Cornwall Alliance works to ensure reliable, affordable energy for poor families worldwide
| Guest essay by Paul Driessen |
In a more rational, moral, compassionate, scientifically literate world, this Cornwall declaration would not be needed. It assesses the “far-reaching, costly policies” that the world’s governments are adopting, supposedly to prevent global warming and climate change. It calls on governments to focus instead on protecting the poor, who desperately need the affordable energy that those policies circumscribe.
The declaration was crafted by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. This coalition of theologians, faith leaders, scientists, and economic, environmental and policy experts is committed to safeguarding God’s entire creation: not just the Earth and its wildlife, but the people who also inhabit our wondrous planet, especially the poorest among us. More than 150 have already signed the declaration.
The declaration lists ten reasons to “oppose harmful climate change policies.” It notes that our Earth is “robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting.” Its climate system will respond to and correct damage that might arise from the relatively small effects of carbon dioxide that we humans are adding to the atmosphere – compared to the numerous, complex, powerful, interacting natural forces that have always ruled our planet’s ever-changing climate and weather.
For one thing, crops and forests and other plants will respond to the extra CO2 by growing even faster and better, greening the planet and helping to feed wildlife and people. For another, as my extensive new climate report makes clear, the real world is simply not cooperating with the alarmists’ dire forecasts.
President Obama says climate change “will define the contours of this century more than any other” issue. Secretary of State John Kerry insists that climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” and poses “greater long-term consequences” than ISIL, terrorism or Ebola – even as ISIL butchers crucify men, behead little children, and promise to murder Westerners in their homes and streets.
Reality tells a different story. Not a single category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States in nine years – the longest such period since at least 1900 and perhaps the US Civil War. Arctic ice has rebounded. Antarctic ice that is supposed to be melting is instead expanding to new records, “because of” global warming that’s supposed to be happening with increasing speed, but instead stopped 18 years ago. Sea levels are barely rising. Perhaps all this good climate news is due to our carbon dioxide emissions?
All these “inconvenient truths” are at the heart of the Cornwall appeal. Look first, it suggests, at actual, empirical, real-world climate observations. In almost every case they differ significantly from – or are directly opposite to – what the White House, Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other alarmists assert and predict.
Second, the declaration implores, consider how anti-fossil fuel climate policies would affect the poorest and most vulnerable people on Earth. Then “abandon fruitless and harmful policies to control global temperature, and instead adopt policies that simultaneously reflect responsible environmental stewardship, make energy and all its benefits more affordable, and so free the poor to rise out of poverty.”
As UCLA emeritus professor Deepak Lal (who wrote the foreword to the India edition of my Eco-Imperialism book) wrote in Poverty and Progress: Realities and Myths about Global Poverty:
“The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels.… [I]t is mankind’s use of the mineral energy stored in nature’s gift of fossil fuels … accompanying the slowly rolling Industrial Revolution, [that] allowed the ascent from structural poverty which had scarred humankind for millennia. To put a limit on the use of fossil fuels without adequate economically viable alternatives is to condemn the Third World to perpetual structural poverty.”
The Cornwall Alliance echoes and expands on these concerns in its Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor, a 55-page analysis by professor of climatology David Legates and professor of economics Cornelius van Kooten.
Abundant, affordable, reliable energy is indispensable to lifting and keeping people out of poverty, the Alliance points out. Mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions would greatly increase the price of energy, as well as goods and services. Such policies would slow, stop or even reverse the economic growth that enables people to prosper and adapt to all climates. They would harm the poor more than the wealthy,
President Obama says the United States is committed to helping poor nations deal with the effects of “climate disruption.” However, he has also signed an executive order requiring that federal agencies take climate change into account when preparing international development, loan and investment programs. This has meant that U.S. agencies will support wind, solar and biofuel projects – but will not provide loans or other assistance for state-of-the-art gas-fired power plants in Ghana, coal-fired power plants in South Africa, or similar projects in other severely energy-deprived and impoverished nations.
Worldwide, 2.8 billion people still use wood, charcoal, coal and dung in open fires to heat and cook. At least 1.2 billion people still do not have access to electricity and the countless blessings it brings. In India alone, more than 300 million people lack electricity; in Africa more than 550 million. The result is millions of deaths every year from lung and intestinal diseases. The vast majority of these victims are women and children.
But under current White House, IPCC and EU policies, they are not likely to get electricity anytime soon. Mr. Obama justified his policies by telling students in Johannesburg, South Africa, “if everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over – unless we find new ways of producing energy.”
In other words, in a world where hydrocarbons still provide 82% of all energy, for this White House and IPCC, exaggerated concerns about climate change 50 or 100 years from now trump concerns about safeguarding billions of people from rampant poverty and lethal diseases. This is intolerable.
Wind and solar power will let people in remote areas have light bulbs, cell phone chargers and tiny refrigerators, until they can be connected to an electrical grid. However, such limited, unreliable, expensive electricity cannot support modern economies, factories, shops, schools, hospitals or families.
No wonder China, India and other developing countries are building hundreds of coal-fired generating plants. Their leaders may be happy to participate in wealth transfer schemes, in which they receive (at least promises of) “climate adaptation and mitigation” money from rich countries. But they will not sign any international accord that restricts their fossil fuel use and economic development. They understand all too well the need to end rampant poverty, misery, disease and premature death – even if Mr. Obama, UN Secretary Ban-Ki Moon and Al Gore do not, or do not care.
Put bluntly, “climate-smart” policies for poor countries and poor families are stupid – and immoral.
As American University adjunct professor Caleb Rossiter asked in a June 2014 Wall Street Journal article, “Where is the justice when the U.S. discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a ‘global warming’ tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods?”
So study these issues. Ponder what the Cornwall Alliance has to say. Sign the declaration. Speak out against energy deprivation, prolonged poverty and needless death. And help protect your children’s futures – and the hopes, aspirations, lives and basic human rights of the world’s poorest families
______________
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
exactly.
What Paul has stated is so obvious, to normal thinking people, that it reveals just how stupid the politicians of the world have become that it actually has to be said at all.
Well stated Paul.
It reveals how callous the politicians of the world have become.
Help us close down the Federal EPA, BLM, DOE – let the States run what they need and give them control over the land inside their boundaries. Using our natural resources to create a solid growing economy is not that difficult.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html
Thanks, Paul. You are correct, from my point of view.
The Cornwall Alliance deserves our support.
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”
(http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/)
Which god? Where is the proof that recent global warming is natural? Do they need proof, or is belief in their god all that is necessary for them?
‘God’ help us from religious believers telling us that they know the truth, their god will sort everything out, and all the rest of us have to do is trust them.
Jmurphy – the only God you believe in may be Gaia or whatever it is that underpins the religious belief in AGW, but the simple fact is that there has been no warming for between 17-20 years and there is not a single piece of empirical evidence to prove that man has had any effect at all on climate.
The people who pay the price – in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of cases each year with their lives – are the poor of the world denied cheap energy and denied food by worshippers and profiteers of the green dream.
Whether you believe in God or rye whiskey means nothing. Whether you have the blood of a lizard or human being means nothing either, but your statements suggest the first not the last. A man with no compassion isn’t a man. And by the way, who gave YOU the right to tell ME what the climate of the planet should be? I am as tired of climate nuts telling me what the climate is supposed to be as I am being told that we kill people to save them
Where is the proof that recent global warming is natural?
Where is the proof that it isn’t? Your side is spending billions on a problem that you can’t prove exist.
@JMurphy. Good catch.
If they believe in god, everything they say must be false.
The fact is that there is no poverty whatsoever in the world and that those that say so are religious zealots.
The fact is that the woman in the picture is an actress that, in real life, owns a house larger than DiCaprio’s.
Good catch, my friend, good catch.
We need more people like you defending the planet from their basements. Otherwise, we are all doomed… to hell(?). Please specify.
Wrong. Just because we have a similar viewpoint on global warming does not mean that we can forget the injustices perpetrated by religious fundamentalists.
I agree with the statement about poverty and the disgraceful misappropriation of wealth away from alleviating that poverty. But I’m not signing a declaration wrapped in creationist rhetoric no matter what the cause.
John A September 26, 2014 at 2:00 pm
Fight your religious war elsewhere. I recognize the right of people to have opinions and beliefs I do not share and I argue/fight with them over it in the appropriate forums. I also recognize that we might share some ideas and goals, whatever our individual motivations might be to do so. This declaration does not require me or you or anyone else to accept ID or Genesis. So if you can get past your personal prejudice about it, you might see that it’s a worthwhile project. If not, that’s your choice.
John A,
Which injustices perpetuated by religious fundamentalists are you referring to?
By definition, a religious fundamentalist is one who sticks the closest to the basic tenants of his religion.
Every example I have seen of injustice perpetrated by supposed religious fundamentalists was actually perpetrated by fanatics of some other sort operating in the guise of religion.
SR
“Good catch.
If they believe in god, everything they say must be false.”
Einstein believed in God, Are all of his findings false?
JMurphy,
you say:”Where is the proof that recent global warming is natural?”
Could you explain the time frame you are referring to? Are you perhaps referring to the warming that took place prior to the current 17 plus years of stable temps? Your qualifier “recent” appears to be an obfuscation.
If you think there is currently continued warming, your misinformation reveals that you have not educated yourself on the subject of global temps. This could explain why you think the person who says humans do not control the Earth’s temperature has to show proof rather than the person who claims humans do control the Earth’s temperature.
If you believe the Earth and it’s ecosystems are not robust, are not resilient, are not self regulating, are not self correcting, you have that right. If you want others to believe as you do the burden of proof is on you. Until you provide such proof, your opinion of another’s opinion – which is founded upon data such as the Earth remaining within a life-sustaining temperature range – is worthless.
When you do research the subject of global temps be sure to study the rising temperatures the Earth has experienced since the LIA, before humans could have affected atmospheric CO2. Your efforts to prove global warming is human caused would be effective if you could place blame on us for that time period. Then follow that study with one showing how continued increases in atmospheric CO2 during the recent period of non-warming show human emissions of CO2 acerbate warming.
SR
Interesting. Not one person so far being sceptical about a group using their god to determine what they believe about global warming; but many accusations and self-projecting of my supposed beliefs. Very illuminating.
Jmurphy,
It is very illuminating that you did not answer my question of which period of recent warming you were referring to.
SR
JMurphy September 26, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Cornwall Alliance: We’re doing this because we believe it’s the right thing to do. By the way, here’s the science that also happens to support it.
Am I being presumptious to think you actually read the ten reasons? What they actual ‘believe’ is that misguided policies based on erroneous climate science is and will continue to impact negatively the poor around the world. They list much of the actual science that supports their conclusion.
When reality does not agree with AGW theory reality is not what’s false. Despite the rise in CO2 earth has not warmed for 17 years 11 months. Pre Fossil Fuel Sea levels were higher ditto droughts, hurricanes, tornados and flooding which were far worse during pre fossil fuel times per the geologic record. But to add insult to injury, even if all the disaster BS spewed by the Climate dead enders was true the alternatives peddled to “Save Earth” from climate change are fossil fuel dependent sources or energy whose manufacture require the burning of fossil fuel from cradle to grave.
Due to the factSolar/Wind requires the burning of fossil fuel from cradle to grave http://bit.ly/1vtGMBj they have a big carbon footprint ergo do NOT reduce CO2 emissions. They are high cost (which harms the poor the most) and intermittent which means when NO SUN OR WIND NO POWER. Thus to keep the lights on a fossil fuel or battery backup is required http://fw.to/qBKg6yE making them very unreliable source of energy. Moreover, Wind and Solar are NOT renewable as they require the mining of finite TOXIC rare earth elements in their manufacture. It is just plain insane to blow billions of dollars on fossil fuel dependent and unreliable sources of energy that don’t reduce CO2, are high cost (which harm the poor the most) and cannot produce enough power to sustain civiliazation not to mention kill a lot of birds.
Steve Reddish wrote: “It is very illuminating that you did not answer my question of which period of recent warming you were referring to.”
You should ask the Cornwall Alliance because I quoted from their statement. Here is the relevant part again: “Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”
They obviously accept global warming but believe it is natural.
They also provide a lot more statements of belief without any science at all. But, it seems, some sceptics don’t care about that because they are obviously only sceptical about what they don’t currently believe in and what they don’t want to accept might be reality. There is another word for that and it is not scepticism.
JMurphy,
If your question “Where is the proof that recent global warming is natural?” is referring to whatever recent warming was being referred to by the Cornwall Alliance statement, then there are these possibilities:
The most recent warming that took place during the approx. 20 years of 1979-1998. The evidence that this was a natural warming is the non-warming that has followed for the 16 years since despite increased human emissions of CO2.
The next most recent warming that took place place during the approx. 30 year period 1910-1942. This period, as with all prior periods of warming, was before anyone thinks humans had any meaningful affect upon atmospheric CO2, so therefore of natural causes.
Your question is unscientific. The scientific question would be “Where is the proof that recent global warming is human caused.” That you did not ask scientificly valid questions is why I said you should educate yourself on the issue.
The rest of your assertions that the Cornwall Alliance statement was unscientific were answered by
Michael Wassil September 26, 2014 at 2:55 pm
You should have addressed your reassertions to him.
SR
JMurphy September 27, 2014 at 12:46 am
Obviously, you did NOT read the ten reasons of Cornwall Alliance. Or if you did, then you are either a science illiterate or you’re letting your religious hostility interfere with your rationality. All ten reasons contain robust scientific assertions and only one (the first) contains any mention of their religious orientation and motivation for their action.
Global warming and global cooling of far larger magnitudes than have occurred recently have occurred throughout geologic time. Far higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 than now have dominated the geologic history of earth. We are in fact living in an era of low temperatures and low atmospheric CO2 content. You can verify that easily by reference to any graph of temp/CO2 over geologic history. At no time did the earth reach some irreversible ‘tipping point’ and become uninhabitable. Otherwise, we would not be here. It won’t do so now either due to some miniscule increase in atmospheric CO2 from human sources.
The burden of proof that current warming is ‘catastrophic’, ‘unique’ and ‘unprecedented’ rests with those asserting it. They have so far failed to produce that proof. And even a cursory understanding of geologic history demonstrates they will not and can not prove their ridiculous claims. YOU are the one spouting beliefs.
If you don’t like the Cornwall Alliance Declaration because it contains some religious mumbo jumbo you don’t agree with, don’t sign it. But don’t display your ignorance by claiming it doesn’t rest upon robust science.
I believe in One God. His name may change according to religion. God, Allah, Gaia? BTW I am nominally a Christian of no particular church.
Steve Reddish wrote : “The rest of your assertions that the Cornwall Alliance statement was unscientific were answered by
Michael Wassil September 26, 2014 at 2:55 pm
You should have addressed your reassertions to him.”
And Michael Wassil wrote : “The remaining nine reasons contain valid science…”
He also wrote: “All ten reasons contain robust scientific assertions…”
Oh, I see. You call that being “answered”? ‘Valid’ and ‘robust science’ is believed here implicitly because that is what you want to believe? Fine, if that is what you want to believe. I prefer evidence and there is none at all in this Declaration. There is no scepticism here, there is only belief. But if that is what you prefer, carry on and believe.
JMurphy September 27, 2014 at 4:21 pm
You are obviously a total nincompoop and/or troll. You could easily verify the valid and robust science contained in the 10 reasons most of which have been discussed here on WUWT, but that appears to be beyond your scope.
Michael Wassil,
I believe you judged JMurphy correctly. I noticed that despite his claim to prefer evidence, he never presented any. By the way, I referred him to you because I thought you had already answered his challenge very ably, and he was ducking your answer.
SR
Intelligent design? That’s giving the game away.
Where is the proof that recent warming is not natural? The MWP warmed faster and warmer than today’s little increase in temperatures.
A great misunderstanding about the nature of god results from imagining god as an old man in white robes, with a walking staff and a long white beard. instead, imagine that god is not a man at all. that god is not a living being.
rather consider god as a set of rules. these rules are what determine the interaction between matter and energy, how the universe began, how it evolves. in what way are these rules any different than our understanding of god?
for example: god made the rains. which is more believable. an old man in heaven makes it rain. and decides this on a day to day basis. or a set of rules that governs the universe made it rain?
so, if we allow that god is not an old man, rather the rules that govern the universe, who disputes there is a god? for surely there is an order to the universe.
[snip a bit over the top feel free to rephrase and resubmit -mod]
I’ve said it before. If there were a conspiracy to keep the rich of the world rich while making sure the poor of the world remained poor, it would be remarkably similar to the “climate policies” being implemented and proposed.
At last!! This is where you can take the argument to the
enemywarmistas.Cheap energy will enable the poor and empower the dis-possessed; it will help reduce the population explosion; and it will reduce the (cough) effect of CO2 (in case it has any effect on climate). You only need to know who wants to perpetuate the opposite of this to know where they would take the world.
Totally agree with what is being said in this piece and in the declaration.
However, what I wonder and worry about (and maybe this is unfounded….I am not sure) is whether the desperately poor areas of the world can afford the cost of operating a power plant once a plant is built for them. It seems to me that power plant construction would (to some degree or another) have to be accompanied by economic development that would enable them to afford the cost of the plant’s operation.
However, I suppose that if some arrangement could be made to subsidize the cost of the plant’s operation such that the electricity cost would not be an economic burden on the recipients of that power….at least until standards of living improved.
Just a thought.
There is no reason to believe that public utilities could not work in poor nations. The real obstacles to their success are the anti- Carbon mandates imposed by Neocolonialists of every stripe and the corrupt predations of powerful local individuals working in concert with them.
The greatest challenge in developing countries is poor planning that cannot keep up with growth and supply reliable electricity. Consequently it is very difficult to keep businesses going and provide employment. See Pakistan’s energy crisis. When prudently ramped up, the poor can generate the business to support it.
The far greater danger is Obama et al forbidding them from installing coal fired power plants because of alleged harm to the planet. Obama and green radicals cause far greater harm by perpetuating high death rates from childhood illnesses, unsanitary water, lack of medical care and few jobs by their collective punishment of the poor in the name of worshipping the planet.
The biggest issue to providing electricity, water, and sanitation is education. When I worked overseas in Africa, in remote villages we often found that is was most useful to train the senior women in maintenance of hand pumps since it was traditionally the women’s “job” to haul water, gather wood, etc. The men were hunters and “warriors”. It takes considerable time to educate a group to a new concept of having electricity and running water and maintaining it, especially when it is often only available for a few hours each day, and notoriously unreliable. But unreliable utilities are better than NO utilities. Each step raises the achievable standard a little higher, from communal water points, communal radio, to individual electrified and water standpipes to fully services buildings. It will take a hundred years and a thousand steps, but comments like Obama’s in South Africa are not useful. In all cases, education is the first step. Someday perhaps, we will even learn to live in peace with all the tribes of the world.
An interesting organization. I may add them to my concerns. Does anybody know how much of each dollar donated goes into “overhead”?
Cornwall Alliance is primarily devoted to educational purposes. It’s not a charitable organization so “overhead” costs aren’t really applicable in the same way. Contact them and see if they will send you a financial statement.
Thanks. I will try and hunt one down. I am familiar with the problem in educational sorts of places. You have to just get their numbers and tease out the “development” expenses.
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Climate policies that condemn the poor to death by fuel poverty are immoral.
I think that photo is how all the enviro-weenies want us to live. Not them, of course, they get to live large on our tab.
Think any of them will show leadership and give up their a/c, iPhone, Prius, etc.? Don’t count on it.
For the record, the stove in the photo is a Multi-Fuel two pot cooker from Prakti Design in India. It has 100% local (Indian) content and is an example of a developing country uplifting itself.
It is obviously made possible only by having a reliable source of energy.
Regardless of your concept of God (or no concept of God), the logic the statement of the Cornwall Alliance is unassailable. The CAGW myth is a death sentence for the poor of the world The statement deserves the support of all of us.
Please let me put electricity in perspective using an example most of us can relate to:
A hard-working man will generate about 100 watts of work in an hour. After a long, 10-hour day, he will have done about one kilowatt of work.
And what does a kilowatt of electricity cost by comparison?
About 10 cents in most places here in the US, a little more in higher-rate areas.
How many of us would work hard for 10 hours for a dime?
Remember this comparison when people try to deny or curtail electricity generating capacity in developing countries. It is absolutely criminal to discourage them from having it.
The Alarmist/Warmists and the Main Stream Media will give the Cornwall Alliance about the same amount of respect and consideration as they have the Oregon Petition Project.
Sad, but probably true.
You can help change that by publicizing this.
Why do they need to bring religion into the argument. The debate should be based on science. The AGW crowd have already adopted a religious fervour which prevents them discussing the subject scientifically. If we end up with both sides arguing from an ideological viewpoint we will never get to the truth and facts of the matter.
Probably because some religious folks have bought into the CAGW story for moral reasons and don’t understand the moral failings of it (abuse of the poor, for example). Cornwall offers a counter argument framed in a religious context that would be familiar to them.
Garry, you are correct. I am aware of one religious organization that was unaware that using social policies that raise energy cost to supposedly save the planet harms the poor the most. This organization indicated 350.org was where we should put efforts to combat climate change! I did my best to stop the foolishness, their intentions were good there knowledge was faulty.
I somewhat have to agree. Their statements and assertions would have the same impact if they left out any mention of a “God” or Deity and would then allow Atheists and Agnostics and even “Undecideds” to embrace what they are saying.
Now, as we even see here, discussion shifts from their primary topic to one discussing “why bring religion into this?” or similar.
JohnWho,
It is interesting that you seem to agree with all the Cornwall Alliance’s statements and assertions, then claim that their statement of belief in God weakens those facts in the eyes of Atheists, Agnostics and Undecideds. You are revealing that those groups weigh facts according to who they hear them from, and are therefore biased. The claim that Christians are anti-science is part of this bias.
When you contrast that Christians are known for caring for the poor world-wide, not being motivated by greed, with CAGW “preachers” who do appear to be motivated by personal gain no matter the cost to the poor, which is the harmful “religion”?
SR
After “no matter the cost to the poor,” add “nor the defiance of scientific data…”
Rbravery:
Agreed.
Unfortunately I suspect that they are more interested in evangelism about religion than AGW. That’s lost me and I won’t be the only one, especially outside of the US.
I’m disappointed that this organization has been so unskeptically embraced here. It plays into the stereotypes that warmists have of skeptics and will be more of a hindrance than a help in convincing the uncommitted that we are all about science and rationality.
Do not talk of religion out of fear of what others may think? Hardly seems credible. The Church of Climastrology knows not that fear.
lee:
Not out of fear but:
a) to avoid misleading because there are many skeptics who are not religious, not Christian or, even if they are Christian, not of the same variety as this group.
b) to avoid putting off potential skeptics because they are not evangelical Christians
c) to avoid introducing a potentially divisive irrelevancy which just diverts from combating the CAGW scare.
d) to avoid giving alarmists an erroneous, irrelevant easy target.
I am sure I am not alone in keeping my mouth shut in present company on many occasions because I think that combating CAGW is far more important than my irrelevantly expressing my views on other subjects which might just cause in-fighting. I wish everyone else tried to do the same.
I assume that you might not like it if such an uncritical plug was given to a petition which partly promoted or embodied the beliefs of a religion or political party with which you fundamentally disagreed – and I’d agree with you.
I’m not at all against people of whatever belief being against CAGW, however we are here being encouraged to sign a document which promotes a particular religious world view as if there could be nothing conceivably contentious about that. Such an encouragement on this site, without caveats, suggests that skeptics would universally agree with that world view.
It’s an unfortunate impression to give – and one which, no doubt, will be used against us whenever it it useful to warmists.
Rbravery September 26, 2014 at 1:32 pm
They didn’t. Maybe if they hadn’t they would garner more support among non-religious. However, the people who initiated this proposal are religious, and of a particular Christian persuasion. They have as much right to oppose the CAGW scam as anyone else. Their concern about the effects on the world’s poor by misguided policy is valid, whether or not you accept the religious beliefs that in part motivated their action.
Out of the ten reasons only the first mentions their religious orientation while including several other scientifically valid points. The remaining nine reasons contain valid science without a single recourse to religion. If you can’t sign onto a good thing simply because it contains some religious assertions you disagree with, don’t.
If you want a fight about religion, take it somewhere else.
Why do they need to bring religion into the argument.
=================
The argument they are making is based on the concept of right and wrong. It is a moral argument, that climate policies are placing the environment ahead of people.
Science has no morality. It does not consider questions of right and wrong. It considers questions of true or false. Thus, you cannot frame a moral question in science. You must instead frame such a question inside a code of conduct.
+1
Thank you. This is the way forward.
Great essay but you have a glaring problem. Sanity. Everyone that didn’t attend Climate Crazy 2014 knows this. Alarmists don’t want to save the planet they want to accrue power.
The saying “Liberals love the poor so much they strive to ensre they are always around” is true.
The Cornwall Alliance declaration comes as a breath of fresh air in the fetid atmosphere of insane statements from the CAGW supporters. .The CAGW alarmists are intent on seizing total control and in the course of this, trampling on the poor of the World is this pursuit of power.
“It notes that our Earth is “robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting.” Its climate system will respond to and correct damage that might arise from the relatively small effects of carbon dioxide that we humans are adding to the atmosphere ..”
I dislike this highly unscientific, highly subjective argument. Rush Limbaugh used to make it…perhaps he still does….noting that the “creator” would not give us an atmosphere we humans could screw up. When I was a warmist it only confirmed my sense that global warming skeptics were indeed a bunch of misguided flat earthers. I know better now, but it’s still a terrible argument, and only affirms certain unflattering stereotypes. I’m sure many of you won’t like my POV, but if your aim is to be persuasive to the other side, then you might want to rethink it.
Wrong.
The earth has in fact been behaving exactly like a “robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting” system for more than 500 m.y. maintaining a temperature range of 12C through millions of years of ice-free warmth and millions of years of glacial maxima. It has responded to and corrected itself to far larger changes in atmospheric CO2 than the picayune amounts being added by current human activities.
This is a highly scientific argument with robust evidence in support.
I agree with you Pokerguy.
The ‘false certainty’ contained in this statement matches that of the statements of the CAGW proponents.
Many of the articles posted here at WUWT support the concept of “robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting”.
Hi goldminor,
I think that the system IS reasonably “robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting”….. But whether it actually is under all circumstances and will be sufficiently so in the face of the threats some percieve, has yet to be proven.
markx September 27, 2014 at 4:18 am
Even a cursory examination of the geologic history of earth proves it is sufficiently robust, resilient and self-correcting to absorb even the most extreme claims of warming propounded by the CAGW advocates. The system has absorbed without a hiccup far greater extremes of temperature over far longer periods of time and maintained a range of 12C.
Pokerguy, my thinking is similar to yours.
Plus, I have an additional objection. Their logic is explicitly founded on ‘intelligent design’, something I spent most of a chapter debunking in the last book.Eyes, and all that.
I have no problem with religious beliefs, so long as they are peaceful.
I have a great problem when anyone for whatever reason tries to substitute religion for science. No matter whether warmunists or Cornwall Alliance (‘opposite sides’), my problem remains and I will always oppose. Both.
Thanks, Rud. Some just can’t see the hypocrisy of lambasting the belief in CAGW as more religious than scientific, then with the next breath asserting that God wouldn’t let anything bad happen to our atmosphere. Yeah, eyes are pretty amazing. The whole damn shebang is. But I.D. is based to my way of thinking, on a fundamental illogic.
Rud Istvan September 26, 2014 at 5:29 pm
While their specific belief system apparently includes ID and a literal interpretation of Genesis, they have the solid support of robust science as well. There is no scientific assertion in any of their ten reasons based on their belief in ID and Genesis. So if you can’t support their opposition to policies base on bad climate science because they happen to have religious beliefs, that’s your choice. But don’t mistakenly minimize the science that supports their action.
pokerguy:
Agree completely.
Many skeptics don’t seem to understand how badly the image of the American religious Right plays in the rest of the world. Like it or not, warmists only have to caricature skeptics as “Fox News” types and they don’t need to say anything else, they will have won the mainstream over.
The same concerns are motivated by secular humanism.
Granted. So where is the secular humanist equivalent of the Cornwall Alliance Declaration?
Why the aggression? It was just a suggestion.
Maybe the Declaration will attract more support if it dropped the religious veneer.
Christopher Hanley,
A veneer is a covering that belies the core material. Really?
[Sure. The vernier lies over the body; and it there be flaws in the body, the vernier be lying to the world. .mod]
Christopher Hanley September 26, 2014 at 3:31 pm
Aggression? I happen to agree with you, but I haven’t seen anything comparable to the Cornwall Alliance Declaration. Maybe because most/all of the secular humanists are aligned with the CAGW side and in the greater interest of saving the planet are willing to sacrifice the world’s poor? I don’t know.
Mod.,
In this context, are you saying the Cornwall Alliance is lying to the world by adopting a religious veneer?
SR
Maybe if more scientists were religious there would be less scientific fraud. After the housing crash the media talking heads were on about teaching morals in business schools. Obviously the science fields need a similar course in right and wrong.
Three points:
1. The religious bent of this Alliance makes me reluctant to join up.
2. I wish the supposedly level-headed people who make up the community of this forum would quit using “Gaia-worshipper” and similar phrases as a slam against the warmists and alarmists. It’s not only rude, but usually trotted out without evidence. I myself am what more accurately can be described as a neo-pagan (although I don’t like that label either) and I believe in treating the earth and its creatures (which includes mankind) with care and respect. I also totally reject CAGW.
3. I often argue, usually in forums and not face-to-face, with warmists and alarmists using the very arguments put forth by the Alliance. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that their actual and proposed policies hurt the poor the most. The poorer are the most hurt. DiCaprio can afford skyrocketing electrical rates, but the poor cannot, at least without giving up something else.
Except for the Summary for Policy Makers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute that climate change is happening now.
LOL. Wonderful! +5 That would be the WG1 report, I presume.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2011/11/few-comments-on-ipcc-srex-report.html
….”even as ISIL butchers crucify men, behead little children, and promise to murder Westerners in their homes and streets.”
============
You’ve currently got your own little playground, your rules.
We’ve got different rules here.
Rule number one: there aren’t any.
I am going to pull out the popcorn and watch this one with interest. I am torn though.
The problem is that the veneer over the communist climate change movement is dissolving away in the face of climate reality and I would hate to see the focus changed at this point.
Frankly, if one feels a need to be concerned about the introduction of religion into this “debate”, I would be far more concerned (alarmed?!) about the religion of hypocrisy that seems to infuse and pervade the arms and tentacles of the ever-expanding United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
By way of glaring example … Consider the mantra that these so-called concerns about climate change derive from a need to leave the children of the future with a better world (OWTTE).
But, first, let’s aside the fact (as I discovered quite recently) that the UN’s very own Charter does not even mention “the environment” or “sustainable development”.
And let’s also set aside the fact that in the ever-growing ranks of “accredited” NGOs with varying degrees of “consultative” status (at last count in excess of 3500; and as soon as I’ve reconciled the unexplained differences in country-numbers-by-year-joined between those identified in 2011 and those identified in 2013, I’ll update this particular hockey stick), one finds such names as:
World Federation of Khoja Shi’a Ithna-Asheri Muslim Communities
World Federation of Methodist and Uniting Church Women
World Fellowship of Buddhists
World Movement of Christian Workers
World Muslim Congress
and many more! And now back to the mantra … and the UN’s “concern” for “the children”.
Consider the following excerpt from advice given to delegates attending the new, improved “United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme”, which convened in June of this year in Nairobi.
Nairobi, btw, is the location of the re-invented UNEP’s (relatively spanking new) home base. So, in their official advice to delegates, I could not believe my eyes when I found (inter alia) the following:
Tell me again how much the UN “cares” about protecting and improving the lives of the poor – and particularly the children. Yeah, right!
As an atheists I have no problem with the religious component.
Religious folk in their clearest concepts are a force for good.
The oldest joke when invoking a deity, is which god/gods?
None of which changes the common sense of this declaration.
The evidence we have, does support their claims of a self regulating climate, may not be true but is the best Null we have right now, until the next ice age.
The heart of this declaration is the simple fact, that the Climate Cult pretends to be saving the future world, while killing the poor living today.
Electricity is the lifeblood of our luxurious lifestyle, the vital essence without which our civilization would collapse.
Never have some humans lived so well, the common North American and European lives a magical lifestyle, by the standards of our ancestors. Yet a large chunk of our citizens are determined to deny the rest of the world the life of ease we enjoy.Yet they insist they do this for ethical reasons.
This is the weakness of the CAGW cult, the real destruction they wreak today to mitigate an imaginary future doom.
Once you focus the Alarmed Ones attention on the destruction they advocate for, you get some real interesting responses. The empty bluster fades away, for once they see how others view their Eugenics, anti humanism and blatant racism, they have no answers.
Never mind the science, we have years of evidence that the CAGW believers do not give a wet slap for science, they believe, they are good, they know they are saving mankind.To doubt their wisdom just shows we are ignorant deniers.
But actions speak louder than all the good intentions.
Kill the poor is the action. Dice the Bald Eagle, Rupture the native bats.Rob the many to enrich the chosen few.
This is their legacy. Actions which they can not Deny.
exactly right. frame the argument against AGW in moral terms. show that the proposed solutions are not solutions at all. that the cure is worse than the disease.
It is also the cult of the ‘zero sum game’ where there is only so much wealth or only so much food, therefore being unable to create more wealth or create more food, we have to stop and share equally. Sharing is of course a natural tendency of humankind so it is a good argument. But the idea that there is only so much of anything is a bit of a stretch. At any time in history there was ‘only so much of anything’. The idea that there is only so much energy, and therefore we necessarily cannot create more is crazy. The world is awash in energy. The solar system is full of minerals. We are not going to develop backwards.
I am very sympathetic to the idea that we should uplift the low in spirit and energy and access and food and comforts. I am very sympathetic to the idea that we should eliminate extremes of wealth and poverty. But that does not mean we have to have total compulsory ‘equality’ or forced ‘sameness’ in the manner of Marx, however well-intentioned he was, and how badly his minions executed their secular visions. Raw capitalism is a pretty awful alternative.
The idea that we can lie and cheat our way to equality is as crazy as arguments get. Conspicuous consumption and profligate waste are nothing less than insults to the downtrodden. Forced sameness is nothing less than utter suppression of the individual gifts and talents with which we have been endowed. It is our privilege to share them, and our knowledge and resources. To do that effectively does not require adopting tin-foil-hat-CO2-scare stories about ‘climate disruption’ or the unlimited power of the magical gas. Rational ideas much endure while superstition fades into oblivion.
I’m glad that such a group has spoken out – the Cornwall Alliance is a well known charity in the UK, and its public position will be influential.
The global policy of withholding cheap energy from people who live in abject poverty, because of worries about something which might happen in 50 years, is an act of unimaginable cruelty. Nobody who has true compassion can stand to see such madness.
Cheap energy you reckon. The cost of electricity ain’t cheap. Here in a first world country folks bleat about how expensive electricity is. How will the poor folks in third world countries pay their expensive electricity bills huh? Someone has to pay for the huge infrastructure of poles and wires…
Actually electricity is relatively cheap to produce, the cost of infrastructure/customer falls as more consumers sign up. What is jacking up hydro bills all over is government.
Taxes, riders, green schemes, high water fees, low water fees, bigger christmas bonus fee.
It is endless.
Once electricity generation and supply was considered a common essential good.
Now its a cash cow.
The Earth is weak and we are all going to DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Effects of past HOT global warming. It really is going to be a cataclysmic CAGW event when we reach 850ppm. It’s much, much worse than I ever dreamed.
Act now and make lots of money for these scam artists’ investments. FOOL.
Hollywood stars want to keep Indians in the Asia burning DUNG to cook food while they use natural gas. They also fly private planes et al and think (foolishly) that people like me can’t see them. IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!!!!
Realities aside it really is time to turn the heat up on WUWT. I am ready, my comments are mild – so far.
Easy big boy ??
Don’t want to turn off the newcomers ?
A good early project for the Cornwall Alliance is to publish a newspaper for distribution in Africa and other poor areas of the world with articles that spell this stuff out to them, tells them that they are being subjected to a new colonialism that is far worse than anything they have endured in the past. Use Obama and EU policies on energy and aid as focus points to deliver the message. Transferring wealth from US and EU coffers may seem a good thing to African country leaders, but this ‘wealth’ will not be of much benefit and impoverishing the world’s economic engine is the real way to create a terminal disaster for humankind. Let us spread the things that make up the economic engines to the poor – giving them loads of money as we have over half a century has simply gone down a rabbit hole.
NGOs, far from engendering economic aid, are barriers to development as are Gov Aid that is filtered by their idiot policies on such things as CO2. First their skill sets are of little use to these nations (maybe a mining engineering NGO would be a good idea if its results you want). But no, the last thing they want is a quick solution to the problems. Their ideologies are failed old world stuff – not something to emulate. These people are all on safari and don’t want anyone to interfere with their adventure. Fledgling economies need to develop their mineral and other resources as the first stage and as the quickest way to prosperity. Manufacturing comes a lot later. Selling coconuts and pineapples and converting their land all to national parks is all very nice but the income per capita is a joke. Actually large mining companies usually have to build electrical generating facilities, serviced towns, hospitals, etc.
The Alliance should promote this kind of thinking. Love your God, but don’t be tempted to go to save souls, they got all that they needed of that with 19th Century missionaries in the mid to late 20th Century.
OK , say 1 million years out the sun for the prior 2000,000 years has been acting up.
Would it have been possible for mankind to have found a way to use nuke/new tech to keep the earth powered up with out sun energy?
The God language in the declaration is irrelevant to the core argument, and is divisive. While I agree with the main sentiment of the piece I cannot in good conscience put my name on a document that contains language that supports unscientific nonsense like “intelligent design” I’d go so far as to say such language opens the whole thing up to ridicule and be dismissed.
James your narrow minded intolerant Liberal musings on “intelligent design” expose your complete lack of understanding the broad meaning this term can encompass.
What is your goal sun spot? Want to win the climate debate? Stick to the science. It goes without saying you’re entitled to your religious beliefs. Just leave them out of the discussion if you want to persuade those intolerant liberals.
pokerguy September 26, 2014 at 7:46 pm
I have no religious beliefs. I think ID is a failed attempt to disguise Genesis literalism as science. So what? I agree with the Cornwall Alliance that misguided policies based on bad climate science have negatively impacted the world’s poor and will continue to do so (they’ve negatively impacted everyone!). They propose to do something about it and I think that’s a good idea. Cornwall Alliance happens to think ID is valid science and Genesis literally true (apparently). So what? They also accept and base their declaration on a lot of valid science. So we have common ground on which to oppose the bad climate science now in vogue. Your objections?
If you think their acceptance of ID and a literal interpretation of Genesis will impede the argument against the ‘intolerant liberals’ (your words) I agree somewhat. Some of the responses in this comment thread are examples. Keep in mind, however, that a lot of robust science supports their argument, regardless of their religious beliefs. If you want to ‘stick to the science’ (your words) I’m all for it. But I’m not going to disabuse the Cornwall Alliance because they don’t agree 100% with everything I think. They have the right to believe what they believe and a right to oppose CAGW and advocate for the poor of the world for whatever reasons they please.
At the end of the day, we’re on the same side.
James Hastings-Trew September 26, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Then don’t. Maybe the language contained in reason #1 will, as you assert, open up the whole thing to ridicule and dismissal. You are certainly not alone as this comment thread illustrates. I don’t like the references to ID and Genesis any more than you. But I’m willing to grant the Cornwall Alliance has as much right to oppose CAGW for their reasons as do I for mine. In fact, a lot of our reasons are the same.
I guess the difference between you and me is that I don’t think it’s worth throwing an ally under the bus because he doesn’t agree with me 100%. You seem to think otherwise. Your choice.
Possible that Nicholas Tesla had a way to power all but it was not possible to meter/charge for the power. Thus he and his idea got the deep six.
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
Having been to Africa several times and actually have seen this first-hand I can tell you no-one living like this cares for CO2 emission reductions. Even so I have seen, and used, “kitchens” like in the picture and yet they still are able to cook great food.
Yeh, but in some of the villages I lived in wood was a long way away and if you could afford a gas stove, even a hand-pumped kerosene Petromax one-burner, you were way up on the social scale.
My ex-wife, from Ethiopia, had one of these. Had two settings, off or on and stank the room out with fumes. She was lucky, she had access to power and a fridge too.
Patrick
There was always the fuel problem and remoteness. In one good-sized village, a prized stove was fueled with gasoline instead of kerosene. The resulting burn eventually killed him before he could get to a clinic because it was rainy season and, well, you know about the roads.
After getting up before daylight and walking several miles to cut/gather wood, then bundle it up into a load that would crush Arnold S. in his hay day, then walking back to the village to sell it or turn it into charcoal for sale … It used to take two or three washes of my clothes to get the smell of charcoal out when I came back to Canada from Africa. It is a hard life in Africa where a small amount of electricity and liquid fuel or gas would make life so much more tolerable and clean up the air. However, when you have no money and a subsistence level economy it is difficult to come up with money for electricity and gaz. Education and some moderate development must come first. It will take a hundred years or two, but we have thousands (not 24 months like some alarmist folks might say, for my great grandmother was on the Great Plains at the time of Sitting Bull, not so very long ago.)
In Ethiopia, charcoal is banned by the Govn’t. But not many people pay attention to that given there is no sensible alternative. Not only do most people not have access to cheap energy, their only option in many cases is to use wood, specifically Eucalyptus, which was imported in the 1960’s, grows like a weed and sucks lots of gound water. Great wood for building. By contrast, I have seen wood/mud huts with power meters hanging on the outside wall in rural Ethiopia.
Patrick – My company spent about 30 years working in Addis on Water Supply and Sewerage, as well as southern Ethiopia in rural and developing water around Awasa all the way to the southern border; and north to the Red Sea in rural villages as well as Asmara and Massawa before the fighting got too bad and we moved back to Addis although we worked in the east around Harar and did a plant in Dire Dawa. Some of those mud huts have a lot of dung in the walls, from personal experience. 😉 A beautiful country.
Oversimplification to say that Einstein believed in God. He explicitly rejected the idea of a personal god, and took more the position of a Spinozan pantheist.
Some food for thought, FWIW: those who say that the planet needs saving are like those who say that God needs ‘defending’ against blasphemy. The planet is not going to keel over and die just because of some extra CO2.
And God needs no defending. So if Gaia is true, that is even more reason to reject CO2 driven alarmism.
“Ignore street children and people coming up to you in the streets with hard-luck tales. They may be pickpockets or part of an elaborate scam. The best thing to do is just to walk on and ignore them.”
Well, I am happy to give food or goods (train tickets etc.) to people who claim to be needy. But I won’t give them money. Most people would agree with me, I think.
Thanks for publishing the article Anthony .
I’m one who has to actually work in 3rd world countries, and see the damage that western environmental activists do.
1st example: Norway oil money is being used by activists to stop developing countries developing their oil resources. So the very thing that made Norway rich is being used to keep third world countries poor.
2nd example: Corrupt 3rd world governments and officials use western environmental activists to stop projects from helping the poor. They set up websites to counter business competition by making claims against such businesses so they can monopolise. This is rife for example, in South America, where wealthy landowners use environmental activism to keep projects such as dams being developed and mines being built to keep people in poverty and maintain a rigid landowning status quo.
Numerous other examples.
I don’t need to go to the impoverished third world countries to witness the harm that these climate change policies do to the poor. This past winter I saw the carbon tax policy of the government of British Columbia, causing poor families to reduce their consumption of natural gas in order to heat their homes because they could not afford to. This last winter in Eastern North America also caused the natural gas consumption to rise and in doing so caused a further increase in the price of natural gas. The two factors, coupled together, could conceivably result in deaths, which is entirely inexcusable in a country which has a surplus of cheap energy.
The “Ten Reasons” lost me at the thinly veiled pro creationism. As a forum dedicated to scientific understanding of the climate, I’m quite taken aback that this would slip in.
Many Africans, and others in poor nations such as the Philipines, follow the “Bible” and the doctrine of creation. Alot of Americans do too. We roamed with the dinosours? It’s sad in this day, in the 21st century, that billions of people follow the rants of an “freed” tribe of Egyptian slaves called “Israel” from about 2000 years ago.
TS Naylor,
Did you read this part?:
“We call on Christian leaders to study the issues and embrace sound scientific, economic, and ethical thinking on creation stewardship, particularly climate change.”
Christian Creationism is not anti-science. The science in the “Ten Reasons” is the reason they were posted in this forum. Rebut the science if you can, if you wish to inter into the scientific debate on this forum. Objecting to the messenger is not a scientific rebuttal of the message.
SR
Oops. enter , not inter
TS Naylor September 27, 2014 at 1:03 am
Too bad, because the rest of reason #1 and all of reasons #2 – #10 contain valid science, all of which has robust evidence in support. Much, if not all, has been discussed on WUWT to refute CAGW. The group has a plan to oppose policies based on bad climate science using valid science. Are you afraid they might add an “amen”?
Steve Reddish
September 26, 2014 at 3:24 pm
JohnWho,
It is interesting that you seem to agree with all the Cornwall Alliance’s statements and assertions, then claim that their statement of belief in God weakens those facts in the eyes of Atheists, Agnostics and Undecideds.
Just look at many of the posts throughout this topic and you’ll see what I mean. I am not passing judgment on who is right or wrong, just making an observation.
JohnWho,
Granted. As my following statement attempted to make clear, I did not object to your statement, it was the point and its resultant conclusion that I found interesting. I should have written “observe” instead of “claim”. Sorry.
SR
In re the many posts in this thread that take exception to the Cornwall Alliance statement due to the Christian beliefs of the organization. The objections seem to take 2 forms:
1. Christians are anti-science so any seemingly scientific evidence they present must not actually be supported by true science.
Any who believe that need merely present the “true” scientific evidence to make effective rebuttal. None have done so. The preferred method of rebuttal seems to be a request that Christians be censored.
2. Christians are stupid, misguided, and/or malevolent, therefore anything they say should be opposed.
In this case, to slightly misquote Forrest Gump: Stupid, misguided, and/or malevolent is as stupid, misguided, and/or malevolent does. Is opposing climate policies that have no scientific basis because of the resultant harm to the poor stupid, misguided, and/or malevolent? Or is opposing these attempts to help the poor because of dislike for Christians’ beliefs stupid, misguided, and/or malevolent?
SR
Steve Reddish September 27, 2014 at 1:56 pm
+10
“If everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over”.
Translation: Screw you I got mine. The true face of Obama and supposedly compassionate democratic party.
Any idea what all these missiles and other military hardware going off on the Middle East add to CO2 load? All seems a bit hypocritical to me from Lord O Bama
On the God objections.
A small mental exercise for those who bristle at religion, substitute “Everything” in place of God.
If the article still makes sense, carry on.
If it circles into oblivion, abandon it.
The more narrow ones beliefs the uglier your deities can be.
As Shakespeare wrote, “There are more things in Heaven and earth than….”
“A small mental exercise for those who bristle at religion, substitute “Everything” in place of God.”
————————————————————-
A small mental exercise for you… if it read “Satan” in place of “God” would you still be happy to sign?
The Light Bringer?
This could be a really tidy resource for those of you who would like to help people in the churches understand the sustainability/climate change messaging in the media.
Try to think of yourselves as getting to the churches before Kathrine Hayhoe of Green Jesus fame does.
Take this declaration to a Calvary Chapel on Sunday and give it to the pastor after the service. Dress is casual. You will also understand why it is important to talk to people who are already involved in missions in Africa, Haiti, the Philipines, and other places.
All churches I have been part of (mostly Calvary Chapel) send their own members to these countries. Priorities are literacy, schools, clean water, and goats. Motorcycles too. Challenges are so great. Sometimes it is very hard for small outreaches to get a working generator to a remote village. But this is better than sending money to a huge, international organization in response to a natural disaster. I think this is better than sending money to the Red Cross, by a long shot.
Please, adopt a pastor. (: Just remember, John Kerry and the State Department also think “religion is very important.” Tell them you would like to provide them any information they need about datasets, sea ice, renewables, etc.
Most State Constitutions say something like this in the pre-amble:
PREAMBLE
We, the people of the state of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.
And the declaration of rights clearly show a familiarity with the abuses of royalty and aristocracies – and any kind of caste system, which gives separate rights to separate classes.
Do you refuse your individual liberties because of the pre-amble? I think you do not.