The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has been branded the ‘Archbishop of Airmiles’ for clocking up thousands of miles while preaching about carbon neutrality. The Mail has the story.
The Archbishop of Canterbury will be travelling to Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama and Costa Rica later this month having only just returned from Zanzibar.
Church of England officials and parishioners said their leader had almost become a “member of the Foreign Office”, jetting to global hot spots and summits while seemingly ignoring problems at home.
Analysis by the Daily Mail found that by next month Dr. Welby will have travelled at least 48,000 miles on ten trips since last September on a worldwide tour.
The flights alone would have added at least 15 tons of carbon dioxide emissions to his carbon footprint.
But the true figure is likely to be higher, with the inclusion of Dr. Welby’s travelling entourage.
His trips have enraged parishioners and officials who pointed out its incompatibility with the Church of England’s Net Zero strategy.
The Church has heaped pressure on congregations by bringing the deadline of its carbon neutrality goal forward from 2045 to 2030.
Parishes have been urged to remove gas and oil boilers in favour of heat pumps and solar panels as the church seeks to divest itself of fossil fuels.
A senior church official said: “It seems quite extraordinary that the Archbishop chooses to spend so much time away when there is so much going wrong at home.
“His own diocese is showing a catastrophic fall in numbers attending – the worst figures for young people of any diocese – yet he is too busy to attend to it.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
In Britain, March 2020, Whitehall/Westminster was hit by one or more viruses.
Westminster imported the ‘lethal new virus’ idea from the U.S. where that idea had probably spread as a consequence of inaccurate and speculative intelligence briefings on the possibly ‘man made’ nature of the virus.
From Westminster, the ‘lethal new virus’ idea spread throughout Whitehall and thence into the rest of the public sector.
Reasons for this spread undoubtedly include ‘conformity’ effects but these were also self serving and encouraged by hierarchical pressure within the workplace.
‘Social acceptability’ bias then kicked in as the naturally ambitious, the weak minded and social climbers jumped on the band wagon – the madness of crowds.
Socialist fascist governments throughout the developed world did the rest, even in Sweden though the redoubtable Tegnell stood firm and most in Sweden wisely followed his lead.
I will be voting for a Reform Party candidate next year, if only out of incandescent rage at what was perpetrated in this country in 2020.
Bunter, the well named Hancock, Gumby Whitty, Gumby Vallance, Gumby Van Tam and the rest….now, unbelievably, joined by the panto dames, Hallett and Keith.
Oh for heaven’s sake!
Sorry, but what evidence do you have that Whitty and Vallance are “gumbies”? They are experts in their field, and experts at climbing the greasy pole. It’s not a stupidity problem, it’s an honesty/morality problem.
There are a number of definitions of a gumby. I use these ones:
‘A person incapable of displaying competence.’
‘An ugly/goofy looking person. A word for non-athletes that think highly of themselves;’
No evidence required, but plenty available.
You will have no trouble finding it for yourself.
Whitty and Vallance are highly competent I am sure, and Vallance is quite handsome. I am sure they think highly of themselves, with some justification as they have succeeded in what they wanted to achieve. The evidence I see suggests to me that they are wicked.
They were quite clearly incompetent in their roles in 2020, whatever their previous experience may have suggested; the Peter Principle writ large.
The results are there for all to see; a continuing health disaster in this country for the foreseeable future.
And you really believe that was their intention?
You are entitled to your opinion.
It is very much not one that I share.
For me, they most resemble the characters in the ‘Biggus Dickus’ sketch from Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’:
‘He wanks as high as anyone in Wome!’
You can only be incompetent if you sincerely attempt something
I don’t know what their intentions were, if any, but I don’t think they cared much about the damage they caused and yet knew they were causing it
Global collective insanity of the elites doesn’t seem plausible
Incompetence is simply a lack of competence.
Are you really suggesting that Gumby Whitty, Gumby Vallance, Gumby Van Tam, Professor Pantsdown were all competent in their respective roles in 2020…..really……?
There may be a discussion to be had about why they were so incompetent or, indeed, about their motivations which may have caused such incompetence but that they all were completely incompetent, given the unfolding and continuing health disaster they have, wittingly or unwittingly, created is surely beyond all reasonable doubt.
If they really cared about “public health” they may have done an OK job, but we’ll never know. So I would say their competence has not been tested. I guess you could include caring about public health and standing up for what you believe is right as qualities that form part of “competence” for their role, but I don’t think that’s within the normal definition of the word.
The combination of personality traits agreeableness, conscientiousness and low neuroticism sounds wonderful and it’s particularly suitable for a career in healthcare https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001879121001275, but research suggests that it’s also particularly associated with conformity in Asch-like trials https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2017.1371639 Agreeableness and conscientiousness have also been found associated with conformity in a Milgram-like trial https://psychologyrocks.org/begue-et-al-2014/.
Milgram-like experiments have become difficult for scientists to conduct but the ethical constraints can be circumvented in showbusiness. Derren Brown famously persuaded three out of four agreeable, conscientious people to push somebody off the roof of a tall building, just to be helpful of course https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8gxbf6
What you say may be accurate about the many useful idiots, but my guess is that Whitty and Vallance can be disagreeable when they need to be, and are probably quite neurotic – good leadership material.
“Is it appropriate for you to break the terrorist’s son’s arm in order to prevent the terrorist from killing thousands of people with his bomb?”
The ‘right’ (i.e., typical) answer is ‘yes’, but all the actors were told to answer ‘no’.”
Really? It is OK to break a boy’s arm?! Two wrongs make a right? I would just ask the boy to plead with his father …
These psychologists …
In reality the kind of terrorist fanatical enough to blow up a few thousand people is likely to rejoice that his son, too, is able to be a martyr.
But for the purposes of the study, the point was what the average member of the public would say without pressure – though knowing sociology research ( because I did do a social psychology course) I would question whether that response was actually researched in comparable conditions, or simply assumed.
I’d fake breaking his arm and tell him if he didn’t play along I really would.
Got to think out of the box…:-)
Seriously though, the answers would vary greatly depending on whether YOU had to break the kid’s arm or the kids arm.would be broken by someone else and you wouldn’t need to see or hear any of it.
If that.part isn’t clarified, then the answers will depend on which of those two scenarios respondents are assuming.
Theoretically, of course, you are supposed to decide whether you consider 1000 lives more important than a boy’s arm. But the question is in any case totally unrealistic, unless you are a chief constable or similar – and in the former case you would be more interested in diversity and inclusion!
I was asked by two attractive young females to join a psychological experiment at university a long time ago, and I became quickly bored and wanted to get out of there as soon as possible. So how typical are the answers given to such (nonsensical) questions? In the cited case, I do not believe it was a very useful experiment.
You were lucky – they could have been enticing you into a cult.
Not really. The situation is actually quite simple: Breaking the arm of the kid is a crime you are responsible for and it’s entirely unknown what – if any – effect this will have beyond that it’s certainly a crime and the kid was certainly harmed despite it was absolutely innocent of anything.
Let’s try a more interesting contrived example: Assume you’ve manged to hide an atomic bomb in the basement of an evil terrorist’s house who has hid an atomic bomb in the basement of an upright and virtuous citizen. You’ll learn that the terrorist is about to detonate the bomb which will kill all people in a town of 20,000 inhabitants and your only chance to prevent that is detonate the bomb you hid which will – as a side effect – kill all 200 people in the village the terrorist is living in. While you’re still contemplating that, you’ll learn that some upright virtuous citizen managed to hide a atomic bomb in the basement of a terrorist who hid a atomic bomb in the basement of an upright and virtuous citizien and that’s he’s about to detonate that, killing 200 of the closest kith an kin of the upright and virtuos citizen. The only way to prevent that is to detonate the other atomic bomb which will – as a side effect – kill all 20,000 people living in the home town of the terrorist but they’re
all evil Nazisrumoured to have voted mostly for Trump. Etc.The only point of these nonsense thought plays is that the utilitarians want you to accept your own dehumanization. ie, agree that you’re just as evil as them, because they expect to benefit from this in future.
Indeed! Aligning myself with Kant rather than Mill, I instinctively would say “No” to breaking the son’s arm, and yet somehow by not conforming to the ‘typical’ response I would be considered nonetheless to be conforming to the majority view in the situation thus contrived, which is bollocks because I would be following my moral instincts, ALWAYS!
This is is why I hated every minute of the psychology degree I did over 30 years ago: its deliberately and necessary reductive in order to make inferences about people that is always about “them” rather than “me” (you might have guessed I moved on to study philosophy
)
So a group think experiment. But I do not see what answers were given when all participants were real. —-I can tell you now that no matter what the other participants (actors) said I would reply yes to breaking the son of the terrorists arms. ——Which is maybe why I am a subscriber to this website.
The appropriate answer is “No”, dear utilitarian morals moron. The terrorist may be about to commit a heinous crimes which will end up killing thousands of innocent people but this doesn’t in any way justify ‘proactively’ committing another crime which will also harm an innocent victim.
Needless to say, such contrived situations never occur in the real world because real people are never in the position of an outside God being able to exert influence on a scenario he isn’t part of. In the real world, when such sacrifices are being contemplated, there are always two groups: The person deciding on the sacrifice and the people who will be sacrificed if the person so decides. These people are always a minority which implies that there’s a majority ‘other group’ whose members also won’t be sacrificed but that’s just incidental. The important point is that the person making the decisions is never among the group whose members are to be sacrificed. This person will keep sacrificing others until only one other person is left. And then, sacrifice this sole other person.
Nah. If you believe the terrorist can be swayed by threats to the child you take the child into the coming blast zone. If you guessed wrong you both die.
Yes, I know that doesn’t fit with the Yes/No nature of the question.
The evolution of the anthropos since the mystery of Golgotha is the development of the ‘I’. This is the whole meaning of the western tradition, the ground prepared perfectly by the classical tradition for five hundred years before. We do not have the excuse of non-agency because our very being rests upon the assertion of the I.Those who are fond of looking at photos from the first world war: you had to look closely but they were fighting for something. It wasn’t spoken but it was there in the constitution of the people and their bearing. Itis easy to reject social media just like it is easy not to give a toss what people think about you.
If you turn your back on it then it will burn a hole in your back until you are forced to confront it. We’ve had it easy the last few decades. The West has been like an adventure playground compared with much of the rest of the world. That could never last and it wouldn’t even be desirable. I think over the next two decades you will see the middle eastern situation spread outwards and this has implications for the economic wellbeing of this country, It is all well and good flooding your coalmines but a day might come when you might need them.