The Daily Detour

Copenhagen conference goes up in smoke

The big talk this week (other than Tiger Woods) centers on the 2-week long conference on global warming happening in Copenhagen, Denmark. This year's event has garnered considerable attention given the recent exposure of fraud on the climate change issue.

As the UK Telegraph points out, however, it seems the leading proponents of the evils of global warming are doing their fair share of contributing to the crisis that they are warning all of us about. The Copenhagen Conference seems to be going up in smoke--carbon dioxide, that is. The Telegraph reports that there have been 140 private planes and 1,200 limos being used by those who have come to Copenhagen.

Perhaps some may consider this little factoid an irrelevant point of emphasis. But these are the kinds of things that seriously undermine the credibililty of the Goracle and the rest of the "Chicken Littles" in the environmentalist movement. When their carbon footprint for one event--an event intended to reduce carbon footprints no less--is large enough to overshadow the energy usage of a small country, something is amiss. When those who are attempting to lead the movement are unwilling to follow their own admonitions, what does that say to the rest of us? Either those folks are okay with their hypocrisy, or perhaps they know something the rest of us don't about the true reality of the "global warming crisis." Perhaps it's not such a crisis after all. Otherwise, wouldn't those who care the most about this issue being making every effort to combat it? (Why not fly commercial and use public transportation like the rest of the world in order order to reduce the carbon footprint?)

UPDATE: There proves to be a record-breaking carbon footprint that the climate changers have left in Copenhagen after 2 weeks of deliberations about our impending doom. It was to be expected, but as this post attempted to emphasize, the whole affair smacks of "Do as we say, not as we do." Even the liberals are forced to admit that that is ALOT of carbon emissions, but are figuring out ways to justify this unavoidable dilemma. (So as to ease the conscience, and push the movement forward? Perhaps...)

Turning up the heat on the global warming theory

The news is spreading about the hacking of the computers at University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom last week. This represents one of the leading "expert" sources on global warming. Why is this significant? Because the over 3,000 emails and documents that found their way to the web reveal the effort to hide the truth about climate change.

As you might imagine, the nature of the emails has generated considerable interest. And for the gurus of global warming, it has caused understandable concern. Interestingly, someone today pointed out that if the truth about the global warming is that the globe is not warming, those who have continued to sound the alarm should be ecstatic. And yet, they are anything but. Which only makes sense if it turns out that the Goracle & Co. are perpetuating a conspiracy--based on a theory in which they have invested considerable time, energy, and reputation. This latest development does not bode well for their cause, so we'll see...

Speaking of television schizophrenia...

Like I said yesterday, I really love television (which is why the proposed sabbatical is necessary, at least for us). Part of the weekly line-up includes FOX's prevailing hit, "24". Who can resist Jack Bauer? He has become a cultural phenomenon.

If you're not familiar with the unique format, it consists of 24 episodes, each representing one hour in a 24-hour day. Thus, for the last 6 seasons (and up until this seventh season), Jack Bauer is in the middle of his 7th very dramatic, very long and stressful day. (I'm not sure exactly what he does for the rest of the year.) Jack is known for his renegade, no-holds-barred style, combined with his unrelenting pursuit of the bad guys and his willingness to do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission.

As one might imagine, Jack Bauer's willingness to call evil by its name and his loyalty to country and code has endeared him to the conservative base in this country. Which is why the Public Service Announcement by Keifer Sutherland in the middle of last night's double-episode seems a bit out of place. He made a point of explaining to the audience that "24" has become the first-ever carbon neutral television production.

Now, don't get me wrong, as I've outlined in a previous post concerning my own views on environmentalism, we should take seriously our obligation to responsibly steward the resources of our planet. (As Christians, this is especially important--which is why there is an emerging emphasis on going "green", including the new "Green Bible"). There is, however, a marked distinction between responsible environmentalism (e.g. recycling, planting trees, etc.) and radical environmentalism (e.g. burning down a ski resort to protect the habitat of the lynx, etc.). Depending on one's philosophical underpinnings, the line between responsible and radical is subject to impassioned disagreement. But in the midst of all of this, the scientific evidence is used to make the respective cases for/against global warming. And the fact is, there is as much compelling evidence against global warming as there is for it.

Take whatever position you choose on the issue. It just seemed that in the case, of "24", the liberal-leaning emphasis on reducing the carbon footprint on the film set appeared to be somewhat of a disconnect with the typically-conservative audience for the show. I struggle to envision Jack Bauer putting down his gun long enough to encourage me to watch my carbon footprint. But then again, it's easy to forget that Jack Bauer is a figment of some creative writer's imagination, regrettably. And Kiefer Sutherland is no Jack Bauer. 

UPDATE: On a slightly related note, I had to add this humorous comment from the FB wall of one of our faithful TDD readers. "If everyone on '24' followed Jack Bauer's instructions the show would be called '12'." :) If they followed that advice and shortened the show, would I be justified in breaking my self-imposed televsion fast? Just asking...

UPDATE: And we'll have to leave the discussion about the moral relativity inherent in Jack Bauer's decision-making for a future post.

The inconvenient truths of Al Gore's filmmaking

It looks as though Al Gore has actually been promoting fiction as fact in his highly-publicized global warming crusade. It was discovered recently that one of the key sequences in his highly-acclaimed documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, focusing on the effects of global warming on icebergs, was actually computer-generated footage from the blockbuster film, The Day After Tomorrow. In ABC's 20/20 report on this revelation, they asked an compelling question, "Is it wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated Hollywood shot to make a point even if there's science behind it?" Interestingly, when ABC tried to ask this question of Al Gore and his movie studio, neither of them responded to the calls.

Wal-Mart, the environment, and the Church

All the talk about Wal-Mart in the "smores" post has brought a very interesting story TDD's way. One of our regular readers brought to my attention a post over at Kem Meyer's blog about the recent "conversion" (or betrayal, depending on your environmental perspective) of evironmental guru, Adam Werbach, former president of the Sierra Club.

I just finished reading the Fast Company article to which Kem links in her post. It is a bit lengthy, but very much worth the read. And it raises some intriguing issues concerning both the environment and the larger issue of challenging the status quo in order to carry out the vision to which one is committed.

A couple of things I want to elaborate on a bit further in light of Kem's post. First of all, she highlighted a frank admission from Werbach that gets at the heart of my feelings about the environmentalist movement. The author of the article summarizes Werbach's comments:

In it's efforts to protect seal pups and redwood trees, he told his mentors, friends, and colleagues, the movement had forgotten human beings. What was needed, he said, was a new way of connecting sustainability to the aspirations of everyday people.

That humility and fair-minded assessment of the environmental movement by one of its own deserves respect and reflection. The hijacking of the environmental issue by a liberal left, who have inverted the priority of animals and trees over the immeasurable value of human beings, is what has caused considerable resistance by the conservative Christian community to embrace that critical cause. (Though, as I saw at Catalyst, that trend is gradually changing.) I have immense respect for anyone who is willing to "call a spade a spade" and own up to one's own shortcomings, regardless of the consequences of such acknowledgements.

Secondly, Kem makes a quick fly-by analogy to the Church. And I think she is right. Sometimes we have become so attached to our identifiable, comfortable version of Church that we don't recognize the evolution that has been taking place around us. And thus, we run the risk of fading into increasing irrelevance without even realizing it. Are we willing to engage in what Brad Powell terms, "sacred cow-tipping" at times in order to effectively carry out the mission to which we have been called? This is a hard question, but a necessary one if we are really willing to do whatever it takes to reach our communities with the message of true hope that only comes through Jesus Christ.

If Wal-Mart can change, and if a leading environmentalist can break the bonds of the status quo and work hand-in-hand with "the enemy" in order to carry out the mission, anything's possible.