A month ago I posted an open letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education expressing my displeasure with their irresponsibly hosting Peter Wood's blog. The particular post that drove me to it was an attack on John Mashey. Mashey and Rob Coleman have since responded, and Mashey as usual leaves little to add.
But reading Mashey's response and report led me to look around a little more at Wood's previous posts. This one made some interesting connections. Apparently, Wood attended both the creationist/antienvironmentalist conference I posted about in June and another on "Christian business ethics" featuring an address about morality by none other than Jack Templeton (Templeton is also, according to Mashey's report, a major funder of Wood's organization) and odious perspectives like this:
One session towards the end dealt with a well-intended business venture in Africa that failed because of the embezzlement and self-dealing by the African partners. Biblical principles met tribal self-interest, and tribal self-interest triumphed. How are the blessings of the free market going to be achieved in the global community when confronted with obstacles like that?That post reminded me to return to the videos of the California conference where Monckton made his infamous remarks.* I watched this panel with Monckton on "Religiosity and Global Warming Advocacy":
It is hilarious.
***CORRECTIONS***: Well, the first is more of a clarification. I called Templeton a "major funder" of Wood's organization. Mashey's report (p. 24) puts Templeton's funding at 3% of the total contributions; the major funders are clearly Sarah Scaife and to a lesser extent the Bradley Foundation (Templeton's $169,000 is not negligible, however). But there was a far more serious problem with my post's title. I had forgotten that this was the panel for which the first listed panelist was "Michael Chrichton [sic] (dec'd)." Monckton was not the relative voice of reason. The dead guy was.
*Here's Wood's description:
Lord Monckton is an agile, nose-tweaking, derisive foe of those who believe that significant global warming has resulted from human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere. He is more caustic still towards those who believe that carbon reductions, cap and trade, windmills, and the like can be deployed to achieve any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gases. Let’s say Lord Monckton’s keynote address was not an attempt to find the redeeming features of a flawed movement, or to discover a winsome approach to those who are ambivalent about the alleged threat of global warming.