in Oz many people make the mistake of citing earlier droughts, fires, and floods as proof that the land has always been buffeted by such catastrophes. And, to a point, they are correct. Indeed, in the past Oz has endured many severe natural disasters, which at least in some aspects have been worse than we are currently suffering. But the difference now is that such events are happening earlier, lasting longer, occurring much more frequently, and causing more extensive damage. The costs to our economy are enormous. And there is a general scientific consensus that climate change is a major contributor to these events, and that human activity is at least partly (if not largely) to blame for our rising temperatures (2019 was the hottest year on record for Oz) and our altered climate.”
And then, on top of that, I received another article that made the case that “Australian aborigines practiced land management, including ‘cultural burning,’ which helped prevent fire risks and protected natural habitat.” The article later stated, “The carefully managed fire practices used by Indigenous Australians were drastically altered with the arrival of Europeans in 1788 – with disastrous consequences” (abc.net.au). Europeans unleashed a whole new era of wildfires, more intense and more frequent fires.
Steve Pyne, an Emeritus Professor at Arizona State University, specializing in environmental history, says, “A renewed focus on Aboriginal land practices must guide our future thinking . . . you are not going to do it with air tankers and engines, you’re going to have to do it with fire” (abc.net.au).
Well, there you have it. This is a complex issue, especially when you throw in the controversy over recent laws to forbid ‘back burning,’ called ‘controlled burning’ in America, along with the arrest of arsonists (at least 20 people have been charged). Furthermore, you have the economic issues of mining coal and the power stations that run on fossil fuels, as well as the exportation of coal.
CHINA AND INDIA
One aspect of climate change that is not sufficiently confronted is the fact that no matter what America (or other Western nations) do to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, no sizable change will take place unless there is a major change in the use of fossil fuels in both China and India. Now, this then becomes both a political and economic issue. It affects all sorts of things. A recent article, ‘Australia’s China Syndrome’ points out Australia’s increasing dependence on trade with China. It also stated, “Australia’s increasing economic dependence on China is perhaps clearest in its education sector. In Sydney, three universities-the University of Sydney, the University of New South Wales, and the University of Technology at Sydney-enroll 36,500 Chinese students, more than double the population of central Sydney. Each enrolls more Chinese students than any American school” (city-journal.org). So climate change is one part of a larger economic and political picture.
LAST WORD
I will be interested in receiving feedback from these last two Langstaff Letter on climate change. This is a complex issue, but one that we are forced to face, so this will not be the last letter on the subject.
RESOURCES
https://www.city-journal.org/australian-economy-china-dependency
Kairos Ministries 
As I understand it, some of the people (scientists) promoting climate change were also predicting back in the 1970’s a new ice age. Also, as I understand it, scientists have known for many decades
that climate tends to move in 50-60 year cycles. Coastal cities being swamped? When the ice in a
glass of water melts, the water level doesn’t rise because the ice had already displaced the water.
Just some thoughts.
Good article Pastor Alan.
I believe I mentioned the recent (11,000 years ago or so and had lasted for several million years) Ice Age that scientists claim ended in my comments on the first “Climate Change” letter. Now common sense would tell us that for an “Ice Age” to end, the temperatures would have to slowly, but steadily rise to a level incapable of supporting the ice that science tells us was covering most of the known world. And I do not believe that there to be any scientific evidence that conclusively proves that once the temperatures no longer support an “Ice Age” they just stop rising. Science would suggest that temperatures would continue to rise, bit by bit, until a “peak” is reached, and the cycle turns back towards another “Ice Age” with temperatures gradually falling (supposedly millions of years from the last time). Science also tells us this has happened many times in the billions of years the earth has been in existence. So logically, we should expect the temperature to slowly increase each year. I also mentioned that Science claims that during the time of the Dinosaur, most of the world was akin to a tropical rain forest (stands to reason since we know that reptiles cannot cope with the cold very well). And as anyone who lives in Minnesota will tell you, we are not exactly living in a tropical rain forest. For a lot of the year, we are much closer to that “Ice Age”.
For me, another example of the scientific mish-mash they are trying to sell us on… the rising oceans. It goes something like this… “if all the ice at the North Pole melts it will cause flooding and half the land in the world will be under water”… I find it hilarious that all of the big names that claim this have all bought beachfront property within the last few years. Check it out and you will find that former President Obama just bought a large mansion on Martha’s Vineyard. If you really believed the oceans were going to rise, and drown all of the coasts, would you spend millions of dollars buying a home/property right on the coast. Think on that.
From my research, if all of the floating ice (most if not all of the Arctic Circle) were to suddenly melt… the oceans would not rise a single inch. That is because frozen water does not miraculously weigh less or have less mass than fluid water. And easy example of this: fill a glass with ice and then fill up the glass with a drink of your choice. Let the glass sit until all of the ice has melted. The glass will not overflow. So, the only ice that would make a difference in melting, would be the land-bound glaciers (as they are not presently applying weight to the oceans. There might be enough water in those land-bound glaciers to cause a change, but would it be enough to flood the world… doubtful.
My apologies for such a long comment, but I hope this helps to show that while climate change may exist to a certain extent, it is certainly not the crisis they would have us believe.