Rev. Michael Dowd, Death-Cult Environmentalist? |435|

Seems there has been only one poster here in any way in tune with Dowd so I hesitate to get involved.
I expected as always to be against the Rev and for Alex but as the dialogue went along I realised the opposite was true for me.
I do happen to agree with the 97-9% so his catastrophe stance I thought was pretty realistic.
It seemed to me that Alex's main beef was that Dowd calls himself a Christian with a Rev handle when he patently doesn't follow Christian fundamentalism.
But I remember coming across him many years ago through what's know as the New Thought movemen - that's a number of what may be called churches like Religious Science and Unitarianism which have a very broad view of religion completely the opposite to fundamentalism. They are into most of the things we discuss here without the Jesus tag.
Yes I do think Dowd is slightly deceptive with his Christian label but that's forgiveable because I imagine that gives him a listening ear with people of a Christian bent who might otherwise turn away. And I could very much associate with his mythical interpretation of the Bible.
All together I wasn't the slightest bit interested in whether or not he believes in the supernatural but I was interested in his 'post doom' scenarios and how pockets of survivors from climate catastrophe might build a new world.
Sadly Alex's constant bids to try to involve Dowd in an argument he didn't want to engage in, meant I learned very little.
 
Well the problem is that 'decarbonising' will cost every advanced nation hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve. If you think that sort of waste is not a moral issue, well I beg to differ.

David

Sounds more like more opportunities (job creation, business, markets, innovation) than anything.
 
Seems there has been only one poster here in any way in tune with Dowd so I hesitate to get involved.
I expected as always to be against the Rev and for Alex but as the dialogue went along I realised the opposite was true for me.
I do happen to agree with the 97-9% so his catastrophe stance I thought was pretty realistic.
It seemed to me that Alex's main beef was that Dowd calls himself a Christian with a Rev handle when he patently doesn't follow Christian fundamentalism.
But I remember coming across him many years ago through what's know as the New Thought movemen - that's a number of what may be called churches like Religious Science and Unitarianism which have a very broad view of religion completely the opposite to fundamentalism. They are into most of the things we discuss here without the Jesus tag.
Yes I do think Dowd is slightly deceptive with his Christian label but that's forgiveable because I imagine that gives him a listening ear with people of a Christian bent who might otherwise turn away. And I could very much associate with his mythical interpretation of the Bible.
All together I wasn't the slightest bit interested in whether or not he believes in the supernatural but I was interested in his 'post doom' scenarios and how pockets of survivors from climate catastrophe might build a new world.
Sadly Alex's constant bids to try to involve Dowd in an argument he didn't want to engage in, meant I learned very little.

I enjoyed Dowd a surprising amount. Him sitting through Alex’s Big Oil talking points would have lent them false equivalency.
 
Seems there has been only one poster here in any way in tune with Dowd so I hesitate to get involved.
I expected as always to be against the Rev and for Alex but as the dialogue went along I realised the opposite was true for me.
I do happen to agree with the 97-9% so his catastrophe stance I thought was pretty realistic.
complete and easily provable sham. whatever else may be true about the climate this definitely is not:
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" | Climate Dispatch

I mean, come on, even without the above, just step back and take in the claim... when have you ever heard of 97% (or Michael's claim of 99%!!!) of any group, let alone scientists, in 97% agreement on anything. the fact that they ever got any traction with this ridiculous meme speaks to how good the people behind this are.
 
complete and easily provable sham. whatever else may be true about the climate this definitely is not:
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" | Climate Dispatch

I mean, come on, even without the above, just step back and take in the claim... when have you ever heard of 97% (or Michael's claim of 99%!!!) of any group, let alone scientists, in 97% agreement on anything. the fact that they ever got any traction with this ridiculous meme speaks to how good the people behind this are.

Hmmm... I suspect close to 100% of engineers would agree on the physics of a pendulum (to pick an example entirely at random)
 
from the blog of Professor Doom,

Physics Professor Awarded $800,000 Compensation After University Fires Him Unlawfully for Views on Great Barrier Ree

Global warming is blamed for pretty much everything bad that happens, of course, the better to scare people into supporting it. The Great Barrier Reef, a massive coral ecosystem near Australia, certainly has its problems (like all coral systems, and I rather suspect polluting the ocean is the main factor, but I digress), but this one professor dared to dispute that global warming was the issue.

(Incidentally, my favorite “it’s global warming’s fault!” accusation concerned the die-off of horseshoe crabs, whose populations have dropped off sharply recently. Although this 400 million year old species has endured much hotter and much colder climates than today, global warming is still blamed for hurting them. It’s nuts.)

So, this professor disputes the latest blame being laid on the latest nonsense. Was he professional about it?


“There is perhaps no ecosystem on Earth better able to cope with rising temperatures than the Great Barrier Reef,” Ridd wrote in the publication. “Irrespective of one’s views about the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in warming the climate, it is remarkable that the Great Barrier Reef has become the ecosystem, more than almost all others, that is used to illustrate and claim environmental disaster from the modest warming we have seen over the course of the last century.”
 
That is great - of course the MSM keep things like that as quiet as possible.
Global warming is blamed for pretty much everything bad that happens, of course, the better to scare people into supporting it. The Great Barrier Reef, a massive coral ecosystem near Australia, certainly has its problems (like all coral systems, and I rather suspect polluting the ocean is the main factor, but I digress), but this one professor dared to dispute that global warming was the issue.

(Incidentally, my favorite “it’s global warming’s fault!” accusation concerned the die-off of horseshoe crabs, whose populations have dropped off sharply recently. Although this 400 million year old species has endured much hotter and much colder climates than today, global warming is still blamed for hurting them. It’s nuts.)
Yes - if you write a paper endorsing CAGW, there is no need for it to be logical, and no need to cite contrary evidence.

Here is an almost limitless supply of harm supposedly caused by CAGW.

https://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

I don't know if that list is refreshed since some links are dead, but there is plenty to be going on with!

The list is fun to read, but most represent poor quality science, which is at the heart of problem.

David
 
Last edited:
Well the problem is that 'decarbonising' will cost every advanced nation hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve. If you think that sort of waste is not a moral issue, well I beg to differ.

David

From our "friends" at the world Bank. 2015.

The magnitude of the challenge

Over the next 15 years, the global economy will require an estimated $89 trillion in infrastructure investments across cities, energy, and land-use systems, and $4.1 trillion in incremental investment for the low-carbon transition to keep within the internationally agreed limit of a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise.

In addition, developed countries are working to meet a commitment made in 2010 to mobilize $100 billion a year from public and private sources by 2020 for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Showing the pathways to that $100 billion commitment will be important for building trust and confidence around the Paris climate negotiations that are expected to produce a new international agreement later this year.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/18/raising-trillions-for-climate-finance

“Von der Leyen’s Green Madness”: Europe Aims To Divert One Trillion Euros…”Best Way To Torpedo Europe”

Up to 300 billion euros per year

Frans Timmermans, Executive Vice-President of this Commission in charge of the Green Deal, told a press conference in Brussels that these investments would be “a combination of public money, loans and private money” estimated to run as high and 300 billion euros per year.

Public services will be hit hard

But Contrepoints writes that no matter wehere the money comes from, it will have a “siphoning effect” and thus “will be missing elsewhere where it might be more useful (health, public services, national security…).”

Taxpayers will pick up the tab

As to who will pay, Contrepoints says “in the end taxpayers and consumers will be largely involved, as usual.” Then, everyone will benevolently ask themselves “Why are local services disappearing? Why are taxes going up? And why is my standard of living falling?”

Collusion capitalism

Contrepoints calls the new EU Green Deal “collusion capitalism”, which describes an economy where business success depends on close relations with representatives of power: governments, and various commissions.”

https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/18...ne-trillion-euros-best-way-to-torpedo-europe/

It's all about money and power, and it is admitted, climate policy is all about a redistribution of wealth. Not to the poor, and not from the billionaires.
 
Seems there has been only one poster here in any way in tune with Dowd so I hesitate to get involved.
I expected as always to be against the Rev and for Alex but as the dialogue went along I realised the opposite was true for me.
I do happen to agree with the 97-9% so his catastrophe stance I thought was pretty realistic.
It seemed to me that Alex's main beef was that Dowd calls himself a Christian with a Rev handle when he patently doesn't follow Christian fundamentalism.
But I remember coming across him many years ago through what's know as the New Thought movemen - that's a number of what may be called churches like Religious Science and Unitarianism which have a very broad view of religion completely the opposite to fundamentalism. They are into most of the things we discuss here without the Jesus tag.
Yes I do think Dowd is slightly deceptive with his Christian label but that's forgiveable because I imagine that gives him a listening ear with people of a Christian bent who might otherwise turn away. And I could very much associate with his mythical interpretation of the Bible.
All together I wasn't the slightest bit interested in whether or not he believes in the supernatural but I was interested in his 'post doom' scenarios and how pockets of survivors from climate catastrophe might build a new world.
Sadly Alex's constant bids to try to involve Dowd in an argument he didn't want to engage in, meant I learned very little.


I don’t know who you think is the only pro Dowd poster, as I haven’t read all the posts. I am not anti Dowd. I thought he had sensible things to say. I just didn’t like his bundle of notions. His ‘realism’ was rational. It just didn’t need the distraction of a contested vision of Christianity. The problem is that he has chosen a marketing strategy that directs more attention to the strategy than the message - which is, in any case, what? Post doom or a revisioned faith?

Both are potentially interesting ideas, but sticking them together makes as much sense as having chocolate and bacon in the one dish.
 
Well the problem is that 'decarbonising' will cost every advanced nation hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve. If you think that sort of waste is not a moral issue, well I beg to differ.

David


I am not disputing that; only that there are many moral issues that are meritorious on their own account and are often set aside because ‘science’ does not yet support them. There is something called the ‘precautionary principle’ that environmentalists tried to invoke in the 1960s. The logic was that spewing out toxic waste was a bad idea. But governments, business and science said let’s wait until ‘science’ had proven the case. Of course actual ‘proof’ was way higher than a balance of probability. Of course ecosystems were trashed, but profits and power preserved.

The impact of excessive reliance on toxic processes is usually evident before science gets involved. Science isn’t a pure thing. It depends on money and politics. My argument is that we can take action based on a moral assessment. We weaken ourselves if we seek permission from ‘science’ before we act. That’s all.
 
"But I am a koala," insisted the rock lobster. "My fur is carapace, my joeys are eggs, my eucalyptus tree is the seabed, and my geology is oceanography."
 
Just having a little fun with Dowd's ecotheology patter. His repurposing of the language and symbols of Christianity reminds me of that of the prosperity gospel preachers, although his stated ends are, I think, a much more noble justification of his means.
 
Just having a little fun with Dowd's ecotheology patter. His repurposing of the language and symbols of Christianity reminds me of that of the prosperity gospel preachers, although his stated ends are, I think, a much more noble justification of his means.

Thank you for the clarification. Welcome, by the way. You might just like to remember that cryptic comments may fly over others' heads (mine at any rate :-)) and more often than not benefit from clear contextual links.
 
Personally, I have been exploring what it is like to prioritize USEFULNESS instead of prioritizing "correctness" or "incorrectness" when evaluating ideas. Sort of like how biological evolution is based on the USEFULNESS of mutations, and not based on working an organism toward some Perfect Platonic Version of the organism.
I think this is called philosophical pragmatism. Or perhaps existential empiricism. Whatever.

EDIT: Have you come across David Bohm's essay, Reality and knowledge considered as process? If not, you should look it up. It's included in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Right up your street, I reckon.

On the interview: It is my understanding that evolutionary Christianity grew out of Whitehead's process philosophy and process theology (with maybe a little Pierre Teilhard de Chardin mixed in for good measure). I'm not sure how one can build one's faith on Whitehead and end up being quite so boring. It's an achievement, really.
 
Last edited:
I think this is called philosophical pragmatism. Or perhaps existential empiricism. Whatever.

On the interview: It is my understanding that evolutionary Christianity grew out of Whitehead's process philosophy and process theology (with maybe a little Pierre Teilhard de Chardin mixed in for good measure). I'm not sure how one can build one's faith on Whitehead and end up being quite so boring. It's an achievement, really.


Maybe denying a metaphysical dimension would help? And not being as systematic or as smart?
 
Back
Top