Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study conducted by Katharine Hayhoe’s dad suggests even recorded lectures by Katharine Hayhoe can convert climate skeptics.
Study: Katharine Hayhoe is successfully convincing doubtful evangelicals about climate change
A new study finds that a lecture from evangelical climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe successfully educates evangelical college students, validating the “trusted sources” approach
Approximately one-quarter of Americans identify as evangelical Christians, and that group also tends to be more resistant to the reality of human-caused global warming. As a new paper by Brian Webb and Doug Hayhoe notes:
a 2008 study found that just 44% of evangelicals believed global warming to be caused mostly by human activities, compared to 64% of nonevangelicals (Smith and Leiserowitz, 2013) while, a 2011 survey found that only 27% of white evangelicals believed there to be a scientific consensus on climate change, compared to 40% of the American public (Public Religion Research Institute, 2011).
…
Hayhoe lecture’s effectiveness
The participants filled out a survey before and after the lecture, detailing their acceptance that global warming is happening, its cause, whether there’s a scientific consensus, how high of a priority they consider it, how worried they are about it, and how much it will harm various groups. The results showed an increase in pro-climate beliefs for every single question after listening to Katharine Hayhoe’s lecture.
Acceptance that global warming is happening increased for 48% of participants, and that humans are causing it for 39%. Awareness of the expert scientific consensus increased among 27% of participants. 52% were more worried about climate change after watching the lecture, and 67% increased their responses about how much harm climate change will do. 55% of participants viewed addressing climate change a higher priority after attending Katharine Hayhoe’s lecture. For most of the remaining participants, there was no change in responses to these questions.
By testing three different lecture approaches, Webb and Hayhoe also concluded that the lecture was equally effective when presented in person or as a recorded video, and that adding material about common climate misconceptions didn’t make the lecture any more effective.
…
The abstract of the study by Katharine’s dad;
Assessing the Influence of an Educational Presentation on Climate Change Beliefs at an Evangelical Christian College
Brian S. Webb, and Doug Hayhoe
Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a significant proportion of the American public continues to reject anthropogenic climate change. This disparity is particularly evident among evangelical Christians, for whom theological conservatism, general scientific skepticism, political affiliations, and sociocultural influences may impede their acceptance of human-caused climate change. Climate advocates have attempted to engage the evangelical community through various educational initiatives; lacking empirical measurement, however, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of such programs. Here, we present the results of a study that addresses this lack by adapting questions from the Six Americas of Global Warming survey to measure the climate change beliefs of undergraduate students at an evangelical Christian college before and after attending a lecture by a Christian climate scientist. The 88 participants who successfully completed a pre- and post treatment survey were divided into three groups: the first attended a live lecture, the second attended a recorded lecture, and the third attended a similar version of the same recorded lecture in which the presenter removed material addressing common misconceptions about climate change. The results demonstrate a significant increase in the proclimate beliefs for students in all three groups. There was no significant difference between the impacts of the live and recorded lectures or between the recorded lectures with and without misconceptions. These findings affirm the value of climate education among evangelicals; highlight the potential utility of such presentations, both recorded and live; and point to opportunities for research in the area of faith-based climate communication.
Read more: http://www.nagt-jge.org/doi/abs/10.5408/16-220.1
Who can argue with dad’s peer reviewed science? Clearly all alarmists have to do to achieve complete victory in the climate debate is to convince everyone to watch a Katharine Hayhoe video.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
indoctrination…………
You cannot indoctrinate someone in one lecture. Check what that means.
Of course, like any “survey” based study they do not print the questions which they asked but we can tell for what they do say that they were leading questions.
Anyone who starts out from “accepting the reality of…” is trying to impose a position, not “educate” anyone.
Oh yeah? By how much. What was the original question before the lecture ? Was it “are you aware of the overwhelming unscientific consensus of the reality that man is causing climate change ?”
They could have got the same result by reading WUWT.
Wow! A statistical population of under 30 in each group. Pappy Hayhoe needs to do his homework on statistics.
BTW my Mum thinks I’m great too, Maybe she could get her opinions published.
I love the word “treatment” there. Not only is this science “education”, it is a treatment for a psychological disorder.
Hayhoe , away we go, global warming , global warming
Hayhoe , away we go, riding on a donkey !!
The only two things I can see that can even be considered remotely conclusive from this study are:
1)Kathryn and her father are both completely unfamiliar with the scientific method at even a grade school level, and
2)Kathryn is no more convincing to her audience in person than she is on video, so she can now lower her carbon footprint by not flying or driving all over the planet to appear in person.
This doesn’t appear to be a study. It appears to be a data collection exercise without any follow up. What do these individuals believe in a year? What do they believe after Dr. Spencer presents a similar lecture? Are they familiar with the relevant arguments? If not, then who have you “convinced”? Better to bring your intellectual opponent with you to your “study” and take the survey after both sides are presented.
Acceptance that global warming is happening increased for 48% of participants
Good! It’s true that temps are up. Now the question becomes, “Why”? At least they aren’t going about arguing that such is not the case, which would make them appear uninformed at best and liars at worst.
and that humans are causing it for 39%
39% become “convinced”. So 61% were already doubting the veracity of AGW? I wonder what the stats are with atheist or agnostic students in the public university system after 12 years of indoctrination from public schools. At least these appear to have started out on a better footing than their peers. And then what are their views in a year, or perhaps after another individual presented the other side of the debate?
Awareness of the expert scientific consensus increased among 27% of participants
So the other 73% were already familiar with the so-called “consensus” and had rejected the lie? Recall only 39% appear to have become “convinced” that AGW is real.
52% were more worried about climate change after watching the lecture
52% were “more worried” when only 39% became convinced that humans are to be blamed? Ok given the doom and gloom scenario it would seem natural that young skulls full of mush might become “more worried”…until they aren’t anymore.
67% increased their responses about how much harm climate change will do.
What does this mean? Of these still only 39% seem to have accepted a human cause. I’m convinced that at a certain increase in temperature life on the planet will be harmed, but that’s meaningless as to whether I’m similarly convinced that anything can (and therefore, should) be done about it.
55% of participants viewed addressing climate change a higher priority after attending Katharine Hayhoe’s lecture.
Again, with only 39% being convinced that humans are the cause, what does this mean? Does this mean more study alone or does it mean more “doing” from government? What’s the new “priority”? perhaps now on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being highest priority, these students have moved climate change from 10 to 9, who knows?
For most of the remaining participants, there was no change in responses to these questions.
Despite the ad hominem against the young evangelicals here at WUWT, I’m certainly not convinced the Hayhoe’s have all that much reason to be hopeful to achieve their goals.
sy, you seem to be missing the point of the exercise. This never was about a debate and science, it is about finding a “treatment” for climate denialism amongst evangelicals and making people accept the Hayhoe “reality”.
If the vid doesn’t work , I guess the next step is electroshock aversion therapy. For really problematic cases, commitment to a special psychiatric unit for muscular injection of sulphur may be required. More funding is required to follow this work further.
i don’t think spencer would get the same numbers. (she looks a lot better than he does… ☺)
@Greg
“sy, you seem to be missing the point of the exercise. This never was about a debate and science, it is about finding a “treatment” for climate denialism amongst evangelicals and making people accept the Hayhoe “reality”.”
Indeed Greg…indeed…
>:-(
I think a few others have missed the point. Dad is advertising daddy’s-girl’s effectiveness to dimwitted activists.
“I think a few others have missed the point. Dad is advertising daddy’s-girl’s effectiveness to dimwitted activists.”
More ad hominem? How many logical fallacies can be bandied about without driving the rational individual mad??
Effectiveness? What effectiveness? Are you sure these individuals are such “dimwitted activists”? Do you have some evidence that these individuals are “dimwitted” other than your presuppositions about individuals with religious beliefs?
According to the “study”, assuming one chooses to believe the results without further inquiry, only 39% of those who are exposed to the lecture become convinced that AGW is human caused. If only 39% become convinced of the truth of AGW then it would seem logical to conclude that 61% don’t and stay that way, in which case, it would seem premature to argue that the set of all evangelical students are “dimwitted”, wouldn’t you agree?
Compare this with at least one survey (2016) regarding the evangelicals’ peers in the American university system:
“College students believe that global warming is becoming a more serious problem, with 55% now saying this is a very serious problem, up from 41% just last year.”
http://www.panettainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Survey-report-2016.pdf (p. 4)
I can’t speak to the veracity of the study referenced above, however, it doesn’t appear out of the bounds of reason to believe it given the state of the American secondary and undergrad public school systems.
If true, then more non-evangelicals (e.g., atheists, agnostics, etc.) already believe in the reality of AGW than those evangelicals who become convinced by Hayhoe.
In which case, who are the dimwits???
A study like this is meaningless.
When you listen to a presentation that sets out only one side of the case, ie., that side favouied by the presenter, of course, one is likely to see some increase in the number of people who accept the case as presented to them.
It would be rather different if a balanced presentation was made.
Who scored the data. I bet you a thousand dollars it was not a blinded or double blinded study. Wanna bet!
Sy,
Sorry, but the Panetta Institute and Hart survey company are immediately suspect.
@Gloateus
“Sy,
Sorry, but the Panetta Institute and Hart survey company are immediately suspect.”
Oh I see…many thanks for letting me know!
Say, perhaps when you have a few moments you could offer an approved list of survey and study vendors for both my edification and future reference?
🙂
absolutely you can….
“undergraduate students at an evangelical Christian college”….were already cocked and primed to believe what they were taught…and to trust the people teaching it
Try that again at some Jesuit school….
Lat – successfully educates evangelical college students, validating the “trusted sources” approach
Same sub-set that truly believes Jaba the Hut was really, really mean to Luke and Princess Leia, but only in a galaxy far, far away and long, long ago.
So Daddy’s little girl got her Propaganda Licence.
The indoctrination began when parents introduced the their trusting children to the religious dogma that promotes unwarranted belief and wishful thinking. Such willing thralls are easily convinced by almost any tripe that spills from the lips of its acolytes.
The latest lecture is merely more of the same psychology foisted upon the willingly ignorant.
All that has been demonstrated is that fools are foolish, and that “you can fool some of the people all of the time.”
Just can’t help pounding on your chest and screaming how smart you are, can you? Some people are just naturally insecure and have to constantly reassure themselves they are right.
deanfromohio August 28, 2017 at 5:27 pm
That some scientists from the 17th and 19th centuries held various Christian religious beliefs is not the point. Even today, some scientists doing worthy work still believe in a god of one kind or another.
Maxwell was indeed a conventional Presbyterian. Newton however was a Deist heretic, d*nying the Trinity. Modern scholarship agrees with his conclusion that 1 John 5:7 is in fact a spurious addition, in keeping with so much of the forgery in the NT, as partially recognized by Luther.
You grossly misrepresent Einstein’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof. He did not believe in a deity which intervened in human history, a personal God counting hairs on heads and falling sparrows, to Whom there was a point in praying. To the extent that he held spiritual feelings at all, he was a pantheist.
That some scientists have been adherents of various Christian denominations and other religions does not mean that mixing religion and science is scientific. Quite the contrary. Science looks only for naturalistic explanations. No supernatural explanations, hence non-explanations, need apply.
The God Hypothesis not only can’t make testable, falsifiable predictions, thus being antiscientific, but it’s also against Protestant theology, and maybe all Christian doctrine.
In what way are your own unfounded, non-evidenced beliefs NOT a religion?
Michael,
Requiring evidence of a God before becoming convinced that He exists isn’t a religion.
Even the famous atheist Dawkins allows that, logically, choosing atheism over agnosticism is just going with the lack of evidence for God. Even he can’t be strictly 100% sure that there is no God, since there is no way to demonstrate whether He does or doesn’t exist. He’s outside science.
deanfromohio August 29, 2017 at 11:48 am
You could not possibly be more wrong or sound less informed.
The pagan Greek world gave rise to science. It was revived in 16th century Europe, but no thanks to Christianity. The availability of ancient Greek works in their originals to Copernicus and Vesalius kick-started the scientific revolution.
The math behind modern science also arose in the ancient pagan Mediterranean world and in India.
You have been badly misinformed.
Well what if we aren’t skeptical, but are quite sure that the evidence says ” ho-hum ; wake me when something important happens. ”
G
Sorry Katie, you need to get a paying job.
That’s the problem. She, like creationists, has found a lucrative gig lying about science and religion.
Dean,
I protest correctly that professional creationists are liars.
OK lets TONE IT DOWN everybody, or I’ll close the thread.
Got me laughing. Those lying (purposeful deception = a lie) scum actually think they can convert me. HA HA.
Political Consensus – shove it up your butt.
ClimateGate – your downfall.
Yes, laughing is the only response to this – I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks, Eric Worall
I concluded long ago that I could convince some people that pigs fly backwards in winter, you just need to some fancy scientific sounding arguments and fancy sounding jargon. I bet I could get it into some social science journals.
From what I have heard lately, you wouldn’t have any trouble getting into “hard” science journals, either.
And uphill in both directions !
g
Interesting that Katherine Hayhoe identifies as an evangelical, given that she is one of the most egregious liars in climate alarmist circles. She has spent years trying to convince people that climate change was causing drought in Texas, and then switched to climate change causes floods. Perhaps she should check back over the ten commandments, or various other scriptures regarding truth. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/career-change-for-katharine-hayhoe/
All AGW zealots are evangelical , that is why logical argument is irrelevant to them and they will not debate the issue.
They are also bible thumpers. The IPCC is their bible and they thump it on a regular basis.
Note to Katharine Hayhoe:
Given the scientific evidence (as opposed to your appeals to corrupted authority like the IPCC), the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very low, and there is no real global warming crisis, wilder weather crisis, etc. There is NO credible scientific evidence to support your viewpoint.
Even before the Climategate emails were published, it was clear that global warming alarmism was proposed by scoundrels and supported by imbeciles. The attempt of the global warming gang to shut down debate and intimidate their opposition is a classic tactic of those who have NO credibility, and so try to shout down their opponents.
In short, madame, I cannot say if you are a scoundrel or an imbecile, but will note that the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
God bless, Allan
So you get a group of students who have probably little or no exposure to climate change information and show them a one-sided lecture with no counter balancing arguments. And they are persuaded. Is this a surprise? What if, after viewing the lecture, they are presented with material from a different view point? Then test them again, and see how many remain converts.
This does address the fact that a vast majority of people are not exposed to the cut and thrust of the debate about AGW arguments, but only a few snippets from news broadcasts or social media feeds. Once they are confronted with the debate, they actually have to think about it and make a decision. It is an informed decision only if they get BOTH sides of the argument.
For a guy named “Mumbles” you sure are pretty clear…
“Once they are confronted with the debate, they actually have to think about it and make a decision.”
This makes their heads hurt, so they chant “La-La-La” and turn to their TVs to get more media-strained pablum that they won’t have to chew to swallow.
The presentation of only the facts which agree with the agenda and exclusion of others is the basis of all pr0paganda.
They have as much chance of converting me to this lunacy as they have to any other religion.
First of all, no true skeptic would ever attend one of her
lectures. Secondly, this self-selecting group is simply showing how easily-led they are, and that they essentially have schist-for-brains. Third, the effect of propaganda on sheeple is short-lived. Since they’ve proven that they have schist-for-brains, then they will believe just about anything as long as it comes from an “expert”.
Roy Spencer has been savagely attacked by people using his christian views against him.
I wonder if this gets him off the hook, and now evangelicals are OK.
{Hercules battled the Hydra, which was a three headed monster. Is the Double Standard a two headed monster?}
Everything the skeptics do is wrong, everything the global warming believers do is right. The actual content of what is being done is 100% irrelevant. Those are the rules.
In reality, the Hydra had nine heads. Perhaps you are thinking of Cerberus, the three-headed Hound of Hades.
I have never heard of Dr. Roy calling upon his personal religious views to present scientific arguments related to climate.
Some vague shadows from my misty past said something about rendering unto Cesar, those things that are Cesar’s, and verse vicea.
We can prove some things: others we can’t, but we believe them anyhow !
And we know for sure (Kurt Gödel) that there are some things we can’t prove no matter what, even though they may be true. There are problems that we can prove absolutely DO have a solution; and those proofs may give us NO hint whatsoever as to how to solve them.
G
Unfortunately, Dr. Roy has said that earth is homeostatic because of God.
So what?
In connection with the Big Bang theory and the issue of the origin of our highly ordered universe, on March 12, 1978, Dr. Penzias stated to the New York Times:
(Penzias, as cited in Bergman 1994, 183; see also Brian 1995, 163).
CTM,
One of Dr. Penzias’ daughters is a rabbi.
There are no actual “data” on the Big Bang in the Bible.
That’s an extremely poor interpretation of the quote with a nice ad hom referring to his daughter’s accomplishments as if it were a negative. I’ve seen you do better than this. But I’m not going to get into a back and forth, because I’ll have to censor myself. You are welcome to reply, but I’m stopping myself now.
CTM,
Thanks.
It’s not an ad hominem. It’s to show that Penzias was not making a scientific statement but a religious one.
The fact is that there are no scientific data in the Bible, so his statement is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.
He and his Bell Labs colleague Wilson discovered the CMB radiation not because of the Bible but by accident, while setting up for radioastronomical and satellite communications experiments. Nor did Alpher and Herman, who predicted the CMBR in 1948, rely upon any biblical “data” in making their prediction.
Telling lies is only effective when the recipients are blocked from hearing alternative facts.
Those who watched and believed Al Gore’s latest climate fantasy show and then read Spencer’s
rebuttal are not likely to ever believe anything Gore says in the future. This is why the global warming crowd never wants any debates on the issue . Notice that this liar also assumes the same identity as her recipients – I’m one of you, therfore you can believe me. Notice also that these are “lectures” not debates or not even discussions about the subject. She doesn’t have to explain alternative data/theories because her listeners are ignorant of such things. It is easy to convince people who know nothing about the subject you are dealing with.
That is also why Socialism is so popular.
Socialism is popular mainly because governments can give out “free goodies” like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare subsidies, pension promises, welfare, etc. TO BUY VOTES … until they run out of “other people’s money” to spend.
A secondary problem is that few people understand economics — they fail to understand that a “bigger” government means a “smaller” private sector … and its the private sector that to has to pay the taxes to fund the goobermint !
Taxes do NOT pay for the government (federal). Taxes are used to give value to our fiat currency since 1933 because you require them to pay for taxes.
Total taxes for 2016 were only $2,845,362,000 ($2.8 trillion). See Table IV on pg. 2 of 2.
“Total Issues” of currency created (mainly treasury securities) by the US Treasury in 2016 for US government expenses was $95,648,584,000 ($95.6 trillion). See Table III-A same page.
So how in God’s name do taxes pay for government expenses?
Very astute MRW
With the US being the default reserve currency for the world it is very easy to spend unlimited amounts of money. Taxes are really the validation of the currency.
This is why I like Bitcoin.
MRW you ignored the redemptions of $94.2 trillion.
Not at all, Michael Jankowski. That’s the amount that the federal government actually spent in 2016 meeting its expenses (not the amount of USD created in 2016, which are the “Issues”).
You’ll notice that the difference between the two amounts is called “Net Change in Public Debt Outstanding.” That’s the amount that the federal government allowed the people to keep in 2016; it’s not an amount that has to be paid back, or will be owed by children or grandchildren.
In 2016, that amount was $1,422,827,000 or $1.4 trillion.
“Net Change in Public Debt Outstanding” is also called the National Debt. [The 2016 amount would be what is added to tally, kept since 1791.]
It’s free stuff ! Surely that’s good ??
g
Arthur4563,
The liberal Australian blog, The Conversation, recently had an article from Hayhoe, supporting the paper by Oreskes et al., focused on what Exxon knew and when they knew it. Oreskes claims that examination of internal memos, obtained for the time period 1977 through 2014, establishes that Exxon has been deceiving the public since at least the late-1970s.
I pointed out that the testimonial from Hayhoe (“I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist”) about her short stint with Exxon in the late-1990s hardly constituted support for Exxon having known anything definitive 20 years earlier. Further, Global Circulation Models were in their infancy in the 1970s and it would have been irresponsible for Exxon management to assume that they had the final answer and no further research was necessary to guide long-range planning. I also remarked that today’s models are running hot, which is even admitted by the modelers, so Exxon STILL isn’t certain what reality is.
My comment was unceremoniously removed promptly, without even the courtesy of a notification! The Conversation obviously recognizes that “Telling lies is only effective when the recipients are blocked from hearing alternative facts.” I had another couple of comments removed, one because I was being sarcastic to an AGW supporter who put out a warning to “lurkers” that “deniers are liars.” His attack was not deleted. Bizarrely, I had another comment removed where I was agreeing with that particular AGW supporter that most of the retractions in science journals were in social and biological sciences. Although, I had the temerity to remark about the Climategate scandals and mention the antics of Karl adjusting superior data to agree with inferior data. I was notified about the removal of the latter two comments. However, comments replying to me were retained, whereas the supposed policy is to remove an entire thread if one of the comments violates their guidelines.
It is obvious that The Conversation is more interested in serving up a pablum of propaganda than trying to facilitate discussion of complex and contentious topics. Ironically, one of the commenters advocated suing “deniers” for fraud. How about suing The Conversation for falsely presenting what is known about Climate Change through manipulations of what is allowed to be read, in violation of their own guidelines?
Clyde Spencer
I frequently admire WUWT for inviting Nick Stokes, Griff etc. to contribute. I might not like what they write, but I’ll defend their right to express themselves. And I know some particularly nasty trolls have been excluded, but Nick and Griff et al are prepared to engage in debate, not slanging.
And frankly, the more that are invited to engage with WUWT, the more are likely to see the light. 🙂
HotScot,
It is one of the ironies of our times that the sentiment of “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.”, [commonly erroneously attributed to Voltaire] was once a hallmark of Liberals. They are now the ones wanting to censor things they don’t agree with or approve of!
However, to the best of my knowledge, Griff has never apologized for libeling Dr. Susan Crockford.
Clyde, that article was even picked up and reported on some new sites, such as this one:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11912062
The bit I liked was when she said “Fresh out of Canada, I was unaware that there were people who didn’t accept climate science – so unaware, in fact, that it was nearly half a year before I realized I’d married one – let alone that Exxon was funding a disinformation campaign at the very same time it was supporting my research on the most expedient ways to reduce the impact of humans on climate.”
Really?? This so-called great communicator didn’t pick up that her husband had climate science concerns. I’d like to know how that panned out.
Her parents were missionaries, so she’s just continuing the family shtick.
Apparently she stayed married to her allegedly skeptic husband, who is a pastor in TX. Dunno if she managed to convert him to the Church of CACA.
So staunchly religious people are easily swayed into a religion? Shocker.
The same group of evangelicals elected Trump. Case closed.
Dr. Hayhoe helped to elect Trump. Mysterious ways.
Ouch!
Well no ! They MAY have voted for him; but there aren’t nearly enough evangelicals to have elected him.
A lot of rational people voted for him too; people who don’t like out and out crooks like the Clanton Gang.
G
deanfromohio August 28, 2017 at 8:04 am
Kindly explain then please his warm reception at Liberty University in January 2016.
Thanks.
There is a great difference between “staunchly religious” and “young evangelical”. I think many, if not most “staunchly religious” people would opine that the “young evangelicals” are in it not because of any carefully considered beliefs, but because of the emotional high they get from being Dedicated to a Cause.
And what is truth, oh wise one?
Deanfromohio,
I guess you missed this one:
Matthew 5:22
” But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”
Hope you enjoy the heat 🙂
Dean,
Like so many avowed “Christians” seems to miss the point of Christianity.
Oops. Inserted a carriage return there not meant.
Well failure to present rational explanations for something, does not justify presenting completely irrational explanations.
The good old, ” I don’t know. ” always works in such cases.
G
You have the cart before the horse. Staunchly religious people are not swayed. That is why, after all these years of ridicule and public contempt for religion they are still staunchly religious.
Jeez, are we really descending into tabloid-style scientific studies? In other news John Cook’s Mom says that everything he’s ever done is 100% truthful, and anyone who disagrees is a poophead.
ROFL 🙂
97%
Sounds like Mrs Brown in STL, where thug lives matter.
Old Grey Badger,
Oh my crap. I literally spewed Pepsi!!
+a million
I suppose this is what they call Pa review.
No assessment of AGW belief should be measure without putting a figure to it. eg would they spend $1 more a month to solve it? $2? $500? $5000? Everyone has a limit at which blind faith in the science breaks down and they start to reserve judgement. As a percentage of income the amount even fervent believers are prepared to spend is tiny.
Hayhoe’s success can be likened to moving a mountain one grain at a time. Sure, if you zoom in, the grains look like boulders. But move back to see the bigger picture and you see how ineffective she is.
“Despite an overwhelming consensus..”. Next!
“Overwhelming consensus..” …. and her dad! Also not forgetting most daughters can wrap their father around their little finger to get their own way!
Excerpted from the above quoted commentary:
The cited paper claims that, to wit:
And that, to wit:
Well, taudy dah, ….. so you have a “Bible believing” evangelical ……. lecturing a group of “Bible believing” evangelical college students about the dastardly evils associated with the “settled science” of human-caused global warming.
And just why would anyone think that one (1) of the students in the above noted group of “Bible believing” evangelical college students ….. would actually state on a survey that he/she disagreed with the claims of said “Bible believing” evangelical lecturer?
Pretty much everyone that attends such lectures hosted by “Bible believing” evangelicals, …… pretty much already believe most everything being touted by the lecturer.
They recognize a false prophet when they see one, though.
Some of them do, to wit:
Well duh. Evangelicals are prone to believe in future scenarios of hell, fire, and brimstone unless measures are taken now to do something. Every disciple has a pocketful of “tracts” that says so.
It’s amazing how some people allow their opinions to inform their facts.
It has always fascinated me that the global warming predictions are very much in line with Biblical predictions concerning the end of the earth. Technically, global warming believers are in line with Biblical prophesy on this one.
Warmisim is essentially Genesis painted over with Day-Glo green.
Since Progressivism has essentially ousted God as a means of social control, they had to do SOMETHING with all that left-over Catholic guilt.
You don’t suppose the people who invented the terrors of the underworld were trying to control other people through fear?
I see totally different prophecies being ironically fulfilled by the CAGW crowd myself:
people will be lovers of self (academics) lovers of money (grants and awards) proud, arrogant, abusive (Mickey Mann, Lew, Cook, and others) slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit (certain CAGW bloggers come to mind)
How ironic that atheists and agnostics, and those who cannot fathom religion and science in harmony, actually help fulfill ancient prophecies from a book they abhor.
Not quite correct. Evangelicals believe in a future of fire and brimstone because an inerrant bible says so. There is nothing that will prevent it. Some people will escape the consequences; but that is true also of sea level rise. Just choose a location above sea level.
She gets her religious beliefs from a peer-reviewed bible.
Odd that these folks reject the idea that their creator put all these wonderful resources on the planet which they call their “temporary home”, so that mankind could “multiply and subdue the earth” as commanded in Genesis. To believe that their god is a trickster, who would plant a “tree of resourcefulness” and mention no warnings against consumption of it’s fruit should clash with any sort of faith in a kind and loving creator.
Do they think that God would just quit running the show and let fate take over?
Here’s My Hey-Ho on the religious crowd and AGW.
An Ode to the Church On Fighting Climate Change.
Bureaucrats and Global Planners
Speak in agitated manners,
Predicating great disaster:
“Climate change we now must master!”
Human guilt and blame beseeching:
“Children, shame we should be teaching!
Man has sinned by overreaching
Fragile Gaia’s limit!”
Beware: this bold apostasy
Spins prophesy from vanity!
The firmaments will never be
Controlled by mortal hands.
So, use this world, as best you can,
To take care of your fellow man
And leave Earth’s destiny to God’s great plan!
This Universe is God’s, alone
Commanding elements He owns.
Perplexes any man’s control,
Yet, still provides for every soul!
It works as a rap too. Can I have a grant to build a boom-box?
I kinda imagine Charlotte Church singing it to a modern liturgical hymn with fingerstyle guitar.
To each his own, feel free to pass on the lyrics as I am only the vessel, and the words came from inspiration that must be shared.
Well, it’s easier to get somebody who’s gullible enough to believe in one imaginary deity to believe in another equally imaginary thing, especially when prayers, indulgences & self-denial figure highly in both.
Again, beating one’s chest as to how smart you are. Nothing says insecure loser like those who must constantly bleet their superiority. Kind of the those warmists—name calling and ridiculing are definately part of the skeptic tradition. You’re a great role model—for the warmists.
+10000
Mocking people who believe in sky fairies is just the same as mocking earnest liberals: bloody good fun.
david smith writes “Mocking people who believe in sky fairies…”
I have never met a person that believes in sky fairies; other than you of course. Perhaps you could describe “sky fairy” so I have some sense of what it is belief in which is being mocked.
“sky fairy”, “bloke with a beard in the sky”, “higher being” “god”, call it what you will. It’s just fairy stories.
David Smith writes “sky fairy, bloke with a beard in the sky, higher being, god, call it what you will. It’s just fairy stories.”
So what makes you any more correct than anyone else making a claim?
LOGIC: If any differences can be found between two instances of a class, it is thus implied that there is a least and a greatest in that class. Somewhere in this universe is someone smarter than you, and somewhere else is someone smartest of all, by any measure you care to specify. Whoever or whatever is at the top is the supreme being, call it what you will 😉 it cannot fail to exist.
Say Michael (if you’re still around), I’m curious whether you’re using this as an argument for the existence of God or if I’ve misunderstood your point?
I found this interesting but subject to objection in that this “supreme being” you derive as the “smarter than you” being appears to exist as an instance in the same class as a human. But wouldn’t an “Other” being, i.e., a God being, exist outside of that class, in which case, how do bridge the gap between the created and the Creator?
sy computing wrote “I’m curious whether you’re using this as an argument for the existence of God”
Yes and no. I’m a bit pedantic; there’s no point arguing a thing if the thing itself is undefined. Of course it exists, or it does not; a lot like Schroedinger’s Cat until an observation is made as to what exactly one thinks exists or does not exist.
It should be obvious that for any particular skill or trait, should you observe that one instance is greater than another thus establishing a slope, somewhere exists a greatest. That does not mean infinite; merely greatest. Weird things happen when you start throwing around “infinite”, you get paradoxes. So to me, “all knowing” simply means knowing what is knowable, and not knowing what is not knowable. How can there be such a thing as infinite knowledge? I don’t even accept it as a mystery; the concept is inherently stupid in my opinion, it’s lazy!
“you derive as the smarter than you being appears to exist as an instance in the same class as a human.”
I am delighted that you noticed. To me this god is not only anthropomorphic I’m in the lineage (and so are you). I was in Alaska contemplating things; rather a lot of time to contemplate things when it is cold and windy outside, cold but not so windy inside. Every living thing makes more of its own kind. It came to me that God is doing the same. You don’t *create* (ex-nihilo), you form, adapt, mold, grow, develop, evolve whatever is at hand with as light at touch as reasonably possible. Maybe no touch at all; after all, the bible says the *Earth* brought forth every living thing; God’s involvement seems to be to observe that it is “good”.
Some years (decades?) ago, Battlestar Galactica explored that exact concept. What is the ultimate fate of humankind assuming it survives its own misadventures? What will we look like to less advanced yet intelligent species we encounter?
“how do bridge the gap between the created and the Creator?”
We don’t; he does if he wishes. Do you wish your computer program to talk to you? If so then you program it to do so and it will do so and it cannot fail to do so unless you implanted that failure.
Suppose you are a god, a million years old and you finally have gotten tired of playing “Solitaire”. You want something fresh, something that can carry the baton, maybe even like any good parent wish for your children to go where you have not gone. You cannot create such a thing; it must develop and grow. With that understanding suddenly the paradox of evil vanishes; God did not create the sinner or the holy man! They evolved, made choices, heeded counsel good or evil. Many parables exist of “sifting wheat from chaff”. How is it possible that God’s creation contains chaff? It is because this creation is not “ex nihilo”. Earth was already here, merely “void” whatever exactly that means. It was shaped and made ready for school and we are the students.
Sy,
Right you are. The whole point about God in Christian theology is that He is the Wholly Other. He’s not as were the gods of ancient myth, to include the Hebrews’ chief tribal god YHWH, ie larger than mortals and immortal but otherwise anthropomorphic beings.
Actually, with all due respect I would argue that in Christianity the “whole point’ is far from YHVH (yes, that’s a “V” and not an “H” on purpose because it’s a “VAV”, not a “WAV”!) being “Wholly Other”. See Hebrews 4:15.
I’m with you, btw, on the notion that belief is by faith alone. I agree that there exists no argument for the existence of YHVH that is valid. I say this on the basis of Ephesians 2:8. That’s why I’m asking Michael about his argument.
sy computing writes “I agree that there exists no argument for the existence of YHVH that is valid.”
Similarly for the nonexistence. I admire people’s attempts over nearly 2000 years to define a thing that to me seems pretty simple; I almost suspect there’s an intention to make it unnecessarily complicated for non-obvious purposes; perhaps sustain a priesthood where otherwise such a thing might not be necessary.
Arguing for supreme beings is easy. Arnold Schwarzenegger was once a supreme being, Mr Universe if I remember right. Arguing for something that probably cannot exist is going to be considerably more difficult and will take hundreds of pages of convoluted reasoning that ultimately loops back on itself.
Whoops…that would be an “W”, rather than an “H”, obviously… 🙂
Michael:
Yes and no. I’m a bit pedantic; there’s no point arguing a thing if the thing itself is undefined. Of course it exists, or it does not; a lot like Schroedinger’s Cat until an observation is made as to what exactly one thinks exists or does not exist.
I see. Well if you ever decide to work the argument out I hope you’ll let me know. I suspect it would be an interesting read.
Weird things happen when you start throwing around “infinite”, you get paradoxes. So to me, “all knowing” simply means knowing what is knowable, and not knowing what is not knowable.
Or, “all knowing” could even mean just knowing what is knowable without talking about that which isn’t knowable. After all, how could one know whether or not that which was not knowable even existed as something that could not be known? How would we define even one thing which belongs in the set of all things which are unable be known? As you said, there’s no point arguing a thing if the thing itself is undefined.
I am delighted that you noticed.
Thank you. I’ll take that as a compliment!
Every living thing makes more of its own kind. It came to me that God is doing the same. You don’t *create* (ex-nihilo), you form, adapt, mold, grow, develop, evolve whatever is at hand with as light at touch as reasonably possible.
Maybe. That presupposes a lot, e.g., that there was stuff at hand and you want to “form, adapt…”, etc., with “as light a touch as reasonably possible”. Maybe there wasn’t stuff at hand and maybe you want to be hands on. I want to know from whence that big rock that blew up came, if indeed that’s actually what happened. And were I god I would likely want to be hands on in case of trouble. It’s not like I don’t fix my .NET apps when they break. Rather, I direct them in the way I want them to go, so that when they’re old they don’t depart from that path.
Maybe no touch at all; after all, the bible says the *Earth* brought forth every living thing; God’s involvement seems to be to observe that it is “good”.
Not quite. As I read the text It would seem God’s first move was to *create* the earth, after which he pronounced his creation, “good”. There’s more than observation there.
Suppose you are a god, a million years old and you finally have gotten tired of playing “Solitaire”. You want something fresh, something that can carry the baton, maybe even like any good parent wish for your children to go where you have not gone. You cannot create such a thing; it must develop and grow.
Even with the sink or swim method it would seem logical that the “good parent” would remain right there at the shoreline ready to dive in should the child start to drown. And is it not the case that good parents rarely leave their children to “develop and grow” all on their own? Rather, it would seem the more successful method of “good” parenting is to love, nurture, instruct and reprove in a hands-on manner.
Many parables exist of “sifting wheat from chaff”. How is it possible that God’s creation contains chaff? It is because this creation is not “ex nihilo”. Earth was already here, merely “void” whatever exactly that means.
I’m not sure how it necessarily follows from the existence of chaff that the creation must therefore have already existed as well. How does one relate to the other in terms of existence? Maybe the chaff exists simply because the chaff chose not to heed the instruction that was offered or available to them and made bad choices in the ex nihilo creation?
I know this probably isn’t the forum to continue a conversation like this, but I certainly enjoyed your many contributions to this thread!
sy computing writes “Even with the sink or swim method it would seem logical that the good parent would remain right there at the shoreline ready to dive in should the child start to drown.”
Interesting metaphor. I nearly died that very way and it was my best friend that saved my life. The day I thought I had learned how to swim at the shallow end of the pool. I jumped in the deep end and was having some difficulty getting back to the surface. I remember the event rather clearly. I was very cautious around water for a good many years after that (now I’m a PADI certified diver, but still cautious around water).
Suppose the child is 40 years old; is the now-65 year old parent going to follow his child around to prevent this drowning? That is unreasonable and a huge burden; eventually the parent will die and the child will have been sheltered to his doom. So you create the circumstance where you find out whether he is going to drown, while he is still young and in your care. Find out if he’s going to start fires, do drugs or whatever, while you still have a chance to try to change his path.
The young bird must fly or die. I have watched young eagles make their first flight; the parents basically starve him out of the nest, enticing him with fish from a small distance, but he must fly to it. There is great joy when he makes that first flight. The parents know he is ready, *he* is the one that does not know. Of course much preparation has taken place before this moment.
I do not believe in predestination. Everyone born to this world has a choice to make and is free to make it. A few perhaps are not free to make it and I believe mercy exists for those circumstances. There is a principle in my religion that all persons will find whatever happiness they believe exists; that they will not be happy to have a heaven forced upon them in the next life that they did not want in this one.
Will there be evil in heaven? No. Those who choose evil are already drowned. I do not know how much effort God and the angels will have made to obtain a happier outcome, but whatever it is, the evidence is that God will not force anyone to heaven.
To most Christians, humans are “pets”, bred to worship God for ever and ever never mind scant evidence that this supposed plan of God is working.
Agreed…sola fide
I believe the priesthood argument is very true. But I suspect an even larger part of the problem is also due to the “need” of the many to reconcile the claims of (specifically) Christianity to Reason. Some of those claims just aren’t going to stand up to logic given the current state of the human mind. That’s not to say they won’t ever, but for now, no.
But so what? At one point in human history you couldn’t logically make the claim that the planet was round. By all available empirical evidence at the time such a thing was nonsensical. At one time bloodletting was an accepted medical solution for many illnesses that cannot now be considered blood borne. The list goes on.
So I used to be that way, i.e., trying to reconcile my faith to logical analysis. Now I don’t really care. Matters of faith are just that. I don’t need to reconcile the idea of the Trinity. I don’t need to solve the Problem of Evil. I’m happy to accept that my ways are not his ways and my thoughts are not his thoughts, i.e., that I see through a glass darkly, but that someday I’ll see things as they are.
A wise man has got to know (and accept) his limitations. No matter where you are there you go.
Sy,
Maybe a nitpick, but the empirical evidence has always been there that the earth is a sphere. It’s just that before pagan Greek natural philosophers of c. 600 BC, no one had looked at the evidence in scientific manner. Previously, people had thought pre-scientifically, although many ancient peoples did make useful observations.
Or possibly not until 500 BC, but in any case well before Plato (427–347 BC).
Dude…
I luv ya…
But just chill and let it go…
🙂
I’m sorry you suffered such an experience…of course I couldn’t have known.
“Suppose the child is 40 years old; is the now-65 year old parent going to follow his child around to prevent this drowning?”
I suppose it depends on the relationship between the parent and child. E.g., who is the parent and what is the state of the child? Many years ago my wife was asked of some aged but dear friends of hers to look after their mentally retarded daughter (who was around 50 at the time) after their death. She (i.e., the daughter) was fully functioning on her own in society despite her malady, yet their concern was still justified. They loved her and wished for someone they trusted to care for her when they could no longer do so.
Without mental malady, e.g., within my own family, I notice the parent/child bond still remains quite strong even unto advanced age. For example, my grandmother died at 88, yet she never failed to speak of (and to) my (then) 70 year old mother as her “little girl” when the situation warranted it. Similarly, it seems no matter how much I age (I just turned 50) my now 74 year old mother is still “Mom” and I remain, “Son”. Sometimes (to my chagrin) at family gatherings it would seem I am still her “little boy”…and such will it remain in her mind until death.
To be sure, our relationship has changed as any parent/child relationship should change as an individual matures, but the parenting instinct seems to remain at the ready involuntarily and/or immediately if the parent deems it necessary.
Should such a relationship between God and his children be any different, or would it be reasonable to assume that such a relationship could be even stronger given the “supreme” nature of the higher being? Were I god would I leave my children in such a state to fend for themselves alone or would I act more like YHVH?
“That is unreasonable and a huge burden; eventually the parent will die and the child will have been sheltered to his doom.”
Should it be such a burden for a god? An “all knowing”, supreme being “a million years old” under your assumptions or the eternal YHVH under mine? I’m not sure why except to assume so and then I don’t know why your assumptions are more reasonable than mine. A wise man once said, “Why are your claims better than someone else’s…” or something similar. That man was you 🙂
“So you create the circumstance where you find out whether he is going to drown, while he is still young and in your care. Find out if he’s going to start fires, do drugs or whatever, while you still have a chance to try to change his path.”
Well this seems to presuppose more than merely creating the initial environment and then stepping back to observe what happens, which appeared to be your earlier premise. Or at least that’s what I understood you to say?
“The young bird must fly or die. I have watched young eagles make their first flight; the parents basically starve him out of the nest, enticing him with fish from a small distance, but he must fly to it.”
I’m sure that’s quite the sight to behold…a series of events that are a testament to the rational coding of nature. But humanity doesn’t quite do the same thing in most cases do they? Rather, in general we remain in contact with our parents throughout our lifetime; sometimes coming home in times of trouble or despair, but if not, nevertheless always having the surety of someone who loves us and is there for us in our time of need. I say, “in general”, with full knowledge that such is not always the case, naturally.
But in the case of a god for what reason would he not love his children unconditionally if even those lower than he are able to love unconditionally? Does the creature have more admirable attributes than the creator?
“I do not believe in predestination. Everyone born to this world has a choice to make and is free to make it.”
Ah free will! A topic of particular interest to me. Unfortunately this forum is probably not the best place to discuss such a theme, but I have some preliminary ideas to bounce off of you.
How free do you really believe your will is? What the heck is the “will” in the first place? It starts with a thought, wouldn’t you agree? What’s a thought? No one seems to know. The best that can be said (or so it appears) is it’s a firing of certain neurons across certain pathways in the brain.
Okay I’ll buy that, but then from whence does the *original* thought come before the firing takes place??? If we can see a thought or thinking taking place in the brain and such is defined as an electrical signal across flesh, what about the origination point?? What fires it?
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/10/how-the-brain-builds-new-thoughts/
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/what-are-thoughts-made-of/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/5343
That last one above is a doozy…but it shows how desperate some are to try to define a simple thing such as a thought or “the will”, but we just don’t appear to have a clue where the thing starts.
I remember one of my favorite undergrad philosophy professors telling us about a school of thought that suggested that all thought, all speech, everything we did was just a random firing of neurons…there was no rhyme nor reason to our existence. His reply was “but that’s just stupid”. And indeed it is, however, that school of thought was basing their argument on empirical data.
Anyway, do an exercise with me and tell me afterward how free you think your will is. These are just some silly examples but they make the point.
What’s your favorite color? For 5 seconds, change that color to red. If it’s already red, change it to blue. Are you able? Why not, you have free will don’t you?
What’s your favorite food? For just 5 seconds, change that to steak. If it’s already steak, change it to fish. Are you able? Why not?
Are you married? For just 5 seconds, fall out of love with your spouse. If you’re not in love, then fall in love with her. Are you able via free will alone to change your current state of mind? If not, why not? I thought you were able to make any choice you wanted to make?
Now think about limitations of time, space and the physical. E.g., using your free will alone, get up and walk to the kitchen. Did you use your legs? Then you violated the terms of the exercise.
“Well that’s just silly you say”.
Tell that to the individual who doesn’t have legs.
The examples are numerous and I’m sure you can come up with better ones on your own.
First she’d have to convince me to be an evangelical.
Why? She’s not one.
What more can a study include?
• Conflicts of interest.
• Argumentum ad Populum”
• Faith based science.
• Emphasis on weasel words.
• Such a large study! “The 88 participants who successfully completed a pre- and post treatment survey were divided into three groups: the first attended a live lecture, the second attended a recorded lecture, and the third attended a similar version of the same recorded lecture in which the presenter removed material addressing common misconceptions about climate change.” That’s 29.3 participants per study portion.
Not to overlook their heavy use of inclusive and exclusive words to artificially sway opinions:
• “The results showed an increase in pro-climate beliefs for every single question after listening to Katharine Hayhoe’s lecture” Isn’t that cute, “pro-climate”?
• “Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus” Overwhelming? Consensus?
Next, they’ll gauge which religion is the real one based on Argumentum ad Populum.
Anyone care to lay odds that the evangelical students were fed during the study?
Oh katherine, if there was someone who cannot actually debate anything, and just blocking you immediately, it’s Hayhoe. Mrs Permanent drought. Now the whole family are cashing in on tax payer funds?
Her lectures contain patent falsehoods, as in lies and (comments disabled)
If I post a picture of pigs swilling at a trough, it has nothing to do with this tropic.
I am curious if hypnosis techniques are being employed by some of these warmistas types
Why hypnotize when you can just fake the data?
FYI Anthony\mods
Is there something amiss, I keep getting redirected from this site and this site only after about 3 or 4 minutes, on chrome or firefox.. it’s weird.
If I experienced such a thing my first thought is a proxy injecting a redirect in the stream. Such a thing is difficult but not perhaps impossible with SSL. It is fairly common with “malware” right on your computer.
It’s a religion.
Testing the music in stores to impact shoppers’ behavior also works.
Good point!