The philosopher Wittgenstein asserted that “the world is everything that is the case. It is constituted by facts, by all the facts.” One of the difficulties in understanding the COP 26 process, is distinguishing between facts and interpretations of facts: global warming is a fact; while global warming due to human activities is as yet an interpretation of facts. It is by far the most convincing interpretation of the facts, and therefore a reasonable basis on which to make decisions, but in the face of ideologically motivated denials of global warming it is important to insist that the increase in global temperatures is factual and cannot be denied by anyone except an idiot, whereas the view that this increase is caused by human activity is only an overwhelmingly probable interpretation which could be sensibly denied by someone with a more probable interpretation.

The facts are of primary importance and we protect them by not confusing them with interpretations no matter how probable these may seem.

“Richer nations will give £xbillion to help poorer nations manage the effects of climate change.” This is not a fact but a persuasive interpretation of a decision taken by richer nations. In fact much of this transfer of funds will be in the form of loans.

“This conference is not about climate change: it is about business as usual and blah, blah, blah.” That also is not a fact, but an interpretation persuasive to some, of what COP 26 is doing. There is no reason why Greta Thunberg should limit herself to facts, except that in opposing the ideologies of powerful people, a scrupulous use of facts may be her most effective weapon. For example, it is a fact that younger people will bear more of the consequences of global warming than older people. Her repeated announcement of this fact has rightly gained her the support of many young people.

This may seem an odd way to think about COP26, but as with the Covid pandemic, facts as discovered by sciences, should be carefully distinguished from all responses to the facts, even if some of these responses are made by scientists. This purist understanding of facts is helpful not just in refuting the wild assertions of malevolent or crazed ideologues, but also in using the precious facts for the welfare of human survival on this planet. We have got into this mess by giving too much credence to powerfully communicated opinions, such as those of the petrochemical industry, and too little to the disturbing facts of climate change.

In a world of largely uncontrolled mass media, facts are ever more vital, as being the only evidence that we are dealing with reality, rather than our own or someone else’s fantasy. There are at least two issues about facts that ought to be acknowledged:

1. Wittgenstein spoke of ALL the facts. Some scientists have imagined that only their disciplines deal with facts, while others like, say, art or religion deal solely with meanings and interpretations. This arrogance should not be accepted. All rigorous forms of human study may discover and use facts. The facts of beauty or prayer are as relevant to human survival as those of physics.

2. Facts require interpretation, without which they remain isolated atoms of knowledge. If we are severe about what counts as fact, we should be indulgent about what counts as interpretation of them. A scientific prediction on the one hand and a dystopian novel on the other may be equally valuable interpretations of climate change fact.

In a culture that respects facts, there will be a continuing role for faith communities, but only IF they are honest about the facts of their own faith. All faith communities have asserted as fact things that are beliefs. Indeed, people have been expelled or even killed as heretics for challenging some of these. This has to stop. No holy book was ever dictated or even verbally inspired by God. To claim that it was, is to mistake belief for fact. I may say that the Bible is authoritative for all Christian believers because God speaks through it. But if I invent a story about God dictating the Pentateuch to Moses, I have turned my faith into a pseudo- fact. Christianity has become better at this, but Islam, for example, will not permit any historical investigation of its origins.

I have been assuming so far that we are able to tell what constitutes a fact in any discipline. This is not an easy matter. Even chemists, physicist and biologists will admit that their disciplines have made new discoveries which reveal that what was taken as fact was not. How can the facts change? My next blog will deal with this issue in some detail.

Confucius uses a word junzi to designate the great, or noble, or superior person as opposed to the small, ignoble and inferior person. I prefer to translate this as the “large-minded person” as opposed to the small-minded.

Here are some of his sayings:

The large-minded person knows what is right; the small-minded knows what is profitable.

This is sharp enough even today to distinguish amongst delegations at the COP26 conference. Yes, there are some who know what is right, but there are many who look to what is profitable, and hope to make a profit out of either the failure of climate control or its success, but have no interest in what is right. Confucius is unsparing in his criticism of such people.

Jesus told unforgettable stories about lovers of profit, like the rich farmer whose expansion plans are summarily cut short by his death; or the rich man who imagines that even in hell the poor man can be used as a slave to bring him water. Such people are called foolish in traditional Jewish language, whereas the large-minded are called wise. “There was a wise man who built his house upon rock..” This is a person who puts Jesus’ teaching into practice rather than just thinking about it.

Confucius has a similar distinction: “in the case of the large-minded person, her words follow her actions.” Had that principle been followed at COP26 there wouldn’t have been much said. He added that the large-minded person is “slow to speak but quick to act.” His ideal is not a person who never speaks but one whose thoughts, words and actions are integrated.

Jesus also touched on the same distinction: “Not those who say,’Lord, Lord, but those who do the will of my father in heaven.” Modern biblical scholars have noted that Jesus stands in the Jewish Wisdom Tradition, which includes Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Song of Songs, and is a major element in Judaism. Wisdom has a divine origin but reflects the nitty- gritty of human living. The large-mindedness praised by Confucius is similarly practical and profound. Appreciation of disturbing facts is part of wisdom and large-mindedness, such as those provided by the earth scientists for the benefit of politicians.

A deeper understanding of the large-minded person is contained in the saying: “The large-minded person is not a vessel.” Confucius means not a man or woman to be filled with facts, opinions, ideologies, or even by wise teachings, but a true and creative identity who says and does new things. Confucius is himself like this. Although he is comprehensively aware of the traditions of his people, he is his own man, his own mind, soul and spirit, offering his characteristic insights for the benefit of his people.

Jesus too was expert in the Law , the Prophets and the Writings of his people, but he is described as “having authority and not as the scribes,” and most beautifully compares himself to a “spring of living water bubbling up into everlasting life.” He is the spring, not the vessel.

We should make sure that the authority and freshness of our large-minded spiritual teachers can be brought to bear upon the issues of global warming.

When Confucius was asked what his immediate priority would be if he took over the government, he answered, “I would put the words right.”

He defended his view by arguing that if the words are wrong, people will not believe what the government says, and if they don’t believe they will not obey the laws, and if they don’t obey the laws there will be chaos. He did not have a mechanical view of language, but advised people to study good models, and to speak honestly, to give a true account of the nation. Weasley language leads to weasley policies which do not effect what they claim.

For example, take “net zero emissions” Now you might think that this means that any actual carbon emissions are offset by actual reductions now of the carbon in the atmosphere. No such luck: net zero emissions means that actual emissions are offset by purely notional reductions in carbon, to be achieved in the future by planted trees and the technology of carbon capture. Paying for these future means of carbon reduction allows me to continue polluting now.

So Net Zero Carbon actually means lots of carbon plus a good story.

If we want to survive we may need to put the words “net zero” right by going back to talking about real zero emissions now, and legislating for that, no matter the screams and threats from the petrochemical corporations.

Confucius talked about putting the words right first. The Gospel,of John says, “in the beginning was the word.” Confucius spoke of making a true account, and Sarah Ruden’s recent translation of the Gospel says, “In the beginning was the true account.” The Jesus tradition like the Confucian, sees the primacy of right language which comes from beyond but is used amongst human beings by the wise man or messiah. Jesus disliked promotional language. “Why do you call me good? Only one is good, namely God.” “Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything more comes from the devil.” His whole ministry can be seen as an assault on the false meanings given by religious leaders to words like “sinner,” “just” “blessed” “saved”. He tells Pilate that people who belong to the truth will hear his voice. Like a true COP26 politician, Pilate replies, “What is truth?”

As Confucius and the Christian tradition know, the true account is foundational, and can be discerned by honest people with help from the True Leaders. We must bring the rigour of our spiritual traditions to bear on what we are being told about net zero carbon. And the rest. If we put the words right we may be able to put the world right.

I’d been reading the rhetoric from the first day of the COP 26 Conference, including that of Greta Thunberg, and recognised that all presupposed that the conference ought to come up with definitive solutions to the vast range of problems lumped together under the title “global warming.” There are problems as well as benefits with this focus, because it tries to limit the maximum level of global temperature increase, while ignoring the many destructive habits, attitudes and practices which may not contribute directly to that increase, but damage the earth and its creatures.

Be that as it may, my main worry about the rhetoric of “one minute to midnight” “we should have started yesterday” and so on, is that only a comprehensive, magically effective solution will be deemed sufficient. Anything else will not measure up to the expectation created by the COP 26 hype. After all, why is the conference seeking what we should do? We already know what we have to do, both positively and negatively. We know we have to reduce drastically our dependence on fossil fuels, for example. We have to get rid of the internal combustion engine as a means of transport. Soon. We are presently not doing so because of the power of the petrochemical industry and the huge numbers of car owners who don’t want to change. No magic decision of COP 26 can alter this. People who want their grandchildren to have decent lives must insist on this change. The facts about global warming and how to ameliorate it are clear and available. And there is no magic will spare us the simple tasks that will cure it.

Look at the wonderfully wise Bible story below. It is of course legendary, coming from the 9th century BCE.

“Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man and in high favor with his master, because by him the Lord had given victory to Aram. The man, though a mighty warrior, suffered from leprosy.^{[a] 2} Now the Arameans on one of their raids had taken a young girl captive from the land of Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife. ³ She said to her mistress, “If only my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”^{[b] 4} So Naaman^[c] went in and told his lord just what the girl from the land of Israel had said. ⁵ And the king of Aram said, “Go then, and I will send along a letter to the king of Israel.”

He went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, and ten sets of garments. ⁶ He brought the letter to the king of Israel, which read, “When this letter reaches you, know that I have sent to you my servant Naaman, that you may cure him of his leprosy.”^{[d] 7} When the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his clothes and said, “Am I God, to give death or life, that this man sends word to me to cure a man of his leprosy?^[e] Just look and see how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me.”

⁸ But when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his clothes, he sent a message to the king, “Why have you torn your clothes? Let him come to me, that he may learn that there is a prophet in Israel.” ⁹ So Naaman came with his horses and chariots, and halted at the entrance of Elisha’s house. ¹⁰ Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go, wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean.” ¹¹ But Naaman became angry and went away, saying, “I thought that for me he would surely come out, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and would wave his hand over the spot, and cure the leprosy!^{[f] 12} Are not Abana^[g] and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?” He turned and went away in a rage. ¹³ But his servants approached and said to him, “Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, ‘Wash, and be clean’?” ¹⁴ So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.”

Notice how the impetus for the action comes from an Israeli slave girl who has no hatred for her captors and great trust in the wisdom of the Prophet. Then the King of Aram makes the health of his favourite a matter of international diplomacy by commanding his vassal king of Israel to produce the magic cure. The embassy to Israel is made with the greatest amount of fuss and prestige.

For his part the Israeli King is clueless, seeing only an excuse for the forces of Aram to attack him. But Elisha sees an opportunity to heal the man while demonstrating the wisdom God has given him. He relies on facts, understanding the disease and knowing the cure, which he recommends to Naaman, who so much expects a supernatural miracle, tailored just for him, that he rejects Elisha’s prescription out of hand.

He is a powerful, important person and only a powerful, important cure with appropriate pageantry will do. But again, ordinary people, in this case his attendants intervene. They say in effect, well, maybe he knows that this river water does the job. You can’t lose by checking it out. They are common sense people who see that Elisha has offered a common sense scientific solution. At last the man is cured, but he still wants to believe in a magic cure provided just for himself.

It’s a story that exposes the arrogant ineptitude of the great when faced with a basic human problem. We should not be surprised if some of this ineptitude is evident in COP 26. There are no magic cures. The biblical message suggests that ordinary people can respond to God’s prophets, the climate scientists, by doing the simple but demanding tasks they recommend.

Out of sheer curiosity, having landed on a site which advertised “Scottish Life Expectancy” I clicked and found myself asked to declare my sex and age. When I did so, it told me: Your average life expectancy is 88 years, giving me also a 2.5% probability of reaching 100 years. Well, for a Glasgow male of my generation, that seems not bad.

I have already tried to alter my perspective on death, recognising that I should no longer think of it as a vague, distant possibility, but rather as a near certainty, without however, succeeding. This prediction on the other hand, lets me look at a short span of years after which the Big Sleep will overtake me. I won’t deny that it challenges me, especially to do the things I should to benefit my dear ones. Indeed I would hope not to die before my wife who has restricted mobility and relies on me for daily assistance, as well as companionship.

Once these duties are done I cannot think that I am too bothered by my absence from land of the living: I’ve had a fortunate life, blessed with much happiness and moments of profound meaning. I’ve had the opportunity to express the best of what I am, and have largely been restrained from expressing the worst. I have been a citizen of a lively democracy seeking a greater responsibility for its own affairs. I have been a minister of a open-minded church which has struggled honestly to interpret the faith of Jesus for our times. What’s not to like? I can die content with the life I have been given.

I know however that the majority of human beings who have shared these almost 80 years of life on earth have not been so lucky, living in poverty or under oppression, suffering fear, disease hunger, pain, insult and insecurity. If there is for them no resurrection, no liberation, no divine restitution, then there is also no God. Because I believe in God, I therefore expect resurrection for them, and for me also, with the expectation of life with God, which. I suppose I may find a little, eh, stretching.

I am also sad to leave the planet in a worse condition than it was given to me. Whatever the result of Cop 26 in Glasgow, many catastrophic changes have already taken place, and will continue until my death and beyond it. It remains possible that human beings, having made so may species extinct, will eventually top themselves.

A a hillwalker I would especially be grieved at the disappearance of the Dotterel

This beautiful wading bird now breeds only on the highest mountain plateaux in Scotland because it needs almost arctic spring conditions, which are now vanishing from this land due to global warming. They have often been my only companions in the high tops offering their trustful, inquisitive presence, even when they were feeding chicks, a duty mainly done by the male bird. Fortunately suitable breeding grounds still exist in Scandinavia and the Arctic, but the increasing absence of this unique form of life from our terrain is a measure of the savage carelessness of Homo sapiens.

Calvin thought that the chief purpose of human life was to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. I like to think this is the chief purpose of all life; and am glad to have been able to share in the glory the dotterel has brought to its maker.