Denying the deniers

Deniers of climate change, including many Republican Presidential candidates, often cite statistics promoted in The Great Global Warming Swindle, which premiered in Britain in 2007. I’ve encountered them myself in several e-mails. Peter Sinclair’s video illuminates the pseudo-documentary’s distortions. It turns out that sun activity is not spiking current temperatures; the Earth is now hotter than the balmy Middle Ages; and volcanoes do not belch more CO2 than factories and cars.

It’s intriguing: Sean Hannity branded people like me “communist.” Not that facts matter, but I’m an evangelical Christian and a Baptist pastor.  I would be among the first bound for the nascent American gulag after the Revolution. But even more relevant, I’m advocating the same concern for climate change as did George H.W. Bush. Was the World War 2 hero a closet communist? And what is “communist” about environmental concern? I don’t want collectivization.  I just want green environmental stewardship, which Republicans of previous eras had always championed.

Thanks to the following web site for pointing me in the right direction on this:

, , , , , ,

About Charles Redfern

Charles Redfern is a writer, activist, and clergyman living in Connecticut with his wife and family. He's currently writing two books, with more in his head.

View all posts by Charles Redfern


Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

4 Comments on “Denying the deniers”

  1. john liming Says:

    If one will go to wikipedia and look up the subject, “Right Wing Politics”, one can find references to the possibility that some of the contemporaries in this mind set may have some tendencies that tend toward fascism. The talking heads of right wing extremeist hate radio are not accurate judges of people or ideologies as they have their own agenda and serve their own masters. The old order Republicans were men and women of reason and morals and compromise and they knew how to govern. They have more or less been ursurped by something far more insidious and potentially even evil that wears the badges of legitimacy but which are, in actual practice, something else– my opinion. This is strictly my opinion based on years of observation. The Right Wing Extremeist of today no longer fits the traditional mold of Republicanism. Today’s Right Wing Extremeit is more likely a “Domionist” (Check that on wikipedia too) whose aim is to transform America into an oppressive Theocratic model.


    • Charles Redfern Says:


      I agree that the Republican Party has become dangerous, but I stop before calling it “theocratic,” a charge levied by some on the Left who then go on to invoke the word, “Taliban” whenever someone discusses politics and religion together. Their argument can be boiled down to this: Any religiously-informed political view at least has the potential to be a US-styled Taliban. But that would mean that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a potential Taliban — and so were liberation theologians. I also think it is simply erroneous to classify Bachman and Perry (along with most Dominists) along with the Taliban.

      Please understand: I am not a Domionist. Not even close. I just think some of my fellow progressives are fearing the wrong thing and are alienating potential allies in their panic.

      The problem with the Republican Party, I believe, is that is has adopted the economic philosophy of Ayn Rand — which is nakedly anti-Christian — under the mask of civil religion. To put it differently, the GOP presents itself as the moral, even “Christian” party while pushing for anti-biblical and anti-Christian economic ethics. The GOP has become the playground of Exxon-Mobile, and evangelical Christians have been fooled.

      I’ll be writing more on this soon. Thanks for your comments. Feel free to respond and invite your friends to the party. The more comments, the merrier.


  2. U.S. Common Sense Says:

    I’d be leary of anything Wikipedia has to say on generic terms as “Right Wing Politics.” What really is “right wing?” Is it merely something to the left of “middle” (again, a generic term) or is it the furthest right that you can get on the scale?

    The truth in the discussion is we are just now at a point where we can further study and explore the conditions on our planet. We’ve seen historic spikes and drops in weather patterns over the centuries, so it’s difficult to say what “normal weather” is for us. So the debate is more about keeping conditions to which benefit us now than anything else.

    Being an Eagle Scout, I’m a fond believer of leaving things better than when we found it, so there are a lot of improvements we can make in the way our industries operate as well as they way we live our lives, but how much does the existence of “man” have on the planet that might otherwise not occur? And, as technology continues to develop, could it quite possibly come the day where we can truly control our environment and indirectly negatively impact that natural course by over-correcting the variables to make life on here sustainable?

    Just some thoughts on a topic that is currently more based in theory and conjecture than on true knowledge of all the variables involved.


    • Charles Redfern Says:

      @US Common Sense: Good point on Wikepedia. We need to check its references before citing anything it says as “fact.” But, on your statement, “… we are just now at a point where we can further study …”: The issue of the “greenhouse effect” or “climate change” began to rear its head during the Nixon administration, which ended about 39 years ago, and data continues to bolster the theory of climate change — indeed, some argue that climate change is already here in the arctic. It is a fact.

      The problem vis-a-vis the left-right issue is this: Some conservative commentators, such as Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, and Monckton, have invoked such terms as “liberal,” “socialist,” and “communist.” I was once told that I bought into “liberal” propaganda because I said “the Earth is heating up.” Citing that indisputable fact is neither “left” nor “right,” but many of those on the right framed the issue in that way. That is unfortunate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: