Well, strictly speaking the actual Church where this paper is from backs the Trump Administration in its climate science denial. But as others have pointed out

Well, strictly speaking the actual Church where this paper is from backs the Trump Administration in its climate science denial. But as others have pointed out: the claims in this paper aren't very strong. Further, they don't directly dispute anthropogenic global warming. All they do is suggest that methane shouldn't be regulated because it breaks down over 40 years. However, it breaks down to component greenhouse gases, which the paper fails to mention. This seems to be a fatal stake in the heart of this argument. Did you skim the article in question? Even quickly? If not, don't you feel a bit ashamed for participating in this discussion without making even the most basic effort?