Climate prof suffers hate speech, bias and intolerance at University of Delaware

University of Delaware student newspaper attacks climatology professor for his religious beliefs

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

University of Delaware students, faculty, administrators and trustees must truthfully answer a simple, but important question: Would this conduct have been ignored or excused if the targets had been Muslim?

A recent article by the editor-in-chief of the school’s student newspaper proclaimed “Green Dragon slayer for hire, in a geography department near you: To members of the Cornwall Alliance, environmentalists are satanic ‘Green Dragons,’ sent from the bowels of hell to threaten world order and harm the needy.”

Caleb Owens’ article links tenured UDel geography and climatology professor David Legates and his Christian faith to “far-right American evangelicals,” fossil fuel funding and the “anti-environmentalist” Cornwall Alliance. Legates is pilloried as a “listed speaker and trusted affiliate” of the Alliance.

The article relies heavily on Iliff School of Theology sociology professor Antony Alumkal, whose book Paranoid Science Owens asserts “charts the long and complicated relationship between science and the American Christian evangelical movement, examining the intra-religious tensions that have accompanied various strands of science denial, including the intelligent design and anti-environmental movements.”

Expanding on this, Owens falsely claims “far-right American evangelicals have been responsible for some of the most radical opposition to scientific positions regarding topics such as climate change and evolution, working in close tandem with secular free-market idealogues.” [sic]

“To find religious justification for their activity,” he says, “Christian anti-environmentalists” and groups like Cornwall “claim a specific literal interpretation of Genesis, finding free market justification in passages that describe God giving humans unrestricted reign over [the] earth. According to the interpretation, God granted humans dominion over the planet and the license to exert power over earth’s resources. From here, environmentalist attempts to regulate fossil fuel use, for instance, stand contrary to man’s God-given destiny.”

Underscoring his bias and intolerance, a cartoon accompanying the article depicts a cute, frightened green dragon carrying a “recycle” placard being attacked by members of a Christian mob dressed in nineteenth century garb straight out of a Frankenstein movie, and brandishing a cross, torch and pitchfork.

In his imagined coup de grace, Owens claims that “groups like” Cornwall have received “indirect” funding from fossil fuel companies, such as Exxon Mobil – and “government officials and climate activist groups have questioned Legates’ funding and motivations, possibly traceable to fossil fuel industries.”

Owens didn’t even give his target organization its proper name, and clearly didn’t review its actual policy and religious positions. I’ve co-authored articles with Professor Legates and know him, the organization, Cornwall founder and national spokesman Calvin Beisner, and many of its staff and advisors very well.

First off, it’s the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Those final four words underscore what this fine organization is, what it stands for – and how disingenuous Owens’ article is.

In no way does Cornwall or anyone affiliated with it promote or condone “unrestricted reign” over our Earth or a license to exploit its resources without legal or regulatory constraints. They hold that people are integral and rightful inheritors and stewards of our planet, with a God-given right to utilize its energy and other resources to nourish and sustain humanity – responsibly, for this and future generations.

“Godly dominion,” Beisner explains, “means enhancing the fruitfulness, beauty and safety of the Earth, to the glory of God and benefit of our neighbors and humanity. Because humans are imperfect, and some take impermissible advantage of opportunities, government rules against fraud, theft, violence, pollution, and harm to other people’s health and property are necessary and proper restrictions on our dominion.”

Nor is Cornwall anti-environment or against environmental groups, though it definitely opposes extremist forms of environmentalism. Cornwall’s DVD lecture series “Resisting the Green Dragon” makes that distinction and, as Beisner notes, clearly and persuasively explains that “much radical environmentalism is indeed an alternative to the Christian religion, is thus acceptably termed ‘pagan’ in its nature-focused views. It also often does indeed strive to establish a powerful, dominant one-world government.”

The “Green Dragon” DVD series prompted the title for the Owens article, and some of its misguided criticisms. In his own Dragon lecture, Legates says segments of the scientific community improperly engage in “post-normal science,” altering or distorting facts to advance political goals. Owens suggests that this is not happening and claims Legates is in denial about human-caused climate change.

However, even Dr. Mike Hulme, a former member of the IPCC and University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (and an evangelical Christian), said post-normal science focuses on “the process of science – who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy makers” – rather than on what should be an honest, transparent, evidence-based scientific method. Hulme called the IPCC “a classic example.”

Moreover, like many other scientists, Legates has explicitly affirmed that climate change is frequent and recurring, and people play a role, especially at local levels but even on global scales. What he denies is that carbon dioxide emissions are the primary driver and manmade change is likely to become disastrous.

All this puts Cornwall at odds with political activist groups that use sustainability and climate change to justify their positions against fossil fuels and economic development. All people, Cornwall says, should be able to develop the natural resources needed to maintain or improve their health and wellbeing.

It is especially immoral to tell Earth’s most destitute, diseased, malnourished, energy-deprived countries and families that they can improve their ghastly situations only at the margins. Or only to the extent that they can do so only with renewable energy – and without fossil fuels, genetically engineered crops like Golden Rice, insecticides to combat disease-carrying insects, and other technologies that wealthier nations have used to give billions of people living standards that few could even dream of a century ago.

Caring, ethical students, universities, environmental groups and people of faith do not politicize or pervert “sustainable development” concepts in ways that ignore the needs of current generations. They do not say people living today must refrain from using natural resources, based on completely unpredictable raw material requirements of completely unpredictable, constantly evolving future technologies. They do not seek to protect people from exaggerated future dangers that exist mostly in bald assertions, questionable science and computer models – while perpetuating dangers that are very real, even lethal, right now.

Caring, ethical people do not condemn fossil fuel, nuclear and even hydroelectric energy, while promoting energy that is land-intensive, destructive to wildlife and habitats, expensive, weather dependent, unpredictable, sporadic, and completely inadequate to power modern industrialized economies, lift people out of poverty – or even manufacture more wind, solar and biofuel installations.

These principles put David Legates and the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation firmly on the side of humanity, evidence-based science, and mainstream environmental and Christian thinking.

Finally, as to funding, Legates and Beisner have told me neither they nor Cornwall ever received “one dime” from any fossil fuel company. Owens’ slick, crafty suggestions that they did could have meant he has a job waiting for him at MSNBC – except that the claims are libelous, especially in the context of the headline claim that Legates is “for hire” by Cornwall or an oil company. (Meanwhile, six progressive-climate alarmist religious groups received over $3 million in nine years from liberal foundations, some of which have clear financial stakes in renewable energy policies. Why is there no problem with that?)

The University of Delaware cannot let this biased, deceitful, defamatory hate speech go unchallenged – especially in an official campus newspaper, housed in a UDel building, funded by Delaware taxpayers.

Imagine the outrage it would have generated if the professor’s conservative, environmental and climate views were rooted in the Koran and his Muslim faith. Or the cartoon had featured a woman in a hijab and a bearded man waving a banner emblazoned with a star inside a crescent moon.

And it’s not just the double standards. This is yet another attempt to intimidate and silence unwelcome voices on campuses. It has to end – and be replaced by open, robust, respectful, tolerant free speech for all.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT,org) and author of articles and books on energy, climate change, carbon dioxide and economic development.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 24, 2018 10:22 pm

i’ve been exhorted, extorted and activated
influenced and had my consciousness elevated
engaged and outraged
barked at and snarked at

i’ve been told what to think and what not to say.
and that’s just a a normal and regular day.
but this one is so much more than i can chew…
ima sit this one out. idgaf, do u?

Percy Jackson
June 24, 2018 10:45 pm

I can’t find a single deceitful or defamatory thing in the article (which is surprising for an article in a student paper) nor do I see how it could possibly be classified as “hate speech”. There might well be issues with the book Paranoid Science but this article would appear to be a reasonable discussion of the theological differences between various environment christian groups.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 24, 2018 10:56 pm

How about the cartoon at the very top of the article?



Percy Jackson
Reply to  Roger
June 24, 2018 11:13 pm

Are you seriously going to complain about a cartoon in a student newspaper?

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 24, 2018 11:31 pm

At what point in 1930’s Germany would you have thought to complain ?

Reply to  sparky
June 24, 2018 11:34 pm

you scored your Godwin so fast!
at which moment would you notice yu are in the shallow end of a rancid estrogen pool triggering yourself?

Reply to  gnomish
June 25, 2018 12:14 am

Just making a point. Cartoons normalize behavior

Percy Jackson
Reply to  sparky
June 25, 2018 12:28 am

But you are missing my point – the article is fine. It is basically a book review of “Paranoid Science: the Christian Right’s War on Reality” and any material that Paul appears to object to seem to come directly from the book. Paul should be complaining about the book itself rather than attack it via proxy.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 12:36 am

The cartoon isn’t. I’m an atheist and even I can spot that it reeks of bigotry.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  sparky
June 25, 2018 12:41 am

Well I am catholic and I can recognise that there are many intolerant bigots not to mention child abusers in the church who deserve a lot worse than badly drawn cartoons. I also find the theological positions held by the Cornwall Alliance to be wrong and basically ridiculous. It is also clear that their view on science is determined by their religious beliefs rather than any objective view of the evidence.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 1:03 am

Actually it seems that their view is that uber green environmentalism is basically an ersatz religion.
Personally I can’t really argue with that

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 12:04 pm

Just like to point out that Percy is speaking for himself. He may well be a Catholic but as a fellow Catholic I haven’t a clue as to what he finds ‘wrong and basically ridiculous’ in the theological positions held by the Cornwall Alliance. He doesn’t make it clear what his problem stems from. Could be that his own theological positions are ‘wrong and basically ridiculous’ for all I know. A former President of the Republic of Ireland was recently described as a ‘practising Catholic’ by a Catholic website despite her holding the view that abortion is acceptable. There are all sorts of ‘practising Catholics’ nowadays holding views which are completely at odds with Catholic teaching. A bit like a ‘practising Communist’ saying that he believes that all of industry should be in private ownership and that the profit motive is okay..

Reply to  Alba
June 25, 2018 12:19 pm

Alba :
” A bit like a ‘practising Communist’ saying that he believes that all of industry should be in private ownership and that the profit motive is okay..”

Reply to  Trevor
June 25, 2018 3:16 pm

Am I the only one that understands the Chicoms have morphed into the Chifascistas? Private business and ownership are permitted within the framework of a dictatorship. Follow the dictates of the government and get rich. Do anything to embarrass China and therefore the government and you will be punished, sometimes to death. Communism is dead in China.

Richard Patton
Reply to  actuator
June 25, 2018 4:26 pm

But Socialism isn’t dead in China. Communism, Fascism, and Nazism are all branches of Marxism. All property and industry are de-facto if not actually owned by the state for “the good of the people.”

There are industries in this country which are controlled by fascistic policies “for the good of the consumer”-ex: power utilities. (I don’t know how you could make the electric power industry competitive)

Watch out whenever a politician starts saying “for the good of ______” What he means is “for the increase of state power”.

Reply to  Richard Patton
June 26, 2018 7:16 am

One possible way would be to separate the generation of electric power from the distribution of electric power. That is, allow there to be a monopoly on the owning of power lines in a certain area. You pay a company for the maintenance of those lines. You then buy power from whichever power producer you want.
(As a condition of the monopoly grant, the city is forbidden from excluding any power producer from transmitting power over it’s lines. With the possible exception of documented power quality issues.)

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 26, 2018 7:47 am

Percy Jackson, the stupid is strong in you. You went “naz*” extrapolating the subject to child abusers — what’s that have to do w/Legates? Their theological positions are wrong? Hey, look at the squirrel!! Do you miss all the hatred, corruption, deception, lying, cheating, law-breaking, pyschological projecting, money-squandering, politicization, name-calling, blatant contradictions, violence, etc, etc, etc of our deep-state unelected government and the university apparatchiks and sycophants like Owens? Get real.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 1:01 am

It is certainly not a book review. It uses the book and the book’s authors as “authorities”, and does not really question them. There is little if any attempt to give the other side of any argument, other than setting up strawmen for the articles authorities to demolish. All we really get is “their arguments are just wrong” and they are wrong because “they don’t believe the science”.

It’s just childish stuff, but it’s not a book review

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 3:16 am

the article is fine. It is basically a book review of “Paranoid Science: the Christian Right’s War on Reality” and any material that Paul appears to object to seem to come directly from the book.

What? No, it’s not. The article Clearly just uses quotes from the book to support it’s many (often ridiculous) accusations. And yes, it’s anti Christian theme is wide and obvious.

Maybe jf your own hatred of Christianity wasn’t blinding you, you’d be able to see what the author actually wrote. And yes, I know you said you come from the Catholic faith. You’d hardly be the first former or even CURRENT Catholic who hated Christians.

Just look at the Pope.


Reply to  Schitzree
June 25, 2018 4:46 am

I very much doubt that Percy is a Catholic, seems to be a dime a dozen militant atheist.

Reply to  Sparky
June 25, 2018 9:46 am

PJ and PJ’s people can be whatever they claim they are, and they can change whatever they are whenever it suits them.

I was raised Catholic, but I’m not now.
I am Catholic.
I am gay.
I am bi-sexual.
I am a spiritual person, but I am not religious.
I am Catholic.
I am admittedly, at times, a big ‘ol hypocrite.
I am a staunch believer of free speech.
It is perfectly OK to deviously try to silence others, or change the atmosphere so they won’t be heard.
Shut the hell up you liar … your position is worthless.
Everybody and every individual is sacred and deserving.
Roe v. Wade is the law of the Land ….
I am Catholic.
Someone like you doesn’t have the right to question me, or my beliefs.

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  Schitzree
June 25, 2018 9:39 am

You’d hardly be the first former or even CURRENT Catholic who hated Christians.

“Yup”, they can surely trace their family nurtured “hatred” of Christianity way, way back to The Protestant Reformation

Reply to  sparky
June 26, 2018 12:20 pm

Cartoons highlight and satirize and humorously portray behaviour which may or may not be questionable. The observer tends to take out of a cartoon what they put into it. They don’t “normalize” anything. Science and religion as a mix rife with the potential for serious expectation bias over loads. It doesn’t mean the mix is necessarily bad, but it can indicate a potential bias which must be taken into sceptical account. I know a one Ivey League engineering professor who, according to his bio, became a fundamentalist simply becase he was not struck ny lightening. This doesn’t mean he is bad at his job, but does raise the question of who it is precisely that is speaking at any given moment, the engineer, or the fundamentalist. And then consider whether the difference actually makes a difference. This again is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, on the face of it, it could improve learning.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 6:26 am

So you were shown to be wrong, and your response is a straw man argument.

Run along failure.

Reply to  DrTorch
June 25, 2018 7:24 am

Is that directed at me ? Lol

Reply to  Sparky
June 25, 2018 9:22 am

Just following the indenting, it appears to be aimed at Percy.
General note: add the name of the person you are responding to. I’m guilty of not doing this too.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 12:27 pm

To ( probably misquote but…..) Prof. Jordan Peterson
“So…they are young students , they can’t read , they can’t write ,
they can’t think ,they can’t speak , they can’t keep their room tidy ,
and yet they think that by waving a piece of paper with some writing
on it on the end of a stick…. and chanting obscenities ( at me )
that they can change the political and financial order of the World ? ”
They are delusional.

Martin Howard Keith Brumby
Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 1:10 am

Percy, you might consider lying assertion of being funded by fossil fuels (whilst trousering factual funding from greenie foundatiins – not to mention Putin & Gazprom) to be absolutely fine.
Paul is absolutely correct. Were Legates a Muslim and the cartoon to feature a bunch of bearded Jihadis with placards calling for the decapitation of disbelievers, there is little doubt that, here in the UK, this student would be in police custody.
Muslim ‘rights’ trump everything.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Martin Howard Keith Brumby
June 25, 2018 1:29 am

The article very clearly states that Alumkal “argues in his book” that the Cornwall alliance
is indirectly funded by fossil fuels. If this is indeed argued in the book then the statement in the article is not a lie. Again Paul appears to have issues with the book and its author and rather than attacking it directly is having a go at a student newspaper article about it.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 4:49 am

It’s also clear from the article where the authors opinion lies.
Juvenile Christian bashers give real atheists a bad name

honest liberty
Reply to  Sparky
June 25, 2018 8:30 am

the modern left live in a post-truth “reality” and clearly Percy has aligned his worldview in such a manner. He will not budge, so why waste the effort?

modern progressives… you know, the “do as I command, not as I do” type. They are hypocrites of an ungodly level and it is them who are leading us down the path of genocide. The writing is on the wall and history is repeating.
It’ll be a sad day when those muslims enact explosive violence on our soil, because, often, they also harm those who want to defend them. So it is not just hypocrisy, but a tragic irony as well.

Reply to  honest liberty
June 25, 2018 12:59 pm

I remember a number of leftists who were honestly hurt by the fact that NYC was attacked on 9-11. They proclaimed that it was very unlikely that anyone in those buildings had voted for Bush.

As if the terrorists really cared. To them we are all infidels.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 26, 2018 4:15 am

Percy Jackson

Just to pick up a point here. Most pension funds include fossil fuels of some description in their portfolios. They are proving of enormous benefit to millions of people in their old age, including self professed greens.

Kind of discredits any criticism of fossil fuel funding of anything, doesn’t it?

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Martin Howard Keith Brumby
June 25, 2018 7:52 am

Ah just indirect funding, not direct funding. Indirect funding is really hard to trace. Hell, no one even knows what it is. I’m just going to go ahead and say that environmental groups are being indirectly funded from human trafficking because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
June 25, 2018 1:00 pm

Declaring that it is indirect just means you don’t have to actually prove your charges.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 6:28 am


Do you consider the false accusation that someone or a group is a hired actor for vested interests to be defamatory? I do. What about falsely accusing someone of “working for Russia”?

We are usually forgiving of student articles written in beclowning ignorance because they have little experience as to how the world really works, and how honest most people are. They often write in front of a mirror. “Clever” articles venting bile are different from carefully crafted, deliberate hatchet-jobs design to vilify and emotionally harm people for “thinking wrong thoughts”.

The article contains numerous errors of fact and libellous claims published in a public place. The people and the organisations affected should write a sober and careful reply setting forth their views, stating correctly the positions they hold, and demand space to make the correction in that same publication. The letter should be copied to the ethics committee of the university, the ombudsman of the PR department and the Senate.

The comparison with hypothetical situations involving other religious groups or social clubs is very reasonable, for it can highlight the intolerable prejudice applied by the minds that created the piece. If it is clear that different offence would be taken by the public, were the object of the vilifications to change, say to Mormons, Jews, people with a primary school education, truck drivers, university professors or a visible minority, then the problem of othering is clarified: the authors apparently expect that they can apply extreme prejudice at will, gaining by default forgiveness and support from either the student body or the population at large.

Lampooning Christian (and traditional) beliefs is one of the oldest sports in America – Jefferson engaged in quite a bit of it. However there are civil limits to hate speech and similar limits about making false claims intended to lower the target of the utterance in the eyes of the general public – this is known as calumny. Calumniating against those forbidden the practice is one way that darkness sets itself apart from light.

Caleb Owens would do better to find a civil tongue and practise his art in the manner of the numerous American heroes of eloquence and discernment. For if the tree of discourse bears no fruit, it is fit only for the fire.

honest liberty
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
June 25, 2018 8:33 am

Thank you sir for that wonderful reply. You are a true gentleman and scholar

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
June 25, 2018 12:17 pm

Making a false claim might be defamatory but stating clearly that somebody else has made a that same claim is not – that is merely stating a fact. Also the article is not lampooning Christian beliefs – it is summarising the arguments made by one christian Alumkal who is stated to be a practising christian against another group of christians. Some christians believe in transubstantiation while others don’t. But it is possible to have a civil discussion about the issues. And again the article is civil and reasonable and while you might not agree with the conclusions that doesn’t mean that there is anything in it that counts as hate speech.

June 24, 2018 11:46 pm

Not sure about the 19th century clothing.

But have to agree that a cartoon with a character wielding a crescent moon rather than a cross would be strictly verboten.

Reply to  Felix
June 25, 2018 6:39 am

I agree about the crescent thing, but that might be merely a reflection of the Christian substrate of American culture (e.g., Christmas being a federal holiday, and most not-particularly-Christian-nor-anything-else Americans celebrating it with gusto) — it’s always OK to mock one’s own group. My money says that the cartoonist is as it were a “cultural Christian”, Christian solely by immersion; that group tends to twitch at PDP — Public Displays of Piety.

Reply to  Felix
June 25, 2018 12:16 pm


Could be that the perps are culturally Christian, but many young people today have grown up with no religious tradition, or in families actively hostile to religion in general, except sacrosanct Islam, and Christianity in particular.

I don’t have data on religious faith among 18-35 year-olds, so this is merely my impression. Sometimes kids who grow up totally outside a belief system are attracted to one or more, or acquire vague spiritual impulses.

June 25, 2018 12:31 am

I think well-intentioned atheists, agnostics and Christians all need to oppose this sort of thing. It used to be said “I disagree with everything you say, but would die for your right to say it”. If atheists don’t stand up for free speech for Christians and vice versa, we will both lose

Percy Jackson
Reply to  John Hardy
June 25, 2018 12:45 am

What is “this sort of thing”? The article would appear to contrasting two different christian environmental views – the Catholic views which put climate change front and centre in the fight for social justice and those of the American Christian evangelical movement. And again note that the author of the book in question is “practicing Episcopal Christian” so again standing up for free speech for Christians would mean defending the book.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 1:52 am

Percy – without wanting to get into a bunfight, you may be right that this stops short of an attempt to muzzle – but not very far. For me the cartoon was uncomfortably redolent of the cartoons used to demonise the Jews in 1930s Germany.

Secondly if we are going to compare apples with apples, US Catholics are I think more nuanced in their attitude to Climate Change than a simple “Prot. versus Catholic” divide, despite the Pope’s laudate si encyclical.

And re your last sentence, I wasn’t suggesting defending your opponents point of view, rather their right to publish it

Percy Jackson
Reply to  John Hardy
June 25, 2018 2:07 am

Nothing in the article suggests that people should be silenced. Rather they present an alternative viewpoint based both on differing versions of christianity and views about science. If you want to defend peoples right to publish their views then you have to accept that others might disagree and say so in public.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 6:15 am

As far as i know hard left position taken by Bergoglio isnt necessarily shared by “the church” or by most Catholics. I live in Spain and I don’t see much popular support for Bergoglio, although I have to admit I don’t have polls or widespread contact with the full range of Catholics across the country. I see the pope as a hard core communist allied with the Castro dictatorship and other human rights abusers. As for evangelicals, I don’t know any, so I’m not sure if it’s right to link ideas such as opposition to evolution to skepticism about climate change being all caused by CO2.

Reply to  Fernando L
June 25, 2018 12:26 pm

I’m not a great fan of Pope Francis, either. I much regret that he was the choice of the last Conclave of Cardinals. But I think it’s a bit exaggerated to call his views ‘hard left’ and to call him a ‘hard core communist’. He may have some regettable advisers but I doubt he goes along with all the ideas of ‘hard core communism’.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 25, 2018 12:21 pm

“the Catholic views which put climate change front and centre in the fight for social justice.”

I think that it should be pointed out that these ‘Catholic views’ are the views of certain Catholics rather than any formal teaching on the part of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis certainly makes a great deal of ‘climate change’ but as a Catholic you will be aware of the level of authority which is attached to the Pope’s statements on these matters. They come nowhere near the level of infallibility. Nor do they even belong to the ‘ordinary magisterium’ which Catholics are obliged to uphold even though they may not agree. The Pope has no authority (I repeat, no authority) when it comes to matters of science. He’s entitled to his opinion but that’s all it is. And given the mess the Church got into over Galileo I would have thought that any Pope would have had the wisdom to keep well clear of making statements about science. So until the Magisterium makes a statement which approaches infallibility all Catholics are totally free to have whatever view they want on the SCIENCE of ‘climate change’.

June 25, 2018 1:18 am

Oh come on. If this came from administration, then you would have some reason to worry. But from student newspaper? seriously?
boys will be boys, and student newspapers will be student newspapers, abusing government, teachers, and whatever, for utterly nonsensical reason.
Free speech is all about letting it happen.
Would this conduct have been ignored or excused if the targets had been Muslim? probably no, so what? don’t expect fairness, expect double standard, and you won’t be disappointed.
So let it happen, smile, and wear proudly your badge of being abused by stupids.

Reply to  paqyfelyc
June 25, 2018 3:19 am

“Would this conduct have been ignored or excused if the targets had been Muslim? probably no, ..”

Are you kidding, there would have been an uproar with protests and accusations of racism and bigotry. In the UK and Canada, the author would be investigated by police, along with fines and possible jail time. That’s the law.

But the targets were Christian, so it’s ok.

Reply to  Klem
June 26, 2018 6:58 am

actually I meant “yes”, I fùcked up, my apologies . But, as I said, “so what”? There indeed would have been such uproar you mention, and it would have been wrong, just as wrong as this special (christian) snowflake rant is.
So yes, its OK to target Christians, no less than it is OK to target liberals, muslims, trumpists, or whatever.
Because lots of wrongdoer wants to suppress free speech, is not a reason to demand the very same for yourself. Quite the opposite, in fact, as a christian (who is suppose to expose the left cheek when slapped on the right), the answser should have been “sir, be aware, (if you weren’t before) what you have done is bad and hurts me, but as a christian and supporter of free speech I won’t interfere why your right to produce this shameful piece”
Would had been a proud christian teaching.

CC Reader
June 25, 2018 1:51 am

This says it all, radical environmentalism is a religion.

“much radical environmentalism is indeed an alternative to the Christian religion, is thus acceptably termed ‘pagan’ in its nature-focused views. It also often does indeed strive to establish a powerful, dominant one-world governmeT”

Lewis P Buckingham
June 25, 2018 2:55 am

The student body offers the actuality of debate.
Strip out the satire and ask a few questions, in essay form, about sea level rise, hurricanes temperature and validation of the AGW theory.
Head it
Why are we Not Burning In Hell by now?
Perhaps next week ask the question
Did ET frighten the other Aliens away?

‘And while we’re building on a rich, successful tradition, we hope to break from tradition in certain ways, too. Next year, we invite you to participate in weekly essay contests, designed to spur campus dialogue on new and untapped questions. We’ve restructured our opinion section, and hope that you’ll join us there each week. Your creative prose and poetry will now have a place in Mosaic.’

June 25, 2018 3:49 am

I don’t think that there is any doubt that if this article was about a Muslim or the upcoming new majority that it would have been met with disdain. People would have been hounded out of positions and those responsible would have been told, not asked to resign or outright fired in indignation .
Climate Science as defined by AGW is political and not scientific. It is a belief system based on ever smaller changes in the environment rather than the large catastrophic events that were suppose to have already occurred. Waiting in a field for someone to return, drinking acid laced kool aid, or following some charismatic individual … all have one thing in common, ‘ if you don’t do this, it’s the end of the world, and you don’t want that.. do you?’ .
The agendas of Climate Science are being propagated via fear-mongering. The Science they espouse is based on half truths and conjectures.

Reply to  rishrac
June 25, 2018 4:01 am

And out right B.S….

June 25, 2018 4:00 am

… the double standards …

Why don’t feminists protest Islam? link

My favorite double standard is some folks’ insistence that white people can’t experience racism. link When try to use logic, the SJWs insist that you can’t use the dictionary definition of racism.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

The SJWs are clearly living in cloud cuckoo land.

R Shearer
Reply to  commieBob
June 25, 2018 7:37 am

But God is on the atheists side, so says Maxine.

June 25, 2018 4:01 am

just a little addition
once again golden rice gets used as “us harming the poor”if we dont agree with its promotion
well your own FDA just for once;-) actually got their act together and stated it has NO extra nutritional benefits re patenting i guess.
colour me very amused
might be the only GMO they have canned apart from Triifid flax in canada which then escaped/got out to markets anyway.
just like the wheat they halted and was NOT destroyed as laws state but it now turning up all over the place too.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
June 25, 2018 7:06 am

For those who already have a balanced diet, Golden Rice offers no additional benefit.
However it isn’t being targeted towards those who already eat a balanced diet.

Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 8:30 am

Where is this wonderful improvement to rice actually being used successfully to provide adequate nutrition?
Or is it just being “targeted towards” certain people who aren’t buying into it ?

Wouldn’t it be better, easier, cheaper to just give people a bit of education on nutrition, access to cheap vitamin A supplements, and, best of all a better variety of food?

Oh, hang on…

“Now, in addition to the freshest seasonal fruits at her market stand, Aminata also shares this important information with the many mothers and caregivers she sees every day.”

Isn’t “golden rice” just a virtue-signalling PR exercise for the GM industry?

Reply to  Khwarizmi
June 25, 2018 9:25 am

If it were so simple to provide vitamins to everyone, they would be doing it already.

Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 3:02 pm

‘If they aren’t getting enough vitamins, just give them all Flintstones chewables.’

‘And if they’re hungry, let them eat cake.’

Welcome to Left-Wing logic. Where trying to power the world with sunbeams and unicorn facts is common sense, while trying to improve the nutrition of the Third World is a sinister and dangerous plot by Monsanto, or something.


June 25, 2018 4:15 am

Ironically, the less actual influence that Christianity has, the more hysterically paranoid the Left is about its influence.

Reply to  Patrick
June 25, 2018 7:07 am

The left needs a boogeyman to scare the populace so that they can be more easily controlled.
The less actual evidence they have, the louder they must scream in order to hide that fact.

June 25, 2018 4:31 am

I would agree that the article doesn’t deserve to be taken too seriously (Christianity has stood up to worse) but focussing the attack on a particular member of the faculty seems to be an unpleasant aspect, to say the least.


June 25, 2018 4:48 am

The article is the usual weak slander against a climate sceptic. Call him an evangelical christian, and associate him with anti gay, anti abortion extremists. Accuse his group of getting funding from Exxon Mobile, surely the most overplayed and ineffective card in CAGWers arsenal.

There is nothing generally anti-christian about the article though, and even the cartoon looks to be a typical ‘storm the castle and kill the monster’ image taken from a 1930s horror film.

U agree with others here, I dont see much justification in this WUWT response. Perhaps a case of looking to fill air time and looking around for any material, even if it has to be misrepresented?

Reply to  MattS
June 26, 2018 8:05 pm

behead cartoons that insult muh narrative!
(southpark, the movie. or maybe not. oh yeah- their line was “it’s not a real one! This is the real one!”)
pixels are powerful! with a camera you can catch primitive souls!
one time i photoshopped a third eye on the forehead of a little autistic girl.
she would have done anything to get me to remove it. she confessed to crimes she didn’t commit to get me to do it.
it was hilarious.
those power pixels, man, they can ruin your life. there is no defense.
they are extra treacherous because they may go unnoticed. you have to actually look at them and take offense or they won’t do their magical thing.

David Smith
June 25, 2018 5:30 am

“Because humans are imperfect”
For a supposedly omnipotent power, God doesn’t seem to have done a very good job with his creation.

Reply to  David Smith
June 25, 2018 7:08 am

I guess God could have made us perfect puppets.
Would that have satisfied you?

Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 7:59 am

Indeed. In the Christian belief God gave Mankind free will, and that includes the power to rebel.

It’s the same power good parents give their children. I’m sure we’ve all seen the effect of parents that try to control their children to closely.

I’ll admit though, I can think of a few individuals who could benefit greatly by a little divine corporal punishment.


Reply to  Schitzree
June 25, 2018 9:27 am

The toughest thing any parent has to do, is to allow their children to make their own mistakes.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  David Smith
June 25, 2018 8:18 am

What would be the point in creating perfect, angelic humans? Without choice, morality is meaningless. You don’t get credit for “doing the right thing” if there’s no choice.

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
June 25, 2018 11:25 am

You are right. And this explains why I don’t ever get an “atta boy, good job”.

It sucks being perfect/angelic … nobody every pats me on the back.

God was very cruel to do this to me (& mosher).

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
June 25, 2018 6:14 pm

Why does god need to be worshiped? What’s the point?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 26, 2018 4:21 am

Jeff Alberts

It gives people false hope that there is an afterlife, making them more compliant in this life.

Was it Einstein who said “I have been dead for billions of years without suffering any inconvenience?” (Paraphrasing).

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 26, 2018 6:11 pm

Why does God need to be worshipped?

My father does not need to be worshipped. I still gave him an Father’s Day card on Father’s Day, and a gift, and we all gathered for a meal together.

He enjoyed this. Having created us and raised us, he enjoys seeing us thrive in our lives, and enjoys seeing his wisdom being an inheritance to his children’s children.

With each of us, we gave him times to be very hurt, and upset, that we “knew better,” were raised better, yet acted foolishly, or worse. All the while, he had to recognize that his control over us was actually quite limited, each of us being our own person. In the long run, it seems we have all managed to survive our fits and starts of rebellion, but have largely lived decent lives, as we had been raised, and instructed. Having us around to fete all of this on Father’s Day was pretty nice.

He enjoyed the recognition, but mostly we need to continue to recognize the role he has had in our lives, which helps keep us on the straight and narrow. Us doing the fete thing helps us more than it helps him.

It is sad if you cannot figure this out on your own. God does not need to be worshipped. Things just go better for us humans if we keep ourselves in perspective, vis-avis our creator, and give thanks where it is due. We need to praise God for our own benefit, not God’s.

David Smith
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
June 26, 2018 5:49 am

Why do you need credit? Why this test to get to the alleged afterlife? What’s the point?

Reply to  David Smith
June 26, 2018 7:20 am

I’ve got to wonder about the hubris of humans who demand to know every nit and jottle of God’s plan, and demand that all of the details be acceptable to them.

I’d explain my understanding of the whys and wherefores, but you have shown that you aren’t interested in understanding, just looking for reasons to complain.

David Smith
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2018 8:19 am

If you’re addressing me, then I’m not complaining. Just laughing, mostly.

Reply to  David Smith
June 26, 2018 6:17 pm

DS: Test to receive afterlife?

There is no test. It is a gift.

You, on your own free will, get to claim it, or not.

If you decide that you do not want to accept the gift of eternal life with God, you can opt for the other choice – eternal life without God.

That is “free will.”

Most of us have studied, in an academic sense, the “major world religions.” For educated WUWT commenters to be do ignorant of well-recognized tenets of Christianity is pretty sad. This is simple orthodoxy. If you are not “up” on this, you can get yourself up-to-speed pretty easily. There has been a Bible in most every hotel room you have ever stayed in – go ahead and take it.

And, your inclination on where to begin – at the Gospels – will do just fine.

You are either sadly ignorant of such basics, or are misrepresenting basics of Christianity to be rude or hostile.

David Smith
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 27, 2018 8:17 am

Spent my whole education in a Christian school and studied the Bible every week. That’s why I’m an atheist.

David Smith
June 25, 2018 5:32 am

“Earth’s most destitute, diseased, malnourished, energy-deprived countries and families”
I’m struggling to see God’s alleged love in that sentence

Reply to  David Smith
June 25, 2018 7:09 am

In your opinion, the only way to express love is to make sure that in this temporary life, there are no hardships?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 6:17 pm

Well, according to a lot of people, angels are watching over them, keeping disaster from ruining their lives. You hear it every day on the news after some “catastrophe”. But apparently that doesn’t apply to children in Africa, dying by the millions of starvation, malaria, and many other preventable things.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 26, 2018 4:26 am

Jeff Alberts

120,0000,000 expected to die prematurely from smoke inhalation many of them children) from cooking and heating with wood and dung, by 2050 (only 32 years away) according to the WHO.

2,000,000 expected to go blind before dying of vitamin A deficiency, most of them children.

David Smith
Reply to  MarkW
June 26, 2018 5:47 am

So if I starved my son to death I’d be expressing love? Absolutely nuts.

Reply to  David Smith
June 26, 2018 7:22 am

If you allowed your son to experience the consequences of his own mistakes, you would be.

David Smith
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2018 8:29 am

But children who have no say over their consequences (i.e. starving from lack of food) shouldn’t be allowed to suffer, surely? Would you let a baby starve to death and say you’re expressing love for that child? Completely nuts.

David Smith
Reply to  MarkW
June 26, 2018 5:54 am

From an interview with the marvellous Stephen Fry:

Gay Byrne: “Suppose it’s all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God. What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?”

Stephen Fry: “I’d say, bone cancer in children? What’s that about?

“How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil.

“Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain.”…… “We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that?”

Reply to  David Smith
June 26, 2018 7:22 am

I love it when humans declare that since God doesn’t perform exactly as they want him to, that he therefore doesn’t exist.

Reply to  MarkW
June 26, 2018 6:24 pm

Good comment, MarkW:
So, for some, the plan seems to be: I will be happy with the God I create, who will believe everything I do.

And, so those folks end up beleiving in no God, since, as they say, if you agree with your boss all of the time, one of you is unnecessary. Since some people already have all of the right thoughts, behaviors, and ideas, they have no need for a god to reify them.

David Smith
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2018 8:22 am

The reasons for him not existing are nothing to do with how he’s supposed to “perform”. It just tickles me when believers try to maintain that their god is a loving one, when there is so much suffering in this world.

Reply to  David Smith
June 26, 2018 6:39 pm

DS: God’s love for those should be seen by you, and vast armies of people like you, doing something about it.

God has given you plenty of resources and opportunities.

What interferes with what we do is poor government – the policies of various nations, and the policies of nations such as the U.S. who always have to be seeking our own angle out of apparent “help” to other countries, rather than using our wisdom and resources to help make them self-sufficient. Poor government is what maintains poverty. Not a lack of Christian giving.

It would be nice to see you posting comments about how you are exercising your beliefs by working to address the obvious problems we see in this fallen world, rather than try to pin the blame on Christian theology.

David Smith
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 27, 2018 8:25 am

When did I blame suffering on Christian theology? I just questioned the evidence of a loving god who lets his children suffer so much. According to Christians their god could stop those children suffering in a blink of an eye. So why doesn’t he?

David Smith
June 25, 2018 5:35 am

“Imagine the outrage it would have generated if the professor’s conservative, environmental and climate views were rooted in the Koran and his Muslim faith. Or the cartoon had featured a woman in a hijab and a bearded man waving a banner emblazoned with a star inside a crescent moon.”

This is true – absolutely no one is allowed to criticize Islam. Just try doing it on twitter and you’ll get accused of racism (when did Islam become a race?) before the twitter police suspend your account,

June 25, 2018 6:59 am

This weekend there was yet another article about a leftists calling for violence against those they disagree with. This time it was Maxine Waters telling her followers to step up their harassment of Trump officials, and assuring her followers that God was on their side.

The entire left has gone off the deep end emotionally.

Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 7:21 am

it’s the desperation of the impotent, exhorting the masses to do her bidding just exactly like mr dreissen yanking the strings of ignorant persons with all the arrogance of maxine. ants in a jar- your trials and despair are all for the amusement of the sadistic child who put you there. shake shake shake. what a powerful influencer!

while it is a person’s right to be stupid, it’s also a choice from which there is no escape.
once you have accepted a demagogue as your guide, you have abdicated your birthright as a sapiens. this is how you will discover life to be short, brutish and nasty.

Doc Chuck
June 25, 2018 7:09 am

Paul, I remain much obliged to you for your introduction to that final section on the suppressive impact upon would-be developing countries (after its review of the the foundational science and the driving political context) in that U.K. produced video “The Great Global Warming Swindle” ( viewable at: ) that first put me on notice a dozen years ago about what is being foisted by self-designated elites upon an entire world populace, an overview that has held up remarkably well over all the years since.

Robert W Turner
June 25, 2018 7:44 am

College is the perfect time to learn what libel really is.

June 25, 2018 7:50 am

The first paragraph the the Review Article tells you where the author is going.

“Typically, the pejorative plight of an environmentalist is one of emasculated shame — the tree-hugging, bunny-loving weaklings of the world, distracted by the beauty of some leaf on the windshield and crashing their Priuses into an organic farmer’s market.”

Owens tactic is not new. If anyone disagrees with the orthodoxy of the environmental movement then make out like individuals in the environmental movement are well meaning but downtrodden, individuals who are poorly understood and who are regularly subject to terrible prejudice by the majority.

Then folks like Owen go on the attack as if the group they are attacking are evil. Owens and similar propagandist generally know little about the organization they are attacking and they don’t care to know the facts. It all feeds the base by both telling them, the poor and righteous environmentalists that someone cares about them and those opposing them are capitalist funded hacks out to get them personally and the planet.

They throw attacks in Christianity because radical socialists reject all monotheistic religions except for one right now, Islam. Ponder for a moment that little bizarre fact, the western left allied with radical Islamists.

Reply to  Edwin
June 25, 2018 9:29 am

For years I’ve wondered about the absurdity of feminists and radical gay rights groups, defending Islam.

Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 11:40 am

The first time I saw it I was shocked then I remembered who the Left really are; radical socialist hoping for a “workers paradise”. The Left often goes by the old Middle Eastern adage, “a enemy of my enemy is my friend.” I once had a Middle Eastern say you have to appreciate the rest of that adage. “until our enemy is defeat then we are coming after you.” Somehow the left believes they are going to win and out do the radical Islamist. The Left don’t appreciate that if the Islamist win, women lose their rights, radical gays are hung or worse, atheist meet the sword. The most bizarre Left protest concerned the ex-Muslim woman who had written about how women are treated in conservative Muslim countries and how many young girls are subjected to genital mutilation. That the Left could protest her clearly demonstrated their intellectual and moral corruption.

Reply to  Edwin
June 25, 2018 12:21 pm

Even though she’s an atheist:

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 12:08 pm

They have a common enemy.

richard braverman
June 25, 2018 7:56 am

Dear Paul,

…..”Would this conduct have been ignored or excused if the targets had been Muslim?……”
While the attitude of the school newspaper is disgusting, it it not surprising and rather a common approach of the cult of believers of human induced global warming. Young, naive, useful idiots always do the dirty work for their unseen masters. However, my concern is with referenced quote. How convenient to target another group to bolster one’s argument. Are you afraid to identify the true authors of Statist one world government plan to control every facet of everyone’s life on earth. Do you think the progenitors of that plan are the local kebab salesman, cab driver, war-damaged-refugees or the more common rent-a-jihadist generously funded by western tax dollars, without the knowledge of Western Tax Payers? Find the root cause, not the symptom. Unless, of course, you are already compromised.

June 25, 2018 9:01 am

Owens’ article seems nebulous, and this article about Owens’ article seems nebulous. I really cannot find much traction in either one.

The choice of language and writing style of Owens’ article seems stilted, and trying to discuss an article written as such makes it even more obscure.

Is it an article about religion or an article about climate science or an article about a professor ?

It just does not get to a point. It lacks good organization.

Obviously, it’s wasted on me.

June 25, 2018 9:04 am
R Shearer
Reply to  Robertvd
June 25, 2018 12:14 pm

She meant Satan (or at least Hillary Clinton).

June 25, 2018 10:54 am

We live in interesting times. There are more than a few intersections between religious beliefs (or the absence thereof) and belief in (or the absence thereof) the threat of climate catastrophes. For example, see Why climate change is a state/church issue”.

Not content with calling peple it opposes “deniers,” that article instead calls them “denialists.” In Scott Pruitt’s case, the article doubles down by using the word “religonist” along with “denialist” to label him.

The author seems to like words ending in -ist. I counted seven occurrences:
denialist (3)
religionist (1)
fundamentalist (1)
literalist (1)
creationist (1)

Joel Snider
June 25, 2018 12:10 pm

‘Hate speech, bias and intolerance.’

It’s not even daily from the progressive left – it’s twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

June 25, 2018 12:32 pm

I understand that there is a difference between ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘evangelicals’. What the difference is I do not know but could it be that the author of the article in the student newspaper is confusing the two?

Reply to  Alba
June 25, 2018 1:12 pm

Many of the terms that are applied to believers, are invented and applied by people who have little understanding of Christian beliefs or traditions.

Fundamentalist definitely falls into this category. It is a term that is rarely applied by Christians to themselves. To the extent that it is, it applies to those Christians who believe that the Bible is literally true. New Earth Creationists would be one example.

Evangelical on the other hand is a term that is widely used in Christian circles. It merely means Christians who believe that the Church should be outward looking. We should serve those in need, while also exposing as many as possible to the gospel.

Literalists may or may not be Evangelical. Evangelicals may or may not be Literalists.

June 25, 2018 8:49 pm

This is part of a broader pattern of businesses discriminating by political viewpoint, which has been in the news several times this week after a restaurant refused service to Sarah Huckabee, and congresswoman Maxine Waters urged Democrats to do this to Trump supporters more often. At this rate every business in the US will soon be closed to one party or the other. (Except maybe in California, the only state where political beliefs and activities are one of the protected categories in discrimination law.)

If we can’t stop them doing it to us, maybe we should all do it to them, too, until they get the message.

David Smith
June 27, 2018 9:55 am

“The University of Delaware cannot let this biased, deceitful, defamatory hate speech go unchallenged”

If they believe in free speech they should definitely allow it to go unchallenged, no matter how awful it is.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights