All Non-Apologies

My PR department and team of close personal advisors has informed me that perhaps my criticism of Katharine Hayhoe the other day was a bit shrill and over-the-top. And by "PR department" and "team of close personal advisors," I mean one long-suffering friend of mine who reads the blog and facepalms whenever I fly off the handle and start dropping f-bombs left and right.

Hayhoe does, after all, have the science mostly right, and she is trying to do something positive. If nothing else, she is starting a conversation about climate change in communities not entirely known for their science affinity and acumen, which, as George Marshall (no, not THAT one) points out, can be half the battle.

However, I won't exactly apologize, because, well...because, let's face it, Hayhoe ain't ever gonna read my silly little blog, and wouldn't care what I say if she did, anyway. Also, the larger point about the long, sordid history of the evangelical community, the Church, and religious people in general attempting to complicate and thwart scientific research and environmental efforts, and my frustrations regarding same, remain. I hinted at occurrences in the recent past in the final paragraph of the Moyers/Hayhoe post, but, truly, the problem goes all the way back to antiquity.

And even that is not the full aggravating story, because here's what really burns my bacon. Religious people try to suppress the research and findings, until they inevitably get out and spread among the public despite their best efforts, and then...dammit this freakin' pisses me off...they try to hijack and take ownership of the issue like they and whatever prehistoric Holy Book to which they owe allegiance knew it all along! Therefore, when I see Hayhoe smiling away on TV, trying to shovel a load of shit on top of all of our heads that the Bible and faith have been telling us right from the start to care for creation, I think to myself, "Fuck, here we go again, this time with climate change. They're gonna downplay or try to erase from the record what they've been doing for years — centuries even — and are still doing, and then portray themselves as heroes and ask that we all pat them on the back for finally coming around and embracing REALITY."

Ggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!111!!1!1!!1!!!1

So, while I won't apologize, I will at least provide some concrete examples of this irritating behavior (not every instance by any stretch of the imagination!), and thereby hopefully explain a little better than I did in the previous post why it infuriates me so.

• I've already mentioned religious zealots routing Hellenism and philosophy from Judea in a link above, and setting an anti-intellectual tone which lasted for millenia, and still plagues us today.
• You may have heard of people like Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, etc. Well, while they and those that came before and after them were being branded as heretics, their works were being banned, or they were being jailed and/or executed, powerful religious forces at the time were busy incorporating astronomical features based on their scientific findings into the structure of houses of worship. This was meant to solve simple dating/scheduling problems as well as wow the public into believing God had graced the clergy with special knowledge and powers that the unwashed masses lacked. Witness the Wells Cathedral clock, the Münster Cathedral clock, the Exeter Cathedral clock, the myriad of features at the Strasbourg Cathedral, the Lyon Cathedral features, and on and on and on.
• A Vatican astronomer and mathematician completed the creation of the Gregorian Calendar based on extensive Copernican heliocentric astronomical observations and data which he and the Church originally opposed vehemently. The Pope at the time then marched the new calendar around like there weren't powerful theologians who wanted to ban the works that made it possible, and who would ultimately get their way. Shocking, I know.
• Fast-forwarding to more modern times, concerned scientists and ecologists have gone through decades of this bullshit, and this crap, and this arse-backward nonsense, only to be told no worries, it's all better now.
• Young-Earth creationists like Ken Ham use the vague wording of scripture and preaching to claim they knew the science all along. And yet they have never made one meaningful prediction for us of the type that almost spills out of the research unbidden for a scientist (see Halley's prediction for the return of a certain comet you may have heard of).
• And perhaps most disturbing of all, some eschatological adherents within the religious community not only don't recognize environmental issues as a problem, they welcome their catastrophic potential, because, for them, it means Jesus, or whatever messiah, is coming back.

So, basically, asinine religious reactions to scientific discovery run the full gamut: deny the science, deny the problem(s) it predicts, applaud the onset of said troubling real-world event(s) because it means your Magic Guy is coming back to save JUST YOU, and, of course, smile away on Moyers & Company like none of this ever happens or needs to be addressed aggressively, and instead make screwball, smirky assertions that the vague, nonsensical language in your Holy Book had the problem covered all along. You know, don't worry, the morally-righteous crusaders are on the way to make it all right again.

And people wonder why I get ticked off...consider this your Sunday anti-sermon. You're welcome.

The Pontiffs and Their Pontifical Pontifications

A few months ago, the Vatican held a summit focusing on sustainability and the environment.

This led to some post-summit declarations about the climate and human responsibility on the part of workshop participants and the Glorious Pontiff himself.

If current trends continue, this century will witness unprecedented climate changes and ecosystem destruction that will severely impact us all.

"But when we exploit Creation we destroy the sign of God’s love for us, in destroying Creation we are saying to God: 'I don’t like it!. This is not good!' 'So what do you like?' 'I like myself!' – Here, this is sin! Do you see? Custody of Creation is custody of God’s gift to us and it is also a way of saying thank you to God. I am the master of Creation but to carry it forward I will never destroy your gift. And this should be our attitude towards Creation. Safeguard Creation. Because if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us! Never forget this!"

-Pope Francis

I find this all wholly (holy?) unsatisfying, and I've at least partly explained my dissatisfaction regarding religious people's recent ecological about-face in a previous post. I mean, he can't mention "global warming" or "climate change" outright, and instead pointlessly meanders around the issue with roundabout "liking ourselves too much and destroying God's gift" nonsense? What the hell is that crap? He makes us sound like children unhappy with holiday gifts we just received. How about describing the problem in plain language, Pontiff, and calling out some past and present influential deniers within the religious community? In fact, how about starting off by cleaning up your own house of worship, and clarifying previous statements by the Church and past Popes which seem to conflict with this latest custodial and safeguarding approach to creation, huh?

"First, then, let it be considered as certain and established that neither Leo nor those theologians who have taught under the guidance and authority of the Church have ever denied or questioned the twofold character of ownership, called usually individual or social according as it regards either separate persons or the common good. For they have always unanimously maintained that nature, rather the Creator Himself, has given man the right of private ownership not only that individuals may be able to provide for themselves and their families but also that the goods which the Creator destined for the entire family of mankind may through this institution truly serve this purpose."

-Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 45

"Genesis relates how God gave two commandments to our first parents: to transmit human life — 'increase and multiply' — and to bring nature into their service — 'Fill the earth, and subdue it.' These two commandments are complementary. Nothing is said in the second of these commandments about destroying nature. On the contrary, it must be brought into the service of human life."

-Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magister, 196-7

"Nothing is said in the second of these commandments about destroying nature." Uh huh, rrrrriiiiigggghhhhtttttt. Because, you know, subduing something always leaves it in a natural state of healthy self-preservation.

Ummmmm, wot?

Can't have a cake baked into the shape of your funny hat, and eat it too, your Papaliness. Doesn't work that way.

"In the very first pages of Scripture we read these words: 'Fill the earth and subdue it.'(19) This teaches us that the whole of creation is for man, that he has been charged to give it meaning by his intelligent activity, to complete and perfect it by his own efforts and to his own advantage.

Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth: 'God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples.'"

-Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, 22

To be sure, some nature-friendly directives — not many — have been issued by subsequent papacies, but no real reversals or corrections of previous prehistoric declarations or ignorant scripture passages. Just more tormented, disappointing spin about their "true" intent, which fools no one. So, uh, Pope Francis, could we have some clarity here rather than deception about what was really meant by those Holy See decrees and Bible verses, and maybe an apology for all the trouble their archaic, backward sentiment may have caused environmentalists over the years, hmmmmm? Would that be so hard, your Papalitude?

And, since you're supposed to be such a great moral and religious leader, and all that, do you think maybe you could devote some time during your next divine missive to lead these wayward idiots back into your sacred, creation-safeguarding flock? I know they're probably Protestants, and therefore maybe not buying the notion that you are Earth's primary conduit to the Supreme Annunciator, and everything, but one might think you could summon the courage to reach out over denominational lines, and deliver some well-needed dope slaps before, like, uh, creation destroys us, ya know? Your words, your Blessed Eminence, not mine. And thanks in advance for finally not beating around ye ole Burning Bush this time.

Reactions to a Recent Change of Environmental Heart by Churchgoers

My present blogging mood.

It's unfortunate that the higher-ups in a religiously-affiliated org have to apologize to their church-going constituency for their climate change advocacy and tiptoe through an explanation of it (see the 10th vid in the embedded playlist below). It speaks volumes about how religious thought can lead people into lamentable and intractable states of science denial.

That being said, as an atheist, I'm honestly torn about the recent movement within Christianity to take up the environmental stewardship mantle, and to engage in "creation care." I don't know how to process it, after all those years of hate spewed at us environmentalists from the pulpit, and the fact that, sigh, we still have to put up with it today. Should I be happy that they're slowly coming around now, and, well, seeing the light on this issue? Or should I still want to kick them where it counts for all the derogatory nonsense, as has been my instinct/reaction for most of my life?

Take the Eden Reforestation Project, for example. On the one hand, I think the videos below are really informative, and I found the peaceful, verdant background setting to be fitting and soothing while watching them. Also, it's a great cause, so I wouldn't fault anyone for donating. But, I dunno, on the other hand, due to past ecological transgressions on the part of religious zealots, maybe they really deserve to have their funds routed to a more secular-minded preservation/reforestation project. Maybe, if you want to help restore desperate, denuded areas, you should give your money to the Jane Goodall Institute instead, for instance.

One less philosophically-loaded and more technical complaint, there was no playlist for videos obviously intended to be watched as a series. Uh, ERP folks, someone in your org needs to learn how to make YouTube playlists. Till then, you can you use the one I had to make in order to embed these videos into my blog properly. And you're welcome. :)



While watching these vids, I kept thinking of Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity, and the mixed feelings they elicit in me. I think Carter is a great man, and providing the less fortunate with affordable housing is about as noble a cause as one can promote, but do they just have to...?

Our mission is to put God’s love into action by bringing people together to build homes, communities and hope.

You would figure a supreme being is quite capable of putting His own love into action all by Himself, no?

Reforestation really is just such an important issue, however, that, even as an atheist, I'm almost tempted to forgive them for the Biblical reference in their organization's title, and their church affiliation.

Almost. :)

Moore's Guffaw

From the latest wattsupwiththat bilge:

“Climate change” is a theory for which there is “no scientific proof at all” says the co-founder of Greenpeace.

It’s really sad when you can’t get past the first sentence of a post without laughing at how ignorant and incorrect the assertions are. For fook sakes, Watts, you can’t even get out of the starting gate without merrily falling on your idiotic face? But forget that for a moment, because I’m wondering how long we have to wait before Moore changes his screwy, irresolute mind on this topic like he has others in the past.

I was against nuclear energy when I was with Greenpeace, but I've changed my mind.

Indeed, he used to believe nuclear power would usher in a holocaust, but, ya know, poof he just changed his mind, so, meh, let’s all forget it ever happened. Which we could, if it were just nukes about which he has difficulty deciding where he stands one moment to the next. The guy is nothing if not a champion of self-contradiction, so don’t go accusing me of taking a cheap shot by mentioning the nuclear about-face.

From his company Web site (emphases mine for reasons that will become clear shortly):

Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. helps companies create effective sustainability strategies that minimize and mitigate the environmental footprint of essential industrial activity...we help connect the dots between strong, sustainable economic activity, a robust natural environment and thriving urban and rural communities...Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. helps companies ensure a detailed and measurable plan for corporate social responsibility is at the heart of its development activities...For example, local program initiatives that teach long-term, sustainable skills to community members – even beyond the life of the development project – invariably provide real benefits for the community, the surrounding environment and the company itself.

Wait, so now it’s OK to be concerned about the environment again, Moore? And capitalist profits as well as social welfare? What the hell?! That was a really quick turn around, unlike your nukes transformation which took several decades. I thought, only a couple years ago, these were all evil “isms.”

“Environmentalism” is an “ism” like capitalism and socialism. In that sense it connotes an ideology...But one must dig deeper to find if they are misanthropic...This is really a question of attitude rather than facts...Ideology is negative in so far as it tends to divide people into warring camps with no possible resolution.

What happened to all that oppositional conviction you had regarding the very “isms” your company now somehow magically is all too ready and eager to embrace? Furthermore, how do we know you’re not just some human-hating, fact-trampling environmentalist/socialist/capitalist ideologue trying to divide people into warring camps, Moore? In fact, after browsing your firm’s site, I get the distinct impression that you are all three of these terrible evils – environmentalist, capitalist, and socialist – wrapped into one, since you run a for-profit company advising others on the societal benefits of environmentally-sustainable activities.

Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. (GSL) is a firm whose sole focus is corporate social responsibility (CSR) development and sustainability communications.

Christ, you can’t craft a corporate charter with clearer socialist, capitalist, and environmentalist aims and intentions. We should just assume you’re not an evil ideologue hell-bent on anarchy, Moore? Why is that exactly? Why should we take your word for it that you’re on the up and up unlike those other environmentalists/socialists/capitalists you’ve carried on about elsewhere, Moore? Hmmmm?

Seriously, who the fuck decries socialism, capitalism, and environmentalism, and then starts a goddamn company SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PROMOTE AND PROFIT FROM THOSE VERY SAME THINGS????!!!! I mean, Jaezuz fooking wot thah fooking Cheeeeeroist, Moore. Hello?! Anyone home up in that empty, self-contradicting head of yours?

You have a lot of explaining to do, Moore, which I’m sure will only result in you shoving your foot deeper into your mouth.

What a certifiable whack job you are. No wonder Anthony Watts is in love with you.