Apparent Paradoxes in the relationship of Climate ‘Concerns, Skepticism, Activism, and Priority’, explained by Religiosity

From Dr. Judith Curry’s Blog, Climate Etc.

Posted on April 27, 2020 by curryja

by Andy West

Explores the contrast between Allied and Core belief in the culture of climate catastrophe, and the relationships of these plus religiosity to Climate Change Activism (XR and Children’s Strikes for Climate). Post 2 of 3.


The opening post of this series demonstrated a strong correlation across nations between religiosity, and the responses per nation to unconstrained questions from a 2019 YouGov survey on attitudes to climate-change, which questions are aligned to Catastrophic Climate Change Culture (CCCC). Chart 1 below was shown towards the end of the prior post. Y axis values show the percentage of ‘a great deal’ responses to two climate survey questions: “How much of an impact, if any, do you believe climate change will have on your life?” (blue series), and “how much power, if any, do you think each of the following have to combat climate change?” sub-option, “International bodies (e.g. the United Nations)” (pink series).

I term the effect causing these trends ‘Allied Belief’ (ABel). They occur because the surface alliance between CCCC and religion, makes religious adherents feel comfortable with climate catastrophe narratives, as long as there are no reality constraints, thereby disabling their Innate Skepticism of CCCC. As religiosity rises within nations (going left to right), ISk about CCCC narratives falls, and so belief in said narratives rises. The pink series is muted, as it’s only needed to show lower gradient for less emotive / existential / personal questions. Note: ISk is an instinctive mechanism that is very different to rational skepticism. [Chart is simplified Chart 2 in SI datafile].

Constrained Belief and Core Belief

So, if we think of what we might call ‘standard belief’ in a culture, especially strong expressions of this such as we’re very familiar with from ardent religious adherents, or indeed regarding the case in point, those similarly committed to catastrophic climate culture, how would that look on the above chart and how does it differ from ABel? We can start with the fact that adherence of this kind doesn’t primarily occur via alliance; it’s a direct commitment, essentially to core cultural narratives (from which we can label it Core Belief, CBel) and one that survives clashes with reality issues. So, now it’s time to look at reality-constrained survey questions.

The orange series in Chart 2 plots results from a reality-constrained question, in fact the enormous 2015 UN ‘My World’ poll having ~10 million participants from many nations. In this case, constraint arises from having to rank 6 global threats out of 17 as the most important, with one being ‘action on climate change’. Note: the orange scale, the percentage vote-share for action on climate change from this poll, is smaller than the blue. Nations correspond vertically; in this chart (and above too) Taiwan and Hong-Kong are dropped as the UN poll doesn’t cover them, leaving 22 nations. [Chart is Chart 2yxA in SI datafile].

So, there’s apparent paradoxes here! Those nations expressing the highest concerns about climate-change (and inclusive of more faith in the UN to fix it), also express the lowest desire for ‘climate-change action’. And oppositely at the LHS. However, this fits fine with the underlying cultural mechanics. Also, it looks like there’s structure in the wide variability about the orange trend. Before saying more about these things though, we must continue to pursue CBel…

The orange series represents belief in a weakly-constrained circumstance (so I term that Constrained Belief, ConBel). There’s much variety in how surveys questions can constrain. For instance, even for commonly used issue lists: How many issues? How many to select out of them? Are they all genuinely felt concerns? How closely felt (e.g. national versus international, for the former, country relevant?). The SI (especially Footnote 4) provides detail. This will produce a range of constraint strengths. For a choice of X out of Y issues, constraint is stronger as X reduces relative to Y (so say, 1 out of 12 much stronger than 3 out of 12), commitment to the winning issue(s) has to be higher. National issues are stronger than global ones (closer to reality for most participants).

To find CBel, all we have to do is increase the constraint strength to ‘ultimate’ as it were. If people still believe in action on climate change above all other reality issues however strong, this indicates a direct belief in the narratives of catastrophe and salvation, which in their own terms and contrary to mainstream science, do outbid everything else. The snag is we can’t measure this, because there’s no survey with a consistent method of full constraint across many nations (that I’m aware of). But we can estimate it, and we can also box the estimate in via nearby measurements.

Hence I add a series (red) to Chart 2, which represents those still choosing climate-change in a strongly-constrained (but not fully) survey over 16 of the 22 nations (most I can get). And I add some spot-points for much smaller surveys on a few European nations (red crosses), that are fully constrained. This gives Chart 3 below, on which I also place an estimate of CBel (bold-orange). Note: for clarity only the trend of the red series is shown. The orange series above, on expanded RH Y axis, is also reduced to just its trend. [For full details, data, r/r2/p, survey-sources, see Chart 3yxA of datafile and Section 3 of expanded post].

A very straightforward estimate of CBel is obtained by dividing the UN Poll vote-share for action on climate-change (orange series in Chart 2) by 6; the reasonable assumption of evenly distributed votes on the selected issues means this is how many would have chosen that option as their top priority. While being asked to make that top single-choice directly is a different context, which may skew the estimate somewhat, it is below the red trend and with ~proportional gradient as we expect, plus the red actual measurements (crosses) at the LHS, do straddle the estimate. The latter hint the estimate is a little high there, however I take the bold-orange trend as my CBel going forward.

On a single chart we now have ABel (with muted-pink showing how it tracks when weaker), and CBel (equivalent to full strength ConBel, with muted-red plus orange showing how it tracks when weaker). It’s worth noting that as core believers will be affirmative to all climate-change issues / concerns, the ABel trends are actually inclusive of CBel too, albeit the latter is very much smaller across most of the chart.

ConBel / CBel underlying mechanism

So, back to that apparent paradox noted above. A reality-constraint has two effects on climate-change attitudes. Firstly, the issue is forced down to Earth so to speak, robbing a great deal of the emotive power in climate catastrophe narratives. At the same time, cost and consequence is introduced wrt all the other important issues that are needful in our societies, in turn challenging existing personal value-sets that are set within the context of those societies.

Although the UN poll constrains pretty weakly, the loss of emotive power / alignment to CCCC narrative is enough to dissolve the subconscious reassurance in religious folks that this cause is truly allied to their values, to their faith. Presumably, they don’t subconsciously feel the oft-proclaimed alliance any longer. Hence their ISk, which had been disabled by this reassurance, springs into action. As religious adherents have strongly focused cultural values to defend, which are now challenged by the societal consequences / costs, their ISk comes in big.

Real-world implications: Policy and Climate Activism

Subconsciously biased communicators for or against climate-change issues / support, can find comfort and claims at various places on Chart 3 trendlines. This increases confusion about what publics actually think, and cultures can take advantage of confusion. I’d be surprised though if communicators have any inkling about the global role of religiosity; no doubt they’ll see what they want to regarding motivations both ‘good’ and ‘bad’. However, a huge problem for CCCC adherents within irreligious nations, is that innate skepticism of any narratives that veer too much towards the existential / emotive, especially with any personal angle, is huge. Yet cultures don’t work rationally and propagate / amplify such narratives at every opportunity, turning off a big majority of people even as they also gain adherents. Similarly, any real-world strong constraint such as the sacrifice of petrol cars or gas heating, is likely only to achieve CBel levels of support at best. Though all trendlines change with time too (CCCC is growing) even the more modest sacrifices won’t likely get support beyond the strongly-constrained (red) trendline– if the real-world clashes are properly communicated / realized, which may not necessarily be the case.

[Note: the huge new reality-constraint of COVID-19 will highly likely squeeze the thick orange line down still further wrt other priorities; minimal fervent believers only, albeit this effect could evaporate after a year or two. Cultures are typically very robust to such damage, and may even find ways to turn adverse conditions into advantage longer-term].

This leads to enormous frustration for core believers within irreligious countries, but far less for those in religious countries where support will often seem very high (albeit being from ABel, it’s ephemeral). So regarding Climate Activism, we expect this to occur most in nations at the LHS of Chart 3, where core believers are defending their existential culture from the great majority of non-believers; and for cultures as for armies sometimes, attack (aggressive proselytization, civil disobedience) is a good form of defense. In very religious countries, there’s far less apparent need to rail against society, and less core believers to start with in order to maintain activism. So, we expect proportionally high activism at left, to low at right.

As explained in the SI, for any route attempting to demonstrate that climate activism conforms to this pattern, available data seems far-from-ideal. I went with the route of sampling Extinction Rebellion and Children’s Strike Weekly presence across nations, from their respective websites.

Extinction Rebellion conformance to expectation

I split the XR data into tiers, with Tier 3 the highest presence (>0.5 groups per million population), Tier 2 next lowest (>0.1 groups/M), Tier 1 non-zero, and Tier 0 with zero presence. [For how / why / details, see SI expanded post Section 5 and Footnote 6]. These Tiers mapped onto the main ABel / CBel trends in Chart 4 below, do show the highest XR presence Tier (dark-green) at the leftmost side, and the second-most presence Tier (mid-green) covering the next few nations to the left. Excepting Qatar, which happens to have 1 XR group and a very low population, a lucky T2-score. The XR presence for Tier 1 is far lower, figures in pale green show fractions of the presence in Italy, the least represented nation in Tier 2. Given the rough data, this is at least consistent with motivational expectations from above.

Implications for youth, and Children’s Strike conformance to expectation

The top-ten ranking of Children’s Strike Weekly (CSW) events (as a ratio of national population) per nation, is mapped onto Chart 4. See the numbers trailing the nation name-labels (1=highest). Once again, this ranking picks out the leftmost nations, matching the section 4 expectation, albeit nations are ordered differently within the top-ten. The data is likely too rough to expect exact correspondence (of CSW to XR rank per nation, or of either to the exact trend prediction). However despite this, it’s noticeable that Spain and Italy seem rather far rightwards / religious to achieve CSW scores of 4 and 5 respectively, which brings us to an issue specific to youth.

In Western nations where religion is receding (occurs in all the top-ten CSW rankers), young adults are considerably less religious than older adults. While there are very few surveys involving children, this rule presumably extends downwards in age, given this is where young adults recently came from. So at the national level, children will behave as though they come from a nation rather to the left on Chart 4 of their actual home nation. Which is to say, as a group having more CBel and more climate activism, yet simultaneously less ABel so more skepticism. However, an issue with the ABel side of this is, as noted within this previous post, children are primed to pick up cultural templates (as provided by CCCC), but may not have developed a balancing ISk (yet, or ever). So, children’s CBel may be even more amplified.

The religiosity gap separating children and adults can also be different per nation, which will explain at least some CSW ranking changes relative to XR, also to any data reflecting mainly adult attitudes. Based upon projection from young / older adult data, Spain does indeed have an unusually big gap. This would explain Spain’s high CSW ranking. However, the same doesn’t hold for Italy, unless a similar strength effect for children hasn’t yet surfaced as they mature to adults. [See SI Footnote 7 and datafile for CSW details / data / source, plus Footnote 8 for religiosity gap].

The variability within ConBel / estimated CBel: GDP-per-Capita

As noted in Section 2, variability about the UN poll ConBel / CBel trend (all orange series in Chart 2/3), is significantly larger than for the (opposite direction) ABel trend (blue). To investigate this further (is it noise? something systemic? something to do with individual faiths?), I created Chart 5 below. This adds many more nations from the UN poll (but not covered by the main Climate Survey). The Y scale happens to match estimated CBel.

The chart is split into 4 main religio-regional blocks, a) to d), within which further subdivisions (religio-regional groups) are color-coded. Several of the latter overlap inside c), so I’ve assisted the eye with line connections for a couple of groups. Note: greyed-out nations are too unique or too far from any others to associate in a religio-regional group. [See Chart 5yx in SI datafile for full data].

This representation helps show the regional rather than Faith-related nature of our evolution away from religion, albeit some regions / Faiths essentially correspond. Hence, we will see regionality in attitudes to climate-change that result from the interaction of religion and CCCC. The variability about the main trend is so large it can’t be contained, so to speak, by some of the less sizeable Faiths or regions. Meaning that looking exclusively inside either, the main trend may not just appear weak, but non-existent or reversed. However, it’s clear from this depiction [and a comparative Faiths only color-coding, see SI datafile Chart 4yx] that the variability isn’t caused by Faiths or regionality either. So, where does it from?

It turns out that a lot of the variability is coming from GDP-per-Capita ranking (GDPpCR). 9 of 13 (not greyed out) nations forming the bottom-most band of the trend are below low (high number) GDPpCR thresholds per group [and for a) and b), per block too]. There’s also some highest (low number) GDPpCR nations per group on the uppermost edge, plus an upper threshold in block a). [SI Footnote 10 has detail on the GDPpC aspect]. Likely, the remaining variability is noise.

So, for a given religiosity, the publics of less-wealthy nations (lower GDPpCR), are even less disposed to transfer any serious cultural allegiance from their religious faith to CCCC. This is opposite to what one would expect if these publics were clamoring for more climate-change $ from richer nations, albeit some governments may be. The more pressured financial circumstances will sharpen reality-constraints still further, leading to still more ISk and less conversions into Core Belief. Such cultural mechanisms easily outbid a dream of filtered down $.

The number trailing the name-label of nations towards the top-left in Charts 4 & 5, is the national Electric Vehicle sales ranking. The next post covers cultural expectations for these figures.

Affirmative Public attitudes to Climate-Change are cultural not rational

The positions of nations on the various trendlines shown here represent the most affirmative attitudes to climate-change issues, and are all due to cultural not rational responses. Even the secondary GDPpCR angle that causes variation about the ConBel / CBel trend, is only the exacerbation of a cultural factor. These positions aren’t due to climate science or policies or the potential exposure of particular nations to any actual climate impacts. Knowing only national religiosity, allows a reasonable prediction of these CC affirmative attitudes, albeit for reality-constrained questions GDP-per-capita also sharpens the prediction. Prediction isn’t a goal in itself, but if verified and accurate, valuably confirms what’s actually happening.

For the religious (so mainly as revealed in religious nations), CCCC appears to be perceived as potentially competitive; their deep values aren’t shifting to it despite a cozier surface alliance clearly strong enough to disable their Innate Skepticism. Within irreligious nations, CCCC appears to be partially filling the recent cultural vacuum. All this leads to apparent paradoxes. In highly religious nations, the most climate concern lives simultaneously with the least priority, each dependent only upon the survey question types; maximum activism occurs within those nations having the most skepticism and so the least concern about climate-change in unconstrained questions. Yet as explained above, these paradoxical attitudes do follow the logic of cultural mechanisms.

Table 1 below summarizes the overall pattern of responses to ‘Strongly-Framed’ questions, i.e. reality-constrained questions where the constraint is better than ‘very weak’, or unconstrained questions where the emotive / existential / personal alignment to CCCC is better than ‘very weak’.

The final post shows that even affirmatives to Weakly-Framed climate survey questions, such as those encountered in the first post of this series, produce cultural not rational responses, albeit non-linear wrt religiosity. It also looks at elite attitudes and consequent policy penetration, plus further at the influence of youth, before summarizing the provisional findings across the whole series.

Admin notes

There are 3 posts in this series, all of which have the same style of Supplementary Information, which consist: 1) an expanded post, 2) a footnotes file, and 3) an Excel datafile. The text below is a streamlined post version, geared to get the concepts across more readily and uncluttered regarding side-issues, detail on methodology, intricate depth, path my exploration took etc. For folks who want more, the expanded post is ~4700 words. Be aware that the footnotes file, also having various external references, relates to the expanded post (though a couple are pointed at below). Likewise, all the chart IDs within the Excel datafile are numbered for the expanded post. However, all sources / data for the charts below can easily be found (I provided SI IDs in the text). The datafile includes various extra charts too.

Footnotes [Footnotes

Data File [Datafile ]

Extended post [ Extended Post

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sun Spot
April 29, 2020 6:50 am

Ok then, well this is what must be viewed Ducks and Wabbits . . .

Sun Spot
Reply to  Sun Spot
April 29, 2020 6:58 am

. . . and pronoun trouble

April 29, 2020 7:24 am

Science doesn’t require belief. That’s religion AKA climate emergency.

Michael Graebner
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
April 29, 2020 8:33 am

but you “believe” you can do science.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Michael Graebner
April 29, 2020 10:39 am

M. Graebner,
No, I *know* I can do science. Science is a process, and since I understand the rules, I can follow them and “do” science. I have “done” science in the past, and I *know* I could do the same in the future. Just as I don’t have to believe I can type on a keyboard – I know I can. So please stop with the sophistry.

Michael Graebner
Reply to  Paul Penrose
April 29, 2020 4:10 pm

when you believe you can do something, you have faith that when you type on a keyboard, symbols will appear on the screen. Another word for faith is trust. So when I say you believe one action will result in another is no different from your expression “I know.” No sophistry here.

slow to follow
Reply to  Michael Graebner
April 29, 2020 11:16 pm

Michael Graebner
April 29, 2020 at 4:10 pm

“when you believe you can do something, you have faith that when you type on a keyboard, symbols will appear on the screen.”

FWIW – That’s not an act of faith for me: rather, I expect and hope symbols will appear on the screen. They don’t always, thus dashing my hopes. Then I apply logical tests to identify and correct any problems – thus restoring the process to one which meets my expectations of properly functioning technology.

April 29, 2020 7:26 am

Since ducks and rabbits occupy different habitats they seem predisposed to do things differently.

April 29, 2020 7:28 am

Everyone has a faith or trust (e.g. Twilight and mortal gods/goddesses, Christian and God, Muslim and Allah). Everyone has a religion or behavioral protocol (e.g. Pro-Choice, Christian, Muslim). Everyone has an ideology that realizes the former (e.g. liberal or divergent, progressive or monotonic, conservative or moderating, libertarian or independent). Some people bray, many will pray, and others have their rituals.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  n.n
April 29, 2020 8:09 am

When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.

This quotation actually comes from page 211 of Émile Cammaerts’ book “The Laughing Prophet: The Seven Virtues and G. K. Chesterton” (1937) in which he quotes Chesterton as having Father Brown say, in “The Oracle of the Dog” (1923): “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.” Cammaerts then interposes his own analysis between further quotes from Father Brown: “‘It’s drowning all your old rationalism and scepticism, it’s coming in like a sea; and the name of it is superstition.’ The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything: ‘And a dog is an omen and a cat is a mystery.'” Note that the remark about believing in anything is outside the quotation marks — it is Cammaerts. Nigel Rees is credited with identifying this as the source of the misattribution, in a 1997 issue of First Things

Green Alarmism does not derive from science. It comes from a religion, the faux pagan worship of Gaia, the earth goddess. She is angry and must be propitiated by the sacrifice of human babies. The white liberals who are votaries of this religion have chosen brown and black babies to be the victims of the rituals of “population control”, “zero population growth” and “reproductive choice”.

Why has this bizarre cult arisen among what are supposed to be our most intelligent and skeptical class?

First we must observe the collapse of Christian belief in this class.

They are all Marxists now, not industrial grade Stalinists, but cultural Marxists theorized by Adorno, and Gramisci, and the French lumpen-philosopes such as Foucault and Derrida. But, even those variants of Marxism demands atheism.

Also atheism, especially, the nasty anti-intellectual atheism of Dawkins et. al., allows them to indulge their favorite passion — Contempt for the unwashed masses of Americans — the obese bitter clingers who inhabit fly-over country and cling to their guns and religion.

Having chosen atheism does not mean that they believe nothing. As Umberto Eco wrote:

“G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: “When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing. He believes in anything.” Whoever said it – he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity.

“The “death of God”, or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols. They have multiplied like bacteria on the corpse of the Christian Church …”

The failure of prophecies of the Apocalypse does not invalidate the religion of Gaia anymore than the the failure of the Apocalypse to occur in the 1st Century C.E. (1 Thessalonians) invalidated Christianity. Such failures often cause the faithful to double down, not to give up.

Peter Watson
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
April 29, 2020 8:29 am

Thanks for a brilliant post. I am a fan of both GKC and CS Lewis.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
April 29, 2020 8:41 am

“In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity.”

Isn’t that the truth! There are lots of credulous people in the world and IQ doesn’t seem to be a defense against being credulous, at least about some things.

I think the Media has a lot to do with producing credulous people. Them, and the education system.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
April 29, 2020 11:07 am

Thanks for a stupid comment.

It is the religious person who will believe things with no ptoof they exist.

Climate change is a secular religion.

The future climate is unknown.

The existence of a god, or gods, is unknown.

Climate change cultists say they know the future climate.

Religious people say they know there’s a god.

This long time atheist is proud to say I don’t know.

I won’t believe in things without proof — that would be anti-science.

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 29, 2020 1:20 pm

Atheist = belief that there is not god

Agnostic = don’t know if there is god or not

Reply to  meiggs
April 29, 2020 5:31 pm

An atheist considers all available evidence. No beliefs without proof. No evidence of a god yet. That doesn’t mean no evidence forever. An open mind is important if new information becomes available. Many religious beliefs seem strange to me but most of the 10 commandments make sense.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  meiggs
April 30, 2020 4:41 am

In the same way I don’t believe in Santa.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 29, 2020 2:16 pm

When you have a Damascene encounter with God, then you DO know there is a God. Just because you haven’t yet met God, doesn’t mean it is unknown, just that YOU don’t know.

It confuses you why so many people say that God is real doesn’t it. It’s because you haven’t met him yet.

slow to follow
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
April 30, 2020 12:01 am

Greg Cavanagh
April 29, 2020 at 2:16 pm

“It confuses you why so many people say that God is real doesn’t it. It’s because you haven’t met him yet.”

Is “he” playing hide and seek? What are “his” rules? From your comment, I’m presuming that you have met “him” and know the answers? Do the answers “he” gave you agree with the answers “he” gave the Pope? Or previous Pope’s? Or the Queen of England? Or her predecessors? And how do you know?

slow to follow
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
April 29, 2020 11:52 pm

“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”

Generalized hogwash.

Ron Long
Reply to  n.n
April 29, 2020 11:01 am

n.n., your comment about “everyone” is not correct. Scientists don’t trust anything, and certainly don’t have faith. Scientists (actual ones, not necessarily all of them with “S” in their degree) regularly and routinely examine their collection of data memories, by fact-checking and cross-referencing, and adjust their ideas often. When a Scientist has an idea they may not act on it, rather they can design a test to validate whether the idea should continue in their construction of more ideas. “Behavioral protocol” is a temporal lobe centered activity and should not be allowed into clear thinking.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Ron Long
April 29, 2020 12:52 pm

Don’t sell scientists short. To accomplish anything of importance in science requires faith. Faith is not limited to religion. If you don’t trust your own knowledge, believe in your own ability to do science, and have faith that there are new discoveries and more knowledge out there to uncover, you will never try. And as a scientist, you will never amount to anything more than a data pusher. No one would continue to try to invent a useful light bulb after multiple failures unless he had faith that it could be done and that he possessed the ability to do it. True faith is not blind and is useful both inside and outside religion. We use it all the time, whether we realize it or not. Without it we would never venture into the unknown or discover anything new beyond the few things that may come to us from dumb luck. So don’t sell faith short just because you think it only applies to the realm of religion. All children have it to one degree or another. Only adults attempt to discard it.

Ron Long
Reply to  Louis Hunt
April 29, 2020 1:51 pm

Sorry, Louis Hunt, I do not have faith, and by any standard you wish to apply my whole career has been successful by applying science. Any person working with me who starts talking about faith, in whatever context, is not an actual scientist, and yes, I have worked with one such individual, and he is currently under legal charges of promoting a scam. Instead of faith in an employee I would prefer to look for introspection.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Ron Long
April 29, 2020 3:31 pm

It sounds to me like you put a lot of faith in science and in your ability to apply it. You would not have had a successful scientific career otherwise.

Scammers often pretend to be people of faith to appear trustworthy. But judging people of faith by the actions of a scammer is like judging all scientists by the actions of Michael Mann.

Michael Graebner
Reply to  Ron Long
April 29, 2020 4:18 pm

Like Francis Collins currently of the NIH, a Christian. I wonder what he would say he say if you told him he is not a scientist.?

Peter Watson
April 29, 2020 7:35 am

Everyone should watch Planet of the People – Michael Moore’s accidentally brilliant Documentary which utterly eviscerates the Cult of Gaia / Greta Worship. It touches briefly on the idea of Green / Earth “Science” as a religion which of course it is.
Any Christian who knows his Bible will refer to Genesis 8:28 regarding the climate / seasons. Any Christian who knows his Bible understands the instruction to be stewards to God’s creation and therefore plastic pollution in the Ocean, the raping of the Forests in the name of “Biomass” (aka burning wood) and the brutality of “Green Energy” to the planet is unacceptable. But we know Creation was subject to the Fall and the Green Gaia worshipers do not. This is their eternity and therefore they are spiritually doomed to fail. This ain’t Woodstock and we are not going to “get ourselves back to the Garden” as Crosby Stills and Nash projected. Nor are we “gods, and better get good at it” as the Whole Earth Catalog called for us to do.
Also curious as nearly every Green is an atheist or believes the Monism of Oneness – only creation no Creator. They are also Darwinian in their origins and therefore it is spectacularly paradoxical that they care about the threat to humanity posed by humanity. One would expect the Greta followers to celebrate Covid- 19 as they celebrate Abortion.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Peter Watson
April 29, 2020 1:20 pm

” the raping of the Forests in the name of “Biomass””
that’s a myth! The Moore film was probably right about wind and solar- but it got the biomass thing all wrong. I have been a forester for 47 years and it’s a fact that little woody biomass comes from raped forests- some does but most doesn’t. Besides, the biomass thing has little to do with wind and solar. Biomass and all forestry is indeed truly sustainable. The trees that go to biomass are the least valuable trees in managed forests. If they are not harvested- the forests will degrade because you can’t just harvest the high value trees. In the film- it showed a “cut to length machine” cutting and trimming trees. None of those trees became biomass. Those were mostly sawlogs. As for that biomass plant in Vermont- it’s been there for several decades and hasn’t resulted in any raped forests. Most of the wood comes from managed forests. The reality is- that those who love wind and solar mostly hate biomass- which is why it shouldn’t have been in the film. Growing wood for human use is like growing food for human use- it has nothing to do with phony energy systems. On my YouTube site I have 3 videos I made showing good logging work- maybe 30% of the wood harvested went to biomass- the rest was saw timber. These forests were NOT raped. It’s usually fans of industrial scale solar and wind who claim forests are being raped. Most of that crowd now wants all forests locked up to sequester carbon- and if they win that, good luck with your next house made of cement and furniture made from plastic and paper products— no, no paper products.

Dennis Sandberg
April 29, 2020 7:35 am

How anyone can put that much effort into a non-issue hoax escapes me. Natural gas for the next 50 years as we begin phasing in nuclear…and dismantling worth less than nothing wind, solar and ethanol. CO2 induced climate change is a boring non-issue. Give it up.

Steve Case
April 29, 2020 7:56 am

Here’s the link to survey:
You Gov International Climate Change Survey

Second Question:
Which countries, if any, do you think have had the most negative impact on global warming and climate change?

Right in there with, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Just like the opening post of this series, why continue to read something based on a bullshit survey?

David Lilley
Reply to  Steve Case
April 29, 2020 8:45 am

Q.1 is no better : “How much of an impact, if any, do you believe climate change will have on your life?”

I would like to answer that it will have a major impact on my life. But the impact would be indirect through the stupid policies of those who are wrecking the energy generation industry in the pursuit of “zero carbon” energy. How would that be coded ?

Steve Case
Reply to  David Lilley
April 29, 2020 9:04 am

David Lilley April 29, 2020 at 8:45 am

I supposed I shouldn’t quibble, but question #1 as your post words it allows “None.” But at the link it’s different. Well anyway the survey assumes the target audience agrees that “Climate Change” is a problem and that you beat your wife. The opening post and the 2nd in the series are based on bullshit and not worth reading any further. But hey, thanks for the reply (-:

J Mac
April 29, 2020 9:09 am

Sociology, at its psychometrics weakest. This is ‘ifs and buts’ graphed against ‘candy and nuts’, in a entirely speculative attempt to determine if we are going to have a Merry Christmas. It’s so bad , ‘it isn’t even wrong’.

Joel Snider
April 29, 2020 9:55 am

I think you can attribute a lot more basic motives, simply by the latest language – particularly of the AOC-class – as they constantly demand that we ‘address’ climate change – not ‘fix’ – because address is what you do with a grievance. As in, they’ve already convinced themselves every untoward weather phenomenon (never mind good weather), is ALREADY the climate Armageddon – and it’s our fault and we need to be held accountable for the damages they’ve imagined – as in ‘pay up’.

Smart Rock
April 29, 2020 10:23 am

I have the feeling that if Mr. West had plotted mean annual temperature on the X-axis instead of “debiased national religiosity” (whatever that is) that he might have got similar looking plots. This might lead him to the provisional conclusion that “people in hot countries worry more about global warming than people in colder countries”.

If he had plotted GP-per-capita on the X-axis his conclusions about XR and CSW might look something like “richer countries have more people who can afford to squander their efforts on public demonstration instead of putting food on their tables, than poorer countries”

Assuming causal relationships between parameters that correlate with each other is a trap that climate skeptics, of all people, should know to avoid.

IMHO you can generate more valid conclusions about the origins of the climate change movement, and the motivations of its protagonists, by just sitting back and thinking about it, than you can by playing with obscure numbers and generating interesting (but possibly irrelevant) correlations.

Reply to  Smart Rock
April 29, 2020 6:10 pm

Thumbs up Smart Rock

April 29, 2020 7:35 pm

I don’t know what this post is attempting to argue. e.g.
“Knowing only national religiosity, allows a reasonable prediction of these CC affirmative attitudes, albeit for reality-constrained questions GDP-per-capita also sharpens the prediction.”

This quote is in the conclusion or wrap-up, and what it actually means is a bit puzzling. I have trouble parsing its grammar. The writer should just try being direct instead of showing off.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  peterg
April 29, 2020 10:01 pm

I think it’s supposed to be an amusing serious article about why people deny Climate Change.

The thing that jumped out at me was that it was US and Western culture centric, while claiming to understand the phenomenon. I mean, the Indians are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, yet they are doing nothing to combat Climate Change. They didn’t address that feature at all.

Craig from Oz
April 30, 2020 1:06 am

So, and apologies if I have this incorrect, one of the observations being made is that the lower the actual ‘interest’ in tackling Climate Change the greater existence of such groups as XR and the Greta Youth.

That – again assuming I have the observation correct – does actually make sense. These groups are not fully directed at ‘doing something’. In their own words they are interested in ‘raising awareness’. They exist because they stand out from the crowd.

I would be interested in examining the countries where XR and the like are not active and see what groups, if any, of attention seekers have risen to take their place.

Just Jenn
April 30, 2020 5:34 am

I don’t get it.

I stopped actually trying to decipher the language and grammar about the 2nd paragraph and just skimmed. Here is my take away:

Alarmists believe, Skeptics don’t.

I can’t even draw a parallel between age old debates on whether man as a whole is good or man as a whole is bad. Because to me, that is all this climate change debacle is: the same debate on a different stage.

April 30, 2020 5:59 pm

As a slight aside here, but I can’t help but notice the 2015 MyWorld poll linked to above listed “better heathcare” in a solid second place priority, with “action taken on climate change” dead last. Here we are in 2020 and what do you know? Healthcare is indeed a major priority, yet so many resources and money is wasted on trying to control the weather.

%d bloggers like this: