Upcoming Interview With Michael Dowd About Global Warming

#81
c. An unequal distribution of value-to-risk, disadvantages the economies which carry the risk. China knows this trick well

1. China is defeating the West now by fixing its tax and profit risk on its manufactured goods. All tax (because they tax on the 'net' and not the gross) and margin risk is shifted to the consuming nations. Eventually their mechanisms fail (the same as product dumping)​
2. By having only certain nations carry the burden of value (carbon alleviation), we unfairly advantage China, and will create a new defacto super power and royalty class (Triads), who live under immunity privilege.​
This is the contention set which concerns me the most.
OK... but under the scheme for which I'm advocating, it needn't. You are worried that by "only certain nations [i.e., ours] carry[ing] the burden of value (carbon alleviation), we unfairly advantage China", but I've explained to you that under the fee and dividend scheme, we don't carry any burden - it's revenue neutral.

Before that, you worried that "[a]ll tax and margin risk is shifted to the consuming nations", but this has nothing to do with the fee and dividend scheme, which is internal to a country (but which, importantly, is revenue-neutral), not shifted from China to us. The fee and dividend scheme even stipulates that incoming carbon products are taxed at the border, so that China can't take advantage of the fact that we charge an internal tax (which, again, is revenue-neutral) to supply external tax-free products.
 
Last edited:
#82
Having reviewed, this discussion, I find this, from post #75, really funny (as in incongruous):

you do not know how to argue without getting personal.
Why is this funny/incongruous? Because this is the same guy who, earlier, in post #71, before me having said anything remotely personal (OK, OK - unless you want to count that which I'd written at the end of post #70: "It's like you were responding to a post that I hadn't made"), had written of me:

The typical crap-talk by someone who cannot argue the subject
Yep. That's the way to argue without getting personal, TES. Well done, sir.
 
Last edited:
#83
Risk on margin, and the taxing of the gross versus the net - is a key deliberation before we construct global incentive debits and credits. Before we resort to the tax lever - I contend that there are numerous immediate actions we can take which have real impact - even up to 100% of the COM (2018) 773 goals -
The principal flaw which resides in simpleton thinking around taxes and universal income, revolves around the flow and apportionment of value, not currency. People regularly associate currency with value - of course because in a given context of economics, the two are coincident. But they are not congruent. If you are buying groceries and paying the rent, the two appear congruent. But if you are developing a nation's school system or roads, and have to finance that from the IMF or by issuing a bond against a sovereign guarantee listed on a Swiss Exchange, the two are not congruent at all. The difference between currency and value becomes a poignant issue.

This is what a value chain strategist learns through application (schools try and teach this as 'engineering or value economics'), and use to administer designs of markets and technologies. It proceeds according to this thought exercise.

The Gigantic Dividend

the asteroid.png

As King of Elbonia, a man commissions a project which will retrieve and park in orbit above his homeland, an asteroid with $700 quintillion in materials to be exploited. The King is ruler of Elbonia, and as royalty, bears the job of administering the economy alone. The asteroid is successfully retrieved and parked in a geosynchronous orbit under special space treaty which allows Elbonia Exclusive Free Trade Zone access to the asteroid - as long as it maintains its geosynchronous orbit position above their land.

The Elbonian King, being no dummy, begins to exploit first the platinum (bear this in mind), and then the gold. He then sells this gold to gold-hungry Russia and China. Russia's gold is held in private vaults (former KGB and now mafia heads) and China's gold is held by the Triads (Manchu intelligence agency and Cantonese mafia). These entities are currency rich from exclusive programmed trade access, and pay full price gladly. Elbonia is making so much money that the King, rich beyond his wildest dreams, decides to offer a dividend to all his people. He pays for their healthcare first, then their pensioners, then their higher education, and because prices are beginning to rise for basics now, he says 'What the fuck, let's just give everyone in Elbonia, 250 kg of gold each year as a Dividend.' This equates to $11.75 million to each and every Elbonian, each year. It was called the AstroGold Dividend.

There were parties in the street. People drunk everywhere. Celebrations went on for days on end. The King was a hero. He goes on the lecture circuit to extol the virtues of 'socialized dividends'. He smacks 'capitalist' countries hard for their 'profit greed' and lack of attention to the poor. Pretty soon, no one in Elbonia had to work - they just hired Enkibonians to come into the country and do the hard work for them. Things went on like this, and eventually Elbonians quit going to college, or pursuing advanced literature or science, because - there was no real need to. Everyone had a yacht and a house and several cars. A sandwich cost $155. But no matter, there was plenty of money to go around. The rate of Diabetes grew to 70%, and the number one moving free prescription was Hydrocodone, equating to 8 tablets a day for every man woman and child in Elbonia (and btw, these last two bits are a real national strategy story....)

The rest of the world was plugging along as normal with a 56% suffering rate, and a 22% abject poverty rate. Elbonia was living the good life. Expensive, worthless, but good.

Soon, one of the hard working Enkibonians running the satellite control system had a thought. What if he just slipped a bit of leeway into the orbital controls system (AstroGold OCS) so that the asteroid would cycle back and forth over both Elbonia AND Enkibonia on an annual basis. Then, under the treaty, Enkibonia would get to exploit the gold ores for half the year, thereby becoming equally rich as the Elbonians. What a plan! They had plenty - it was time, the Enkibonians got their share too.

So the orbiting asteroid began to cycle back and forth over Elbonia and Enkibonia semi-annually and both nations become very rich. The Elbonians of course were coerced into allowing this, because of all their bragging about how wonderful sharing the wealth had been. Well, time to put up or shut up Elbo-heads. But this time... each nation could only give out half as much Gold in Dividend each year. Plus, oddly China and Russia each cut their orders for gold in half each year. They now wanted tantalum, technetium and vanadium - none of which were on the asteroid. But hey... at least they still paid 50% for the gold. Everyone is still rich!! Yay! Take me to the marina Jeeves...

This pattern repeated itself until every single nation, was allowed a period of time with the asteroid right above it in geosynchronous orbit. Enkibonia and Elbonia had to walk-the-walk and not simply talk-the-talk each year - they were coerced into sharing the asteroid as well. Each person on Earth was eventually granted $47,019.51 (at today's price) annually as an AstroGold Dividend! Everyone on Earth could now buy a car, home and food!! (in the past)... but they forgot that little qualifier 'in the past'. Because value and currency are not congruent.

The problem was, no one wanted gold any more. There were no aliens around to make bids on it. No one wanted a currency based upon gold. No one wanted a currency at all. Everyone was up to their ears in gold and currency. Everyone was 'rich'. Eventually however, the asteroid was depleted to nothing, and the Kings all had to simply print certificates in lieu of the AstroGold, which read '$47,019.51 annual AstroGold dividend'. The problem with this was, things of value still had to be done. The trash had to be disposed of, and the food had to be trucked around. Water had to be made clean and sewage had to be carted somewhere. Those who pretended that shitting, hydration, healing injuries, reproduction, eating and shelter were all manifestations of 'the Elbonization of other cultures' - these idiots all died. And in order to avoid slavery (under the guise of 'volunteering'), the value workers had to be incentivized to do those basic human quality of life activities. They had to be offered substantially more than the $47,019.51 each year. No, there were not enough 'volunteers' to do all this. This caused all pricing to rise substantially. This is called a dilution-of-value inflationary condition, and it is rampant in developing nations. The case studies are ample.

A cup of coffee $450
Getting trash disposed in a landfill $12,500
A bottle of clean water $14,000
Sewage service to clean your village of disease causing human waste $1,500,000
Shelter from weather $13 - 45 million

The poverty level became $90,000 in annual income. Those who hoarded away the platinum from the asteroid, they are still living on their yachts as they always did - and those holding gold, cannot afford even a meal each day - despite having $250,000 in the bank.

The rich got richer and held all the wealth in platiunum, the numbers of poor grew and stayed poor. Gold was worthless and the asteroid was now just a wonderful and inspiring image on a piece of paper (see above) - paper handed out by Kings fascinated with their own benevolence and compassion.*
_______________________________________________

A TAX is nothing but this same process and principal, just on the debit side of the ledger. If you 'TAX to DIVIDEND' that is just doing it to yourself twice... twice as stupid. Doing the same thing - just pretending that you went and got an asteroid... yet in reality just stole the money from the population instead.

The key: A nation's wealth is in the VALUE created by its creative and working classes. Not in a currency, tax, material, dividend, nor amount. And unless you have an AstroGold asteroid parked above your nation exclusively (which Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Australia, Brazil, Qatar, Kuwait, Venezeula, etc do...) - your population must provide value... or be poor. Deceiving your people into thinking that this law can be escaped through magic tricks and rhetoric, is not wise at all. And if you do have a gold/oil/mineral asteroid parked above your nation, moralizing about 'social dividends' to other nations who provide the value and creative work (used to be measured in a thing called 'real productivity')... is not wise. The world might ask your people to start paying their fair share.

This law is inescapable and knows every trick in the book...

For every flow of a unit of currency margin, an equal and opposite flow in provision of value or undertaking of risk must also be provided.
(* Note: since the source of compassion and virtue was so righteous and vital to humanity, this mandated that all Kings be the only entities who could hold platinum - in order to ensure that their virtue-flow was not compromised by economic fluctuations. The source of compassion must be protected at all costs - even to the point of ordering a nuclear strike, if necessary.)
 
Last edited:
#84
here's the email I just got from Michael:

===

Alex,

I’ve been reading through your forum comments and, given the fact that I honestly have no interest in discussing the three things you said you want to discuss with me, I suggest finding another guest for your November 20 show.

Thank you for your invitation, and thank you, Rick, for connecting us up. But I truly have no interest in defending the fact of ecological overshoot (of which climate chaos is but a symptom) and I’m certainly not interested in publicly humiliating you or having you attempt to do the same.

I’d rather just wish you the best…truly!

For life and the future,
Michael Dowd

====

this is consistent with all my previous experiences with these kinds of folks (i.e. death cult environmentalists). they don't really want to engage. they just like sending WSJ links around to other true believers friends.

similarly, it's interesting how quickly Rick Archer left the thread as soon as a real genuine debate about the science began to surface.

this is a very interesting (to me) skeptiko moment :)
 
#85
here's the email I just got from Michael:

===

Alex,

I’ve been reading through your forum comments and, given the fact that I honestly have no interest in discussing the three things you said you want to discuss with me, I suggest finding another guest for your November 20 show.

Thank you for your invitation, and thank you, Rick, for connecting us up. But I truly have no interest in defending the fact of ecological overshoot (of which climate chaos is but a symptom) and I’m certainly not interested in publicly humiliating you or having you attempt to do the same.

I’d rather just wish you the best…truly!

For life and the future,
Michael Dowd

====

this is consistent with all my previous experiences with these kinds of folks (i.e. death cult environmentalists). they don't really want to engage. they just like sending WSJ links around to other true believers friends.

similarly, it's interesting how quickly Rick Archer left the thread as soon as a real genuine debate about the science began to surface.

this is a very interesting (to me) skeptiko moment :)
:)

Point 7 and 8 of How to Argue Like a Child

7. Threatened by Competence – they grow angry if their opponent incidentally cites personal professional or life experience in the subject – the inappropriate response often revealing an inner wound for which they are covering.
8. Insulting & Demeaning (The Actual Goal) – their cleverness is invested into a campaign of insulting or demeaning you, woven into the fabric of their argument. They will usually begin the insults on the third exchange. They will float their ‘PhD’ or other comparative appeal to authority in some manner. They think they are too smart for you to detect this. As they age in cynical behavior, the insults will come earlier and earlier in the discussion process.
He could not even tolerate those who agree about ecological overshoot, but have some mild concerns about how to implement solutions. Hatred is always the highest form of conflict of interest...
 
Last edited:
#86
*Shrug*. Michael's position seems perfectly reasonable to me. "What are we going to do about this problem?" is an interesting question to discuss. "Is this a problem in the first place?" no longer has more than one meaningfully possible answer.
 
Last edited:
#87
*Shrug*. Michael's position seems perfectly reasonable to me. "What are we going to do about this problem?" is an interesting question to discuss. "Is this a problem in the first place?" no longer has more then one meaningfully possible answer.
Why are you so sure about that - it sounds like it has become an article of faith with you. You have all the evidence you need here to realise that at least some areas of science has gone off the rails, but you like to think of CC as somehow pure. The problem with modern science is that there is absolutely nothing to keep it honest and pure.

David
 
#88
this is consistent with all my previous experiences with these kinds of folks (i.e. death cult environmentalists). they don't really want to engage. they just like sending WSJ links around to other true believers friends.

similarly, it's interesting how quickly Rick Archer left the thread as soon as a real genuine debate about the science began to surface.

this is a very interesting (to me) skeptiko moment :)
So I guess that interview is not going to happen. I can't say I am sorry because the subject of CC seems to generate more heat than light - and although CC could cause a power catastrophe (as opposed to a climate catastrophe), IMHO it doesn't have much intrinsic interest, except as an illustration of how science can go astray.

How long do we have to wait before the Don Hoffman interview airs? That should be infinitely more interesting.

David
 
#90
Some additional responses to other parts of your post, David:

it sounds like it has become an article of faith with you.
I don't expect you're surprised that I feel the same way about your denial of AGW.

You have all the evidence you need here to realise that at least some areas of science has gone off the rails, but you like to think of CC as somehow pure. The problem with modern science is that there is absolutely nothing to keep it honest and pure.
The problem with this position is that it assumes that the science of dissidents is honest and pure. Why should I assume that any more than that the science of the consensus is honest and pure? Why would I believe that dissident CC science is most honest and pure, especially when there are hugely powerful economic forces in whose interest it is to promulgate fake dissident CC science?
 
#91
I've explained multiple times: because there is an overwhelming scientific consensus.
And TES and LS have pointed out how useless it is to rely on consensus in science. The only way is to get those with different points of view to thrash out exactly why they differ over (presumably) the same evidence. I mean supposed you went to a doctor that diagnosed some for of dangerous cancer, and you went to another who gave you a clean bill of health, wouldn't you want to know how it was they could come to such different conclusions?
The problem with this position is that it assumes that the science of dissidents is honest and pure. Why should I assume that any more than that the science of the consensus is honest and pure?
The best answer is to look at who is ready to debate, and who cowers away from debate. That isn't perfect because it may come down to personality differences, but averaged out, I think you get closer to the truth.

Back in 2009, I saw the climategate emails come out, and there was so much furore about what they revealed that the government promised to investigate the science that was coming out of the Climate Research Unit. In truth the paid a man, who was already making money out of climate hysteria to study the situation. He then admitted that there wasn't time to study the science (though I assume he collected his fee):

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/08/uea-emails-inquiry-science

Up to that point I wasn't sure, but I was hoping for more information out of that inquiry. Ever since then, I have been pretty sure the whole thing was a scam Because 'climate scientists' call those who disagree, "Climate Deniers" - a term you have started to use as well, they can 'plausibly' refuse to debate with them!

The core of the problem is that we have research groups that are heavily dependant on climate alarmism to keep them in existence. The only reasonable way to settle such disputes would be to fund two research groups, each trying to prove the opposite result. Unless you fund a research group to find evidence that there is no problem from emitting CO2, the outcome is obvious - you are not dealing with people of the calibre of Einstein, Feynman, Maxwell, etc.

David
 
Last edited:
#92
Honestly, this debate is interminable, and nothing ever gets resolved. I'm sick of it by now, so please forgive me for not responding to your post, David. I've made my position clear, and nothing you have said across multiple threads and over the years has changed it, so I'll leave it there.
 
#93
Why are you so sure about that - it sounds like it has become an article of faith with you. You have all the evidence you need here to realise that at least some areas of science has gone off the rails, but you like to think of CC as somehow pure. The problem with modern science is that there is absolutely nothing to keep it honest and pure.

David
that's my read of it as well. looks more and more like a cult/group-think/social-engineering kinda thing.
 
#94
WAIT IT'S BACK ON (I think)

====

Actually, since you’re clearly interested in having fun, I challenge you to carefully watch these 20-minute videos of mine — #3, #4, and #5 of my “ProFuture Faith: The Prodigal Species Comes Home” course (freely available HERE) and then tell me I’m a “death cult environmentalist” … I dare you.

What’s more… IF you do watch those three sessions, I’ll happily be your guest on the 20th. I’ve also included session #7 because there I share a “sacred science” approach to death. If you take time to watch that one you’ll at least be evidentially informed on what is, and what is not, a “death” cult.

If you accept this challenge, Alex, know that I will refer to these three videos early on in our conversation (since they represent the heart of my worldview).

If it’s clear that you did not honor your word — i.e., if you tell me you will watch (not merely listen and without multi-tasking) these short videos of my presenting what I feel is vitally important — but it’s clear you haven’t, I’ll drop off your show.

You game?

In case you’re a real glutton for punishment, feel free to grill me on the content of these four short essays of mine — which are (by far) the best things I’ve written in a decade.







If you accept my challenge and need a short bio…

Rev. Michael Dowd is a bestselling eco-theologian, TEDx speaker, and pro-future evangelist whose work has been featured in The New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Newsweek, Discover, and on television nationally. His book, Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World, was endorsed by 6 Nobel Prize-winning scientists, noted skeptics and atheists, and religious leaders across the spectrum. Michael and his science writer and evolutionary educator wife, Connie Barlow, have spoken to some 2,700 secular and religious groups across North America since 2002.

Having way too much fun, as clearly you are too, :)

~ Michael

====

ok, so now I gotta watch those videos :)
 
#95
looks more and more like a cult/group-think/social-engineering kinda thing.
As compared to, say, the position that "It's all a big HOAX, and a giant conspiracy by the global elites to enslave us under a One World Socialist Government", which sounds perfectly reasonable, and not in the slightest bit like cultish or group think, and couldn't possibly have anything to do with social engineering by those in the fossil fuel industry who are most suited to benefit from the status quo...
 
#96
ok, so now I gotta watch those videos :)
These are videos he sent to you? The package is $149, which would be fine, except the insert billing is just rah-rah. What I call jamais l’a fait.

Having “squandered our inheritance on profligate living,” we are a prodigal species. Industrial civilization and our insatiable appetites have us hurtling toward irreversible consequences – not in some distant future, but right now. The good news is it’s not too late. At the intersection of science, spirituality, and sustainability is a deep love of life and a passion for our posterity – a ProFuture Faith. Join eco-theologian, author, and TEDx speaker, Rev. Michael Dowd in a dynamic DVD and internet-based discussion course that bridges the gap between head and heart, science and faith. Participants will be guided on a journey that accepts what is inevitable, avoids what is futile, and be inspired to attend to what is urgent. Come home to reality. Embrace a ProFuture Faith!
I spend most every professional day working on carbon mitigation, global food security, sustainability and alternative energy research, RFQ/RFP development, patents and specifications/financing. Not sure that a messianic exhortation will do much for me, so I am reluctant to pay money for one as well. But who knows? I am sure he has some inspiring material.

The risk in messianic sales pitches, which are devoid of real 'rubber meets the road' analysis, technology, financial qualification and solution development, is that it turns a concern, into a panic. 'We must do something (inevitable) NOW!' and everyone ends up running off a cliff like lemmings.

My job is to ensure that my clients do not 'run off a cliff' in their exuberance. But I like the 'union of science and faith' approach...
 
Last edited:
#98
As compared to, say, the position that "It's all a big HOAX, and a giant conspiracy by the global elites to enslave us under a One World Socialist Government", which sounds perfectly reasonable, and not in the slightest bit like cultish or group think, and couldn't possibly have anything to do with social engineering by those in the fossil fuel industry who are most suited to benefit from the status quo...
Before those emails came out, I didn't know much about this issue, and just assumed that there was a problem of some sort because scientists had studied it and said so - I guess you know that POV.

Then when I started to look at it, the evidence seemed like the sort of howler a kid might make in school. What none of the climate scientists acknowledged, was the simple fact that if you measure anything in nature over time that has some intrinsic variability, you will find a signal containing noise plus some sort of trend. Generally it doesn't make sense to extrapolate that trend out too far. So for example, if you find that rainfall has increased by a fraction of a percent year after year, you don't extend the curve out until you find Noah's flood - that would just be silly - wouldn't it?

If you measured something that had been flat for thousands of years and then started to trend up (or down) maybe you would be a little more concerned (or should that be, excited that you finally had some interesting data for your PhD)? However whatever ingenious statistical manipulations are applied to try to flatten out the historic temperature graph (the Hockey stick for the nerds among us), everyone knows that there have been cold spells and warmer ones long before excess CO2 became an issue. I am not trying to be sniffy when I say that maybe that is more obvious in the 'old' world where we have a history going back over 2000 years. Thus I was looking for something that distinguished this trend from all the false trends that science routinely ignores.

Nature is full of complicated non-linear feedback loops. There used to be a subject called System Dynamics that modelled such systems A popular choice was predator-prey relationships, such as the relationship between deer numbers on the Kaibab plateau and the animals that fed off them, such as wolves. Under certain situations you would get a boom in deer numbers, followed by an influx of predators, followed by a crash in deer numbers - a natural oscillation that repeated over time. With slightly different situations, you could get chaos (in the technical sense), where what happened next was determined on a macro scale by minute levels of noise (like the butterfly's wings).

Those examples of dynamic behaviour would happen regardless of man, and the models were very simple because computers were slow, nowadays people can write super complex models that include all sorts of extra effects. The climate models try to take into account changes in vegetation, human population changes, shifts in animal populations, and any number of other variables. Yet back in the 1970's, people already knew that system dynamics models can easily become chaotic - so complicated climate models are almost certainly pointless because of chaos. Sure you can average many runs by repeating a simulation with different random number sequences, but that can't really cope with all the variability that thousands and thousands of variables introduce.

I mean had anyone set a lower limit to the temperature trend below which it would be deemed safe? I never found one, and remember that was when I was still sitting on the fence on this issue.

Furthermore, we have graphs showing huge temperature changes over geological periods, including changes which seem to be cyclic and very dangerous. They are called ice ages! When, a few decades back, scientists were forecasting global cooling, that sounded a lot more dangerous if it heralded a new ice age.

In recent times, we have, of course, suffered a number of science-lead scares:

0) There was a wonderful scare that I almost forgot - polywater. This was the amazing idea that water might not be in its most stable thermodynamic state. This is analogous to the fact that water can sometimes cool to below its freezing point without actually freezing (supercooling) - then it freezes all of a sudden. What if water had a more stable state? The seas would fill up uncontrolably with polywater - generally presumed to be a jelly.

This scare was recycled more recently as the idea that space-time itself might have a more stable state into which it could suddenly transition!

1) When HIV was discovered, it was commonly thought this virus would decimate human populations. A virus that was passed on by sex, and had a ten year incubation period, after which it was deadly - it inspired an 'infomercial' showing a gigantic tombstone crashing down, and exhorted the listeners to avoid any sex, at least without condoms.

2) A few years later, there was the mad cow scare. This one was quite intricate because it claimed that mis-folded proteins could catalyse other molecules of the same protein to also fold the wrong way. This chain reaction was deadly - again after an incubation period. To make it more interesting, all the people who came down with the human equivalent of the disease had two copies of one particular variant on the gene that coded for the protein in question. Since the mutation in question was quite common, it was predicted that a fair proportion of the population would go mad and then die. Furthermore, there were suggestions that those with just one copy of the mutation (an even larger fraction of the population) would succumb to the disease a little more slowly.

3) There have been a whole series of predictions of impending doom arising from various new strains of flu, Ebola, etc.

4) Then there is climate change!

I don't think anyone knows exactly why (1) or (2) didn't materialise, and (3) hasn't happened, but I suppose it still could! However, a lot of us like to go to the cinema to get scared, and good old science keeps on pumping out fresh scares. These scares are good for business in other ways as well, such as sales of flu vaccine and other anti-viral agents, sales of windmills, solar panels, vegan, and condoms. Politicians absolutely adore these issues.

I am old enough to have followed every one of those science scares.

I suppose they help to distract us all from the ever present (and very, very real) possibility of a nuclear war.

So, yeah, I am a climate denier, and proud of it!

David
 
Last edited:
#99
As compared to, say, the position that "It's all a big HOAX, and a giant conspiracy by the global elites to enslave us under a One World Socialist Government", which sounds perfectly reasonable, and not in the slightest bit like cultish or group think, and couldn't possibly have anything to do with social engineering by those in the fossil fuel industry who are most suited to benefit from the status quo...
Actually it is the oil oligarchs that are behind the environmental movement. Sounds crazy right? contradictory? None the less it is fact.
Please watch.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...e-and-our-illusion-of-control.412/post-135959
 
Last edited:
Having “squandered our inheritance on profligate living,” we are a prodigal species. Industrial civilization and our insatiable appetites have us hurtling toward irreversible consequences – not in some distant future, but right now. The good news is it’s not too late. At the intersection of science, spirituality, and sustainability is a deep love of life and a passion for our posterity – a ProFuture Faith. Join eco-theologian, author, and TEDx speaker, Rev. Michael Dowd in a dynamic DVD and internet-based discussion course that bridges the gap between head and heart, science and faith. Participants will be guided on a journey that accepts what is inevitable, avoids what is futile, and be inspired to attend to what is urgent. Come home to reality. Embrace a ProFuture Faith!
I'd say the author of that blurb doesn't deserve a spot on Skeptiko.

David
 
Top