Praise the Lord and pass the sunscreen and gasmasks, its a bunch of religious nut-job global warming deniers.

Dan informed me this morning of someone I would consider a star candidate for the label the “dipwit of the month”, and I did a bit of snooping and found this guy ain’t alone. One of Dan’s favourite sites, DeSmogBlog, has posted some information on an upcoming science-fiction conference where this guy is going to speak, and I found out a bit more about the agency he represents. Here is the conference:

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

Sponsored by The Heartland Institute

March 2 - March 4, 2008
Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel
1535 Broadway
New York City, NY U.S.A.

“Science fiction?” you ask. “Why yes”, I answer. Here are the published goals of the conference:

The goals of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change are:

• to bring together the world’s leading scientists, economists, and policy experts to explain the often-neglected “other side” of the climate change debate;

• to sponsor presentations and papers that make genuine contributions to the global debate over climate change;

• to share the results of the conference with policymakers, civic and business leaders, and the interested public as an antidote to the one-sided and alarmist bias that pervades much of the current public policy debate; and

• to set the groundwork for future conferences and publications that can turn the debate toward sound science and economics, and away from hype and political manipulation.

Now, this meeting is akin to those silly creation-science “teach the (non-existent) controversy” conferences in terms of its directed agenda and playing fast and loose with real sciency stuff. Just ask Dan. He’s been to a real university and owns lots of books and thing like that. And he’s read them. Anyway, one of the speakers is a certain Cal Beisner of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. On their site, Beisner is listed as belonging to the Knox Theological Seminary in Florida, but when I searched that institution’s site, I found no references to him. Perhaps I didn’t look closely enough. But, “WTF?” you may ask, “is a theologian guy doing at a sciency conference at all?” And well you might. But it seems that our Dr. Beisner, has personlly caught the eye of DeSmogBlog and so an answer can quickly be had.

Here is the gist of what DeSmog has to say in their “briefing” on the good Doctor-Not-of-Science. Among his writings are some that critique climate science, including:

Global Warming - why Evangelicals should not be alarmed.

Deep Ecology, Neo-paganism, and the Irrationalism of Global Warming Hysteria

Holy Jebus B. Gobley™ Gore-Guy!!! I did warn the regular readers some time ago about the dangers of non-Christian eco-paganism! Anyway, DeSmog reports that Beisner also whined about federal (U.S., not godless Canada-type federal) money going to research and combat AIDS, arguing that “almost 100 percent” of the AIDS cases are “self-inflicted”, the result of immorality. He bitches about the “militant” homosexual lobby. And don’t get him started on intelligent design being barred from classrooms.

Anyway, The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance to which he belongs is a funny bunch. In 2000, a coalition of various Christian, Jewish and “other scholars” drafted the “The Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship”, that now has some 1500 signatories, “and has come to be viewed as one of the most significant expressions of belief about religion and the environment in modern times”. By who we are not told. Anyway, I.S.A.’s site says that the document addresses three obstacles to a a “sound environmental ethic”.

First, the document notes that “many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumer and polluters rather than producers and stewards.” This is important because a right understanding allows “growing affluence, technological innovation, and the application of human and material capital” to improve the condition of all living things.

Jeepers. We are not “producers and polluters but we are “producers and stewards”. There is a fundamental distinction that is blurred here between what we are and what we ought to be. But look what it is justifying: “growing affluence”. Now, this is a good thing, especially if you are poor. And there are an awful lot of very poor people on this planet. But one of the problems is that the industries that many countries rely on to lift their people out of squalor are the very industries that are heavy polluters. And what about the affluent west? Can we really increase consumption and be “stewards” for the benefit of all life? Self-serving utopian shit. And what of “improve the condition of all living things”! Sounds pretty Buddhist to me. Just who the fuck are the pagans now? Maybe that is why I couldn’t find Beisner on Knox’s site…

Second, Cornwall takes a critical look at the perception that “nature knows best,” or that “the earth, untouched by human hands is the ideal.” Here the writers point out that humanity alone is capable of developing resources and strategies that can “unlock the potential…for all the earth’s inhabitants,” and therefore embrace beneficial human management of the earth.

While I admit that humans are as much a part of the natural order as gophers and whatever the hell it is growing in my trash bag that smells so bad, the Cornwall declaration is putting humanity on a bit of wobbly, and far too high, pedestal. I’m all for managing resources and that, but jeepers, “unlock the potential” seems to me to be a license to exploit and damn the “stewardship” rhetoric.

Third, the declaration points out that while “some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated.” This is of particular concern in developing nations, where basic issues like inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural practices go largely unaddressed while more distant and theoretical issues receive the lion’s share of funding and attention.

Well, this seems pretty disingenuous. Money for developing the economies of the poorest nations does not only come from budgets for environmentalist projects, but from all sorts of other sources devoted specifically to address the needs for raising standards of living around the world. I’m not saying that this money amounts to nearly enough or that it is always well spent, but merely that I.S.A. is producing another rhetorical smokescreen, claiming a moral high-ground to which it has no right. Anyway, what are the “well founded and serious” concerns? The bazillions of tons of poisons spewed by factories all over the place? What kind of fuels will replace wood and dung for the world’s hundreds of millions of poor? Oil? Now, that might be cleaner burning than dung, but it creates a whole series of other problems, too. As these people progress from industries and lifestyles that can employ wood and poop to an economy dependent upon more “advanced” fuels like oil or hydroelectric power their quality of life will hopefully improve. But, as that happens, their consumption of power will also increase. Now, I’m hardly advocating keeping these people starving, but there are trade-offs for every advance. Fossil fuel consumption rises steadily, and with it, the environmental social and political price to pay. If we can’t fix the problem of over-consumption in the west, we are likely to export the problem to other places in the world. While there may be less poop-smoke in the atmosphere, industrial pollution will continue to rise. The plight of the poor is simply a red herring in the I.S.A. formulation. Of course we must help these unfortunate people, but recognizing that problem does not signficantly reduce the other problems we are facing with environmental catastrophe.

The Cornwall Declaration further lays forth an articulate and Biblically-grounded set of beliefs and aspirations in which God can be glorified through a world in which “human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures” and “widespread economic freedom…makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers.”

By all accounts, Cornwall provides the philosophical and theological underpinnings upon which a broad environmental ethic can be formulated. The time has come, however, for a new coalition to take the principles of Cornwall, and apply them to specific public-policy issues in the environmental dialogue.

AAARGHHHH! Why the fuck aren’t practical concerns like we are going to fricking boil in our own poisons enough of an incentive to fix the problems we have created? This is really bullshit. On the one hand, I.S.A. is saying the problem is minimal. On the other hand, they are saying the problem needs to be fix in a way that “God can be glorified”. My shattered fucking nerves. This is not about science, the environment, the world’s poor or anything that fucking matters at all. It is about evangelism and, I wager, a cultural imperialism that has no intension of stopping any kind of conspicuous consumption.

He broke my irony meter! Pope condemns climate change prophets.

Well, now we know the truth.  See the Daily Mail Article.

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.  

So, the God’s anointed leader on Earth who believes in “original sin”, virgin births, that God needs a human sacrifice of himself in order to forgive people of offenses they cannot help but commit, says to follow science rather than dogma. Jeez, where did they get this guy from? 

 Why the hell do non-Catholics pay any attention to this old fool and countries spend cash on diplomatic missions to the Vatican? If a billion people want to look to this guy for advice fine, but why regard him as anything other than an expert in his own religious traditions? Why the special treatment, special school boards for Catholic Kids, and so forth?

One for Dan

OK, not a usual SHUFFL topic, but everyone likes polar bears…

 

And Dan can’t stand global warming.

http://icanhascheezburger.com/

Global Warning Scaremongerers: A pack of pagans!

Or so says  Bob DeWaay in his rant “Global Warming and the Definition of Sin” on the nutty Christian Worldview Network.

He starts into Al Gore and says “Reading Gore’s book gave me a first hand glimpse at what the world looks like through the eyes of what is essentially a pagan worldview. What I mean by that is that Gore defines sin in such a way that being a normal human being is a sin on par with Hitler and Nazi Germany. “

After a less on on the combustion of hydrocarbons he has this to say:

“Many in the environmental movement have defined CO₂ (carbon dioxide) as a pollutant, a noxious “gas.” They use the phrase “green house gas” because the term “gas” sounds like something poisonous. But oxygen is a gas as well.”

Of course, our Mr. Bob sees that Gore’s rhetoric reveals not that Gore has a problem with an overactive hyperbole gland but instead has a theological problem: “But if we step back and more carefully examine the issue, we see that our “sin” as defined by this neo-pagan worldview is that of going about ordinary life. “

In fact our evil is even likened to the “holocaust” in Gore’s book. That also shows neo-pagan thinking because something inanimate, earth, elevated to the status of humans created in God’s image. But in that worldview, humans are piling guilt and sin upon ourselves day after day because we go about such activities as driving to work, cooking our food, heating our houses, and breathing air. According to neo-pagan environmentalists, we must be stopped for the sake of Planet Earth. …

 Mr. Bob then inverts the whole process and claims that the “immanent” theology of the neo-pagans actually leads to a lack of concern for the environment since humans are not the crown of creation in a panentheistic world view. They have no reason to be “stewards” of the natual world. I call “BULLSHIT”. “Stewardship”, better labelled, looking out for ones own world and the world one will leave to the next generation, hardly requires the idea of a transcendent creator God (Nor does belief in this kind of deity necessarily lead to a lack of environmental concern). Care for the environment can be viewed as simply a part of how humans have always been looking out for their own welfare. We are now aware of the extent of our manipulation of the environment and the impact it has, and so many folk are trying to do something about it. For some people, a “theological” justification is necessary before the “natural” instinct to look after number one (and one’s kids’ future) kicks in. For others, some kind of mystificaiton of nature itself is necessary. For others still, it just makes rational sense.

Mr. Bob, not everything is a “religious” problem.

He goes on to say:

The result of deifying the creation has historically produced the destruction of creation. Vishal Mangalwadi has brilliantly pointed out that in his native India where the earth has long been considered a “goddess” the environment has been trashed for centuries and that Christian missionary William Carey worked to preserve the environment as well as the rights of abused women.[vi] Gore’s idea of adopting a theology that in some way deifies the creation so that we will respect it ignores that fact that this has not been the case where pagan nature cults have held sway.

Of course, many Hindus, Jains and Buddhists could have (and perhaps in retrospect should have) sent missionaries to Europe to teach us about “compation”, “non-violence” “vegetariansm” and so forth. This is not to say that India has ever been entirely peaceful, but for how long in Europe ahs there been a concern for women’s rights or the environment. These ideas took off when the churches were losing control of society. Where are Western Europes great forests? The open expanses that were once home to deer, bear and other large animals? For the most part they are under pavement. Europeans have been raping their landscapes for centuries, too.

Bob ends his article by comparing salvation through Jesus with the eternal guilt of neo-pagan environmentalism from which there can be no redemption. But even so, the Christan apocalypse is coming, Bob assures us.  His closing line “The gospel of Jesus Christ is good news, the “gospel” of enviromentalism produces a permanent state of guilt and hopelessness.” … and maybe some hope for the next generation.

Someone please give this man a grip.