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.
I was checking through the list of creationist speakers at the 
Perry is a brown, male basilisk. He is a very good-natured reptile. The brown basilisks are fairly common and inexpensive. They, like Rhodee eat rodents and small bugs. Notice the resemblance between the Newmans and Perry [other "dinosaurs" on the site] and a parasaurolophus or sailfin. Notice the crest on the back of each of their heads. 
