Perhaps only one "Christian theologian" calls WAEs' "climate denial" "petro-manichaeism." But he seems to want readers to think he's not alone.
Incidentally, wouldn't "petro-manichaeism" better denote those who demonize fossil fuels than those who think we can harness energy from them safely to serve human needs?
If he were interested in describing their views accurately, Jenkins would have to say they deny that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are or in the foreseeable future will be warming the atmosphere so catastrophically as to justify spending trillions of dollars (that might be used instead to increase access to pure drinking water, infectious disease control, adequate nutrition, sewage sanitation, sanitary housing, safe transportation, and medical care) to mitigate it by switching from abundant, affordable, reliable fossil fuels as energy sources (currently about 85% of all the world's energy) to diffuse, expensive, intermittent wind, solar, and biofuels.
We might abbreviate that by saying they deny "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" (CAGW), a phrase common in the literature and one they use of themselves.
But a Google search for "petro-manichaeism" (both with and without the hyphen) found only five occurrences on the Web as of p.m.
Eastern time July 31, 2017—on April 13, 2017, in a blog post where Jenkins appears to have coined the term; on June 13, in the LSE blog piece I'm discussing; again on June 13, in a Twitter post quoting his LSE blog piece; and here and here, pages listing downloadable documents from the UVA religious studies department in which Jenkins teaches.
They left this to the politicians and anyone who took the bait,” he said.
Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone says ‘we don’t have that kind of evidence’ to claim we are ‘going to fry’ from AGW Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr.According to polling data, white American evangelicals are "typically more skeptical of climate change than any other U. Although, according to Jenkins, this "climate-denying faction" attributes its "climate denial" to faith that "it is in God's hands or is part of an eschatological scenario," true understanding "requires hypotheses that run deeper than the offered rationales."What are those hypotheses? Far from being an "accidental side-effect of a strange religious narrative," white American evangelicals' (WAEs') "climate denial," Jenkins says, arises from their "beliefs about providence and eschatology" that "are not so much about a revealed schedule of events as they are about the limits of human responsibility." Their "climate denial," then, is their "grasping for a way of avoiding accountability for polluting the atmosphere," which leads to their "allying themselves with spiritual contempt for earth."At an even deeper level, Jenkins thinks, these "climate-denying" WAEs seem to see the sky as "the symbolic province of deities and/or stochastic forces operating at scales beyond human reach." Further, their "appeals to providence … Willis Jenkins, associate professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, offers fascinating explanations in a recent blog piece for the London School of Economics.function to let white societies remain unaccountable for climate change" and "license settler sovereignty over resources in the remaining indigenous territories." "Christian theologians," Jenkins reports, call these WAEs' "climate denial" "petro-manichaeism (recoiling from the demonic earth, it takes spiritual satisfaction in energy ripped from dark material and transformed into light and air)."Seeing themselves "as an embattled minority contending with conformist demands of a pluralist secular culture," they are skeptical, Jenkins says, because they "regard the very idea of climate change as a threat to their identity …a cultural attack on the embattled Christian identity." For them, "rejecting the whole idea of climate change has become important for counter-cultural Evangelical identity.""What makes climate-denying Evangelical construction of innocence especially powerful," Jenkins writes, "is that, by interpreting climate change as a hostile religious idea, they can receive criticism as further evidence of their persecuted status."That's quite an indictment. Jenkins never specifies what he thinks members of this "climate-denying faction" deny. And surely not climate change, which they all acknowledge as having occurred throughout earth's history—often pointing out the difficulty of proving that recent global warming differs enough from past to require the hypothesis of a new cause.Jenkins employs an interesting sleight of hand when he attributes WAEs' views in part to their seeing the sky as "the symbolic province of deities and/or stochastic forces operating at scales beyond human reach." The first part, "symbolic province of deities," conjures thoughts of polytheistic superstition, and the reader unfamiliar with climate science then readily assumes the second must be equally irrational.