They Don't Get It

Apparantly, the religious right is (once again) denying the facts--this time on the issue of global warming. They have started what appears to be a well organized and funded effort to stop efforts to attack climate change. Thanks to Melissa Rogers, here are the details:

A coalition of pastors, evangelical leaders, national and state organizations, and policy makers hold a news conference on the "We Get It!" campaign, and to show "that they are united behind Biblical perspectives on the environment and the poor, and don't believe all the hype about global warming."

LOCATION: National Press Club, 14th and F Streets NW, Washington, D.C. -- May 15, 2008

PARTICIPANTS: Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; E. Calvin Beisner, founder and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance and Environmental Stewardship; James Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy; James Dobson of Focus on the Family; singer Crystal Lewis; radio host Janet Parshall; theologian Wayne Grudem; singer Pat Boone; Joel Belz of God's World Publications; historian David Barton; climatologist David Legates; and Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty

Melissa offers the following follow-up:

The press conference took place at 10am. The website for this effort is here. The symbols of the following organizations appear on the frontpage of the website: the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Family Research Council, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Wallbuilders, Cornwall Alliance, and the Acton Institute. A press release says that the campaign is seeking a million signatures for their declaration.

Read it all here.

Do we really need any more evidence that the Dobson/Perkins evangelical element has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the right wing of the Republican party?


Gary said…
What we need evidence of is global warming. According to the so-called "experts" (that's a laugh), humans are the primary cause of climate change. Then I have a suggestion: why don't you kill yourselves and give the planet a break. Not to mention giving a break to those of us who are sane.
Chuck Blanchard said…

I don't know where you get your information, but the vast consensus of the scientists who study climate change is that human activity (industrial activity, not all activity) is a major cause of climate change. This is even accepted by former deniers. Do a search on my blog for "climate change" for some of the evidence.

What I find curious, is why the more conservative elements of the evangelical movement fight so hard against this evidence. Indeed, I wonder whether the refusal to accept evidence of evolution is causing a denial of science in other areas.
Gary said…
Speaking for myself, I have learned not to trust someone simply because they call themselves a scientist. I have learned that much of what is called "science" is nothing of the kind. It is assumption, speculation, and philosophy pretending to be science so as to try to give it credibility.

I want to know who pays the "scientist's" salary. Plenty of "scientists" have lied for money. I want to know their motive before I'll believe anything they say. For instance, I wouldn't believe Richard Dawkins if he told me his name was Richard Dawkins, and he is reputed to be one of the world's top "scientists".

What are you personally doing to fight climate change? And why aren't you going to do more?
Chuck Blanchard said…

I am not relying on just one scientist--but the large consensus.

What am I doing? Good question. My wife and I live in a pretty energy efficient and moderate sized home, I work less than two miles from where I live, and we drive a hybrid that gets great mileage. Oh, and we vote a straight Democratic ticket in most instances. Grin.

But, you are right, we need to do more. For one thing, I should walk to work more often (not going to happen in the Arizona heat, however!).
Gary said…

What if the consensus is wrong? Or lying?

I think you aren't doing nearly enough. For one thing, you should pledge to not have any more children. If humans are causing these problems, then logically, we need fewer humans. And you should urge all your friends not to have any more either.

You should stop eating so much. Human consumption is making the problem worse.

You should give up air conditioning. I know that might be tough in Arizona, but how serious are you about doing your part? You must sacrifice for the good of the Earth.

You should volunteer to pay more taxes. The government needs you, now more than ever.

Your wife should stop buying beauty products. Choices must be made, and how important is makeup when the Planet is in danger?

Chuck, you're just going to have to do a lot more, even if it hurts. You have a great responsibility.
Chuck Blanchard said…

I am sure that the "consensus" is "wrong" in at least some respects. That's the nature of scientific inquiry. But the very large accumulation collected by a large and diverse collection of scientists and published in peer reviewed publications can't be ignored.

Your somewhat snarky comments in the remainder of the post suggest that you think I have a one dimensional view of the issue. I don't. I rcognize that the industrial revolution not only cuased pollution--it also improved out lives dramatically--and made them longer to boot. Fortunately, solving climate change does not require that we stop having children or go back to the bad old pre-industrial days. Instead, the solution lies in three areas : greater efficiency, a shift to alternate energy sources, and the use of technologies such as carbon trapping from the remaining carbon emitting power plants.

Popular posts from this blog

Bultmann versus Wright on the Resurection

Washington Post Forum on Liberation Theology

Luke Timothy Johnson on Homosexuality and Scripture