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.
The Hayseed whisperer. She’s found the hook that every good tent preacher knows (and every con man).
Yes. Jesus put it rather well: Matthew 7:21 – “… Not everyone saying to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens …”
It takes most Christians a while to understand that churches are not immune to con artists, crooks and now it seems, even climate snake-oil sales executives. The audience was presumably quite young.
Hayhoe “Texas is in permanent drought because of AGW”
Hayhoe “Texas is getting much more rain because of AGW”
That lady is sooo not self aware
Or she is and doesn’t care, since she’s lying for her religion.
just a quick reminder
Our intrepid friend and polar explorer Rupert Nigel Pendrill Hadow known as Pen Hadow has reached 80N and appears to have hit the ice pack
http://www.arcticmission.com/follow-arctic-mission/
(zoom in at the end of the blue trajectory)
surprise surprise. Propaganda Works!
It’s time for the Moonies and Scientology to open up climate change branches.
I don’t remember either the Moonies or Scientology ever caring about what was politically correct. That would be the only reason for them to do so.
I was thinking of the money side.
That would apply to ALL religions, most businesses, and most universities. Seems everyone loves free money.
I find the title “evangelical climate scientist” to be spot on and perfectly applicable to believers the world over. Thank you Guardian for calling ’em like I see ’em!
Wonderful trifecta of wrongness: religion, peer review and college students.
Without any reference to this lady’s character, I believe she is caught up in the “snake oil” scheme of blaming all weather occurrences on human “interference” in the “natural” ecology. Unfortunately she is no different than the Pope and his council. They are all fooled in by the notion that man can reconcile himself with God through austerity and self-denial. Then god will “correct” the climate and return the earth to the “garden of Eden” it was before the evil capitalists began raping mother Gaia.
(In whatever climate your favorite proxies might indicate, Dr Mann. Feel free to mix and match.)
I don’t remember any Bible lessons in that direction. The closest would be the Jehovah Witnesses, who are very into looking at end times. They probably qualify. However, in their version, God does not “correct” the climate, he remakes the earth, allowing people to live there for 1000 years in harmony. I suppose that’s close enough.
Pardon me for saying, but the JWs were not even in the scope of my remark. I was trying to sarcastically point out the ideology behind current climate change policy.
“Evangelical Christian”? As a Christian myself, may I suggest that she spend more time in the Gospel (good news) of Christ rather than the gospel of crisis?
She might learn something.
But not nearly as lucrative as spreading CACA.
Maybe she’s just stuck on St. James?
Certainly not a scholar of St. Paul…
Mods, I just made a comment that disappeared Not even in “moderation”.
Did I say a “bad word”?
OOPs! There it is.
Probably a “timing thing” on my end.
I find that happens when my internet connection gets wonky (it blinks out frequently and then pops back). If I hit enter as the connection is lost, the comment gets lost with the connection. Trying again a bit later generally helps.
I am somewhat curious why the study looked at how to convert Evangelical Christians. All the research and polling I have found shows atheists and skeptics (other than those of climate change, of course) have much higher percentages of believers. Religious people are not nearly as gullible as these other groups.
You actually have a study showing that Evangelical Christians are more CACA-skeptical than atheists?
Wow. I’d like to see that, please. Thanks!
Among scientists, it’s true that Spencer and Chrisy are Evangelicals, but the big name skeptics are just as atheistic and agnostic as any other group of 21st century scientists.
@Gloateus
Well there’s the whole point of the Hayhoe project, which appears to be:
“ABSTRACT
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.”
http://www.nagt-jge.org/doi/abs/10.5408/16-220.1?code=gete-site
And here’s something of a survey from 2014:
“Religiosity
Oddly enough, climate change has also become a religious issue in the past decade. Could a person’s religiosity affect whether they accept that global climate change is occurring?
Sure enough, we see the same trend as with political affiliation: The more religious a person is, the more likely they are to deny climate change. Whereas 80% of atheists accept climate change, only 56% of all very religious Americans agree.”
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/09/13/who-are-the-climate-change-deniers/
And this study from 2015:
“Results
Our results show that members of Judeo-Christian traditions are less concerned about environmental protection than their nonreligious peers, and that religiosity somewhat intensifies these relationships for evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and mainline Protestants.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.12213/abstract
Whether or not any of this is true, well…”they” said it was anyway.
I left the ELCA Lutheran church because they went lock stock and barrel behind the Pope and the ideology of human infestation and ruination of the planet. I have seen much ecological improvement in my 60 years and do not consider CO2 to be a pollutant of the global ecosystem. They say we are trashing the planet with our middle-class values while I see people around me being ecologically responsible, for the most part. When will religious organizations become cognizant of reality?
Speaking of the ELCA and its fellow traveling ilk, KH is a prime example of an apostle of the Church of the Left, which has become our new established state religion:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-lefts-values-are-our-state-church.html
How’s all your daughter’s falsified drought predictions working out for ya Hey Ho.
Hayhoe, the rain can go
Harder than you’ll ever know,
Better yet, the winds might blow
To dash your tropic dreams
Yes, before residing there
You’d prob’ly better be aware
That drought is only flooding’s dare
seeing history’s extremes.
Pray the skepticism away
What Would Jesus Deny?
He might get a laugh from the notion that humans have accidentally been the gods of climate, don’t you think so?
Evangelicals believe that God promised that He would never again destroy the earth with a Noachian Flood, and signified that promise with a rainbow. It would be quite capricious of God to then allow man to destroy the earth with CO2-induced, run-away heat.
[Capricious perhaps, but “legal” in the words of the Promise. Stellar heatup will, at some time, always happen. .mod]
Physics does not support your thermodynamics until the sun becomes a red giant. Don’t forget that when satan quoted scripture out of context in the wilderness with jesus, he was rebuked.
The idea that God would trick man into destroying himself is delicious to you, but God has stated that the heavens and the earth will pass away. How will mankind accomplish that feat?
deanfromohio: You missed the two qualifiers: destroyed by man & CO2-induced.
Mod: Regarding the sun eventually destroying the earth: According to Revelation 22:5, there will be no sun for the new earth since the presence of God will be the light.
Even the NAS views science and religion as compatible:
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html
If there is an all knowing being, then surely he/she/it would be the greatest scientist to ever exist, after all, to be able to manipulate elements, one must first know and understand them perfectly.
To think that such a being cannot exist because one cannot wrap one’s feeble human brain around the idea, or understand the ways of such a being, is just to make one’s own human knowledge the “God” instead. It is the arrogant feebleness of human intellect that tries to create a “God” so capricious, so flawed, so easily refuted that his/her mind can rest at ease for ignoring, mocking such a creature.
I truly pity those whose cognitive biases create the inability to imagine anyone, or anything greater than themselves.
God is the figment of the human imagination.
Dean, you confuse the thread. Who do you agree with?
I’m pretty sure that the wildly successful, productive, ethical atheists of planet earth laugh at your pathetic pity.
Of course science and religion are compatible. Many scientists are believers of one kind or another. But that doesn’t mean you can mix them, especially by trying to find science in the Bible, where there is none.
Serpents and donkeys don’t talk. Rabbits don’t chew their cud.
Day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth in its orbit around the sun. They can’t exist before the sun. Neither can plants. Yet that’s what Genesis 1 says.
Men were not made by God’s own hand out of dust, nor were they created before women, who weren’t made from a rib.
It’s not just ludicrous to try to find science in the Bible. It’s blasphemous.
Aphan writes “Even the NAS views science and religion as compatible”
Or not, depending on how you define the words. They can even be identical when one worships at the altar of science and admires the evangelists Dawkins and Hitchins.
“If there is an all knowing being”
Many things are worshipped besides all-knowing beings. All it takes is for a being to know one more thing than you and you suddenly have no way to measure the knowledge of this supreme being whether he/she or it knows everything that is knowable and maybe some things that are not knowable.
Religion is simply that which you believe without proof, and I include that it influences your decision making processes.
Religion is also that which you believe with proof when it deals with right and wrong, your place in the universe, things like that. This is why the US Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is a religion.
Michael,
Did the USSC take up the 2005 ruling by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals? I was unaware of that.
Maybe you have in mind that 1961 USSC decision that “secular humanism” is a religion.
Right and wrong, ie ethics, don’t require a religious underpinning. Neither do thought about one’s place in the universe or the meaning of life.
Gloateus writes “Right and wrong, ie ethics, don’t require a religious underpinning.”
A religious underpinning creates shared ethics, as otherwise your sense of right and wrong probably won’t be the same as mine.
Over time, this ethic *becomes* a religion, or so it seems to me; that is to say, religion has an underpinning of ethics with a negotiated social contract by which a group of people accept that this set of values is “just so”. Did Moses really talk to God (or listen, more likely) and obtain “Thou shalt not kill”? I don’t know and it doesn’t matter; what matters is that it established some rights and many wrongs.
A less traumatic example is what you do upon encountering minor lost property. For me, if it is not mine by right and title, leave it alone; its owner may come looking for it. For others, “finders keepers, losers weepers” and they feel no guilt over it. In the case of valuable minor property, deliver it to a suitable “lost and found” since the next person to happen across it may not have my ethics or honor.
She needs to learn from this;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YP2KDUiBI-E
Clearly she’s not aware that science is not about conversion, nor can she be aware of the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba. The accepted English translation being “Take no one’s word for it.” More succinctly, be skeptical. She, and so many others, just don’t understand that skeptism is an integral – indeed, essential – part of scientific research.
Any adult who has an imaginary friend in the sky must be susceptible to believing all sorts of rubbish.
david smith says “Any adult who has an imaginary friend in the sky must be susceptible to believing all sorts of rubbish.”
Got evidence?
Right here, right now, you are imaginary. Your existence is expressed solely by illuminated pixels visible through glass. Consequently, your actual reality is neither more nor less than my imaginary friend in the sky who fancies himself as a dragon, rather than a mere dragonfly. The reality isn’t real until I photograph it, at which point the photo is real but the dragonfly is ephemeral; here today, gone tomorrow.
Along with friends in the sky tends to be enemies in the sky. I wonder why atheists never discuss enemies in the sky?
There is evidence of his possible existence due to those illuminated pixels.
No such evidence exists for your spiritual beliefs. And that’s OK, since the supernatural by definition needs none.
Gloateus writes “There is evidence of his possible existence due to those illuminated pixels.”
Quite right. Define God as the sole “illuminator of pixels” and upon observing illuminated pixels, one has proof of God. It’s all in the definition.
“No such evidence exists for your spiritual beliefs.”
I have evidence sufficient for my needs. For you to believe otherwise is part of your own faith-based belief system, projecting onto me that which you have chosen to believe for yourself.
Michael,
There is no evidence of God, nor, as I keep pointing out, should there be.
Seeing God behind the universe is not the same as inferring a human behind messages on the Internet. True, an AI robot could have created them, but it would need a valid email address.
As Luther pointed out, the whole point of God and the universe is mystery.
But if you base your faith on what you see as evidence of God, great!
My Christian belief is based upon faith, as required by Romans and other verses, but my scientific conclusions require no faith. Except maybe in the belief that the same physical laws visible today operated billions of years ago.
Gloateus writes “There is no evidence of God”
Or there is. It depends on definition. Perhaps someday before we both die you will provide the meaning of the word as you use it.
“nor, as I keep pointing out, should there be.”
That is your belief. It is not my belief. Faith requires evidence. Not proof; but evidence. I am not required to believe anything for which there is no evidence.
How would one fish reveal the existence of “water” to another? It would be difficult, but not impossible. The easy way is to jump out of the water so as to recognize the existence of water by briefly going where there is none. That creates the “ah hah!” moment for the fish.
“Seeing God behind the universe is not the same as inferring a human behind messages on the Internet.”
That is a good example of why I believe in some sort of God: Messages! If I get a message, there must be an originator of that message. I am free to call that originator “God” but really that’s just a title, a place keeper. It could actually be my great Aunt Elmira that told me to change lanes and by so doing escaped a head-on collision.
“As Luther pointed out, the whole point of God and the universe is mystery.”
It was a mystery to him. It is not a mystery to me.
“But if you base your faith on what you see as evidence of God, great!”
Thank you. I was raised by an atheist, my father. Even so, he can recite the Lord’s Prayer whereas I cannot. So for him it was rebellion against the very Luther of which you speak, but the energy of rebellion stems from belief.
“my scientific conclusions require no faith.”
I suggest otherwise. Have you seen an atom? No? Nobody has seen an atom; what we can see are the effects produced by what we presume are atoms, and until something more explanatory comes along, it’s an “atom”. Since it doesn’t really matter all that much I’m happy to believe in atoms, quarks, forces and waves. It creates interesting technology and is nearly certain to be nearly complete since such things as transistors require an understanding of such things.
So it is with any of a few thousand definitions of God. You do not need to see God any more than you need to see an atom to comprehend the effect of atoms.
God might be sitting next to you in Mickey D’s. Would you know it? Probably not. Jesus disguised himself and walked with his disciples and they did not recognize him. If he wants you to know of his existence, then you will know, otherwise you won’t. It isn’t really your choice to make. On the other hand, you can open eyes, ears and mind and hope to obtain that evidence, or you can close your eyes, ears and mind and thus miss the evidence that I consider to be relatively abundant.
You want to discuss enemies in the sky? Well, there are none. There you go.
As for pixels: you don’t have to believe I exist. I couldn’t care less. One thing’s for sure though: a god had nothing to do with the pixels, it was all down to science.
David Smith writes: “You want to discuss enemies in the sky? Well, there are none.”
Seagulls and pigeons come to mind; terrorists at the wheel of jumbo jets comes to mind. Kim Il whatever’s rockets come to mind. Meteorites and asteroids. Lions and tigers and bears oh my!
“One thing’s for sure though: a god had nothing to do with the pixels, it was all down to science.”
Well then science is your god and you have one. You cannot fail to have one. Whatever you worship is it.
Michael 2 August 29, 2017 at 3:07 pm
I use “evidence” precisely as the term is defined in science and law.
A verifiable miracle might be considered evidence of the supernatural, but there are no verifiable miracles, events inexplicable according to the laws of nature as observed in our universe.
Gloateus writes “I use ‘evidence’ precisely as the term is defined in science and law.”
Thank you. I use it in a somewhat more relaxed manner, “something that reveals a cause”; without putting too much emphasis on words (no straining at gnats). If I see a pile of dog poop it is evidence of a dog even though the dog is not visibly present. It is not proof of a dog, merely evidence of a dog.
You speak of a special class of evidence; tangible physical evidence that can be put in a ziplock bag and passed around the jury. That kind is still relevant to supreme beings but you have to be able to recognize it, and you cannot recognize a thing you experience every day of your life, that which you are immersed in.
The other kind of evidence is ephemeral; the scent of a rose quickly evaporated. The flash and thunder of lightning that reveals a coming storm. Can I prove to you that I saw lightning and heard thunder last night? No, of course not. All I have are claims; here on the internet that is all ANYONE has!
“A verifiable miracle might be considered evidence of the supernatural”
By definition there cannot be tangible physical evidence of supernatural. If it is tangible it is natural!
The explanation is a bit more complicated. What people want is exclusive magical power; something I can do but nobody else (except maybe a priesthood). Suppose there is a god more or less as commonly defined by any of thousands of religions. If he moves mountains, then mountains will move regularly or irregularly and won’t seem unnatural. If he resurrects the dead, then it won’t be supernatural, it will be natural.
The supposition is that this supreme being will do what YOU specify in order to prove his existence, to boost his ego perhaps. Who knows? But the evidence is that he does not compel anyone to belief. You are free to learn whatever you can learn in this life, and as a result, be responsible for your choices.
“but there are no verifiable miracles”
Would it make a difference? I doubt it. A “verifiable miracle” isn’t a miracle (as these words are commonly used). Merely exceptional.
“events inexplicable according to the laws of nature as observed in our universe.”
Ah, well, as to that I have plenty. Well, more than zero anyway.
And “faith” is as in Hebrews 11:1.
Michael 2 August 30, 2017 at 1:14 pm
The New Testament uses “evidence” in the same way as I.
I mentioned Hebr@ws 11:1 because that passage has been translated using the word “evidence”. Regardless of translation, its gist is the same as Romans, ie that faith should be based upon “things not seen”.
To believe based upon evidence, whether real or imagined, is contrary to Protestant theology, and at least in part also to Roman Catholic and Orthodox doctrine.
The whole point is to believe in the incredible, without physical evidence. Maybe supernatural “evidence” counts, but that’s subjective.
Hence, as I said, there is no scientific evidence in favor of the God hypothesis, and that is how is should be, theologically, since God must remain hidden for justification by faith alone to work.
Gloateus wrote “I mentioned Hebr@ws 11:1 because that passage has been translated using the word evidence.”
Yes; the evidence of things not seen. What sort of evidence? A bit like the whoosh of wind of something rushing by in the night; sorta like me holding onto a pole at night at Truckee when a train went rushing by. It was exhilarating.
“faith should be based upon things not seen”
Not exactly, or as I understand it. Faith is in things not seen, but the “basing” will be on things that ARE seen, which includes ephemeral evidence (subjective) and the testimony of others.
“The whole point is to believe in the incredible without physical evidence. Maybe supernatural evidence counts, but that’s subjective.”
A problem exists in choosing *which* incredible to believe when so many choices exist and no physical evidence exists. But evidence does exist, the challenge is to attribute it meaningfully and correctly.
And, if, on the issue of faith and evidence, Paul’s words in Romans don’t convince you, then consider the case of Doubting Thomas. Protestants interpret the incident to support salvation by faith alone, while the Catholic interpretation differs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas#Gospel_account
But there is also John 11:26, in which Jesus said and asked (KJV), “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” No mention of “works” there. Only faith. Solo fide.
The “liveth” part could I suppose be interpreted as including “works” in the salvation matrix. But I’m going with Paul on this one. And Luther. And Calvin.
A theological paper on Luther’s Hidden God, Who actively hides Himself.
https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/content/pdfs/19-4_God_and_Evil/19-4_Paulson.pdf
As indeed He must, if faith in Him and the Christ is to be meaningful.
I like religion, but ya gotta hand it to science, especially CliSci. You just can’t get 97% consensus in religion.
Religion was ancient man’s attempt to explain away the world around him. We don’t need religion now as we have science, and science has told us that we will never cease to discover new things about the universe(s). That is why science is so fantastic.
David Smith wrote “Religion was ancient man’s attempt to explain away the world around him.”
You seem to know a lot about the reasons ancient men did things. That’s amazing!
“We don’t need religion now as we have science”
You have identified your religion. It has pretty much all the trappings you’d expect in a religion, in your case acolytes and disciples. Authorities. Demands for money and obedience. Prophets and apostles of science.
People must be progressively becoming more gullible. Lost in their brainwashed world.
This so-called convincing material includes:
“Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a significant proportion of the American public continues to reject anthropogenic climate change.”
As this initial premise is overwhelmingly untrue, no need to read any further.
Yes, happily the fake consensus manufactured by the media colluding with CACA advocates, has not convinced everyone.
Even people who should know better repeat the false claim that 97% of “all scientists” believe in “climate change”, by which they mean catastrophic anthropogenic climate alarmism. But that bogus Big Lie is based upon 75 out of 79 cherry-picked “actively publishing climate scientists, who answered yes to two question to which many skeptics would also have said yes.
Never mind that every other group among the over 3000 respondents to the survey, all government or academic scientists, mind you, without any private sector participants, came in lower agreement. “Economic geologists” were at 47%, for example.
IOW, no consensus, even among public scientists in relevant disciplines.
“Would’n’it be luverly” if the daily press plastered a front page headline and explanation – “The 97% scientist claim is clearly not true!”
As it is the basis for maybe 97% of the alarmists believing in CAGW, that would rock the boat! 🙂