The Conversation: “Faith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial”

Adrian Bardon
Adrian Bardon, Professor of Philosophy, Wake Forest University

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

US MSM and academia frequently attack the faith of US religious groups, by asserting their climate skepticism has something to do with their Christian faith.

To be fair this Conversation author at least admits that there are Christians who embrace climate alarmism. But the author still suggests Christian communities are failing to “exercise some self-awareness and concern for well-being rather than blindly denying the overwhelming consensus”.

Faith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial

September 9, 2020 10.17pm AEST

Adrian Bardon
Professor of Philosophy, Wake Forest University

U.S. Christians, especially evangelical Christians, identify as environmentalists at very low rates compared to the general population. According to a Pew Research Center poll from May 2020, while 62% of religiously unaffiliated U.S. adults agree that the Earth is warming primarily due to human action, only 35% of U.S. Protestants do – including just 24% of white evangelical Protestants.

Politically powerful Christian interest groups publicly dispute the climate science consensus. A coalition of major evangelical groups, including Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, launched a movement opposing what they describe as “the false worldview” of environmentalism, which supposedly is “striving to put America, and the world, under its destructive control.”

Studies show that belief in miracles and an afterlife is associated with lower estimates of the risks posed by climate change. This raises the question: Does religion itself predispose people against climate science?

Climate science denial may stem more from politics than religion

Social scientist Dan Kahan rejects the idea of an automatic link between religiosity and any anti-science bias. He argues that religiosity only incidentally tracks science denial because some scientific findings have become “culturally antagonistic” to some identity groups.

According to Kahan’s data, identification as a political conservative, and as white, is much more predictive of rejecting the climate consensus than overall religiosity. He argues that anti-science bias has to do with threats to values that define one’s cultural identity. There are all kinds of topic areas wherein people judge expert qualifications based on whether the “expert” confirms or contradicts the subject’s cherished view.

White American evangelicals trend very strongly toward political conservatism. They also exhibit the strongest correlation, among any faith group, between religiosity and either climate science denial or a general anti-science bias.

Meanwhile, African-American Protestants, who are theologically aligned with evangelical Protestants but politically aligned with progressives, show some of the highest levels of climate concern.

All this would suggest that climate science resistance has more to do with cultural identity politics than religiosity.

Even if politics and culture rather than religion itself may be driving climate science denial, religious communities – as some religious leaders, including the Roman Catholic Pope, have recognized – bear a responsibility to exercise some self-awareness and concern for well-being rather than blindly denying the overwhelming consensus on a civilization-ending threat like human-caused global warming.

Read more:

The author does not appear to have considered another possibility.

Groupthink cuts both ways. The author, a professor of philosophy, appears to have failed to consider the possibility that he is one who is ensnared in a large scale climate alarmist groupthink movement. The climate skepticism of faith groups may be because their degree of separation from the author’s social group gives them a level of distance and perspective which he currently does not share.

Group size is no protection against groupthink. You don’t have to look very deeply into the history of the 20th century to find plenty of frequently horrific examples of entire societies which embraced the irrational.

The only defence against groupthink is tolerance for people with different views, even if you think they are wrong. A society which tolerates non-conformity is a society in which someone can speak up and tell the emperor he is not wearing any clothes, without fear of retribution or punishment.

There is substantial evidence of group enforced conformity and intolerance for divergent views on climate change in modern academia.

There is no proof the climate consensus is “overwhelming” in an objective sense. Deviation from the groupthink position on climate change is frequently punished by public humiliation and ostracism. In such an environment of fear, it seems entirely possible that many academics who harbour doubts about extreme climate claims keep those doubts to themselves.

173 thoughts on “The Conversation: “Faith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial”

  1. Eric,
    A very good analysis of GroupThink at work on both sides.

    I’m sorry to disappoint the good “perfesser”, but religion and a higher authority do not inform my understanding on climate change. It is largely a scam in its policy implementations on humanity to extract power and money. It is substantively no different except in scope from a tinpot wandering town to town 19th Century snake oil seller moving his wagon while barking his cures to a gullible crowd for a buck.

    Group Think has allowed the Climate Scam to persist for far too long.

    • Part of the progressive left’s tactics is to assign caricatures – or probably stereotypes is a better word – (for attack purposes, to discredit an opinion, or for the more direct method of scapegoating) the sort of thing they’ve given lip-service against for the totality of their existence, while at the same time constantly perpetrating.

      • That’s it’s intrinsic magic, if compelling cults were art they would be beautiful and engaging, as real world politics the opposite is true.

    • Progressivist and left wing politics cause people to believe the overwhelming consensus agreement with the pseudo-science crock that is climate change.

      Progressivist beliefs also cause people to shrug off the enormous ecological damage caused by wind and solar projects, as well as the thousands upon thousands of excess deaths that their policies have caused.

      Adrian Bardon is merely a group thinker who ignores the catastrophic outcomes of his own blind failings while — characteristically — finding fault with those who disagree with the peculiarities of his groupism.

      When in power, folks of Adrian Bardon’s progressivist persuasion have historically murdered scapegoats when their policies inevitably fall into disaster,

    • I don’t know of anyone who denies “the consensus”, we do question the scientific value of such a thing.

    • I believe leftist skepticism makes sense, whether about their 50 year old coming climate crisis belief … and other beliefs, such as open borders.

      As an atheist, I see no reason to go through life believing things without real scientific proof, other than birth, death and taxes.

      When a leftist tells you something, automatically assume it is wrong, then learn about the subject, and you will see it usually is wtong.

      Leftists are the dumbest people I know, confusing their emotions and feelings with facts, data and logic.

    • Using the professor’s logic, a lack of religious grounding coincides with people believing that Humans are the cause of all the world’s evils.

      Aside from the fact that consensus is anti-science, show me your data on the over-whelming majority of people believing that CAGW is a world class threat to the earth. There just isn’t any such consensus. That lack helps explain why political opinion polls relentlessly show that US adults place Global Warming way down the list of what issues are important.

      BTW, the brains of young adults have not fully developed, so their views are mostly based on emotion rather than rationality. That tends to coincide with the left’s preference to use scary stories, using opinions rather than facts, to win over people to their side.

      But, if you look all across the sub-issues the left homes in on, from the NWS instrumental temperature record’s ability to be useful for climate studies to the polar bears supposedly tending toward extinction to the environmental footprint of constructing and then covering the earth with solar, wind, and battery farms, you’ll find that the Alarmists are wrong on the facts right down the line.

      As an aside note, I find the author’s anti-religion hate mongering to be discusting.

  2. The Left takes another tired old “anti-science” potshot at Christians. Same Old, same old.
    At the same time, the Left in the US has this incomprehensible infatuation with Radical Islam.

    Go Figure.

    • No, the article discuss white evangelicals who disbelieve in climate change at far higher rates than other groups. As the article says for example “African-American Protestants, who are theologically aligned with evangelical Protestants but politically aligned with progressives, show some of the highest levels of climate concern.”. Similarly Catholics following the lead of the Pope believe that climate change is a moral issue that they have a responsibility to help solve. So the pot-shots are only at one single christian sect which is seem as extreme in most countries outside the USA.

      • Izaak,
        I find it refreshing that you understand climate change is a belief that can be disbelieved.
        Climate change is certainly no longer about science, if it ever was. Maybe you should contemplate on your foundations of climate change beliefs.

        • Joel,
          Many people disbelieve in evolution does that mean it is “a belief that can be disbelieved” or
          just that those people are wrong? What about flat earthers? Are they wrong or is a spherical globe just a belief that can “disbelieved”?

          • Flat earthers, Evolution believers and creationists are not trying to use their beliefs to destroy the middle class and impose socialism on society. All 3 of those things deal with events and phenomenon in the past for which we have evidence to hold them against to judge which is correct. Climate change deals with the future for which the proponents only have models and their projections.

          • My disbelief in macro-evolution / abiogenesis solely rests on the fact that they are nonsensical. Macro-evolution is 19th century claptrap pseudoscience. It is devoutly embraced – bitterly clung to – by those who refuse to admit the patently obvious because of the moral implications.
            Macro-evolution is a sick joke in which the person telling it as the punchline.

      • The addition of the climate justice junk was for a couple of key demographic the climate religion has tried to target. The fact the climate justice stuff has all been sliced and diced from the Paris agreement and exists as a thought process they don’t talk about as much when appealing to those groups.

      • Izaak, so your comment shows that religion is not the cause of CAGW skepticism, and then you make an illogical jump to their whiteness. ( Racist?)

        Just as the Professor makes an illogical jump by calling skeptics “science deniers.” His childish labeling prevents consideration that their skepticism may be based on science.

        It’s us all a very easy way to avoid debating the actual science of CAGW, that is, in a real science based debate, indefensible.

      • Fascinating how alarmists like Izaak define anyone who actually follows the science as being an extremist.
        What is it about socialists that they need to define anyone who disagrees with them as being extremists?

        • MarkW
          “What is it about socialists that they need to define anyone who disagrees with them as being extremists?”
          Oh the irony given you do exactly the same thing.

          • Poor simon… Everything YOU support is a socialist/marxist agenda.

            Or are you SO SIMPLE you haven’t picked up on that fact yet ??

      • If it’s true that white evangelicals disproportionately disbelieve in human-caused climate change, as you argue Izaak, then that merely indicates the likelihood that they are more insightfully intelligent than others; likely including you.

        Because so-called climate change is a crock.

    • Islam brings with it political imperatives for governance for its followers and how to deal with those who do not follow. The Koran prescribes “remedies” for apostasy and blasphemers of Islam. Fatwas and jihads can receive Koranic blessings in their executions. It is not a “turn the other cheek” kind of tolerance taught by the New Testament and the Gospel according to Jesus’s followers.

      That is in a nutshell attraction for the totalitarian Left. Another level of control by force of the State. Europeans waged a 1,000 years of war to keep it out of their lands. it is sad how today they forgot those sacrifices. Germany is most assuredly lost, and probably France too within 2 generations due to differential birth rates.

  3. So, why is CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) the one scientific issue that splits along political lines?

    The left sees CAGW as a lever they can use to push their political agenda.

    The right also sees CAGW as a lever the left can use to push its political agenda. example

    Both sides agree, it’s not about science. Why doesn’t Adrian Bardon consider that possibility?

    Is Bardon being disingenuous or is he just out of touch with reality? My experience is that academics are often astoundingly out of touch with reality. An example of that would be the PhD scholar of movie history who had never heard of Siskel and Ebert.

  4. Interesting this American english, in Europe liberal and evangelical have complete opposite meanings. In Europe liberals are right wing and evangelicals are left wing.

    • Its more complicated than that. In England “liberal” is rapidly becoming aligned with the US sense of the word. But in Australia the “Liberal Party” was the party of Tony Abbott, the most climate skeptic leader Australia has ever had, though they’ve backslid since Abbott was ousted.

      So if you criticise liberal politics in Australia you have to be very careful to explain in what sense you mean “Liberal”.

      • ‘is’ ? No, ‘liberal’ is already totally transformed into meaning a socialist who wants to interfere in every aspect of your life because they know better than you.

      • You even have to define Europe, as it is common language in the UK to “go to Europe”.
        Evangelicals in Germany and Netherlands are social-democrat.
        Liberals in Germany and Netherlands are pro-free market.

        • Hans,
          You correctly note the different way words are used in different countries. While touched on the meaning of terms, I might have added how the meaning of words like “evangelical” and “liberal” have changed over the past 50 to 60 years. This all illustrates how important it is to define our terms especially when having a serious discussion about controversial matters. We need to have real conversations where we understand one another’s positions even when disagreeing.

    • Hans
      In Europe, neo-liberals are certainly not right wing. Perhaps there are some classical liberals who share some of the views of those branded right wing. In Europe evangelicals are not left wing though some neo-evangelicals want to incorporate certain left wing views. The use of terms left wing and right wing are seldom defined. Eric Worrall is right in pointing to the need to clarify our terminology. This is especially so in our discussion of climate change.

      I see Socialism and its cousin, Communism, as badly flawed and dangerous. Though I share few of the dangerous views of certain right wing people, those on the left would brand me right wing simply to try and denigrate and dismiss my views: need for strong traditional marriages and families, importance of individual responsibility, limiting the size and power of central government, the need for strong local government, fiscal prudence and thrift, the belief that the envy of the poor is as morally bad as the greed of the rich and so on.

      • I share few of the dangerous views of certain right wing people

        Now you have me curious. After the list of things you agree with me about, what are some examples of “dangerous right wing views”?

        • Most conservatives don’t hold “dangerous rightwing views”.

          I too, would be interested in what are considered to be dangerous rightwing views.

    • Hans, “the right” in Europe is pretty far left of what the Democrats in the US were a few years ago, let alone of Republicans. Today, the US left is a radical, iconoclastic néomarxiste party, although not very well organized (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Supporters who come to comment here seem oblivious of this transformation although the summer riots the Democrat party organized and paid for is going to drive thinking Demos to Trump! He will get a resounding majority, despite the fake polls.

  5. Maybe Evangelical Christians are more likely to express unpopular opinions than other groups, because they are used to being ridiculed for their beliefs, and they see that ridicule as a confirmation that they are correct.

  6. One of the greatest English scientists, Michael Faraday, was a devout Christian. Had climate alarm been promoted during his day, he would following his scientific method – careful observation and repeated experiments -have totally rejected the alarmism. Adrian Bardon evidently does not know that many devout evangelical Christians happily walk in the footsteps of Michael Faraday.

    Faraday mentions his early reading as follows: “Do not suppose that I was a very deep thinker, or was marked as a precocious person, I could believe in the Arabian Nights as easily as in the Encyclopædia. But facts were important to me and saved me. I could trust a fact, and always cross-examined an assertion. So when I questioned Mrs. Marcet’s book by such little experiments as I could find means to perform, and found it true to the facts as I could understand them, I felt that I had got hold of an anchor in chemical knowledge, and clung fast to it. Thence my deep veneration for Mrs. Marcet.”

    In part, Faraday credits his own “inventing the method of invention” to reading Watts’s books, particularly The Improvement of the Mind — a self improvement guide a few centuries before the internet. Watts recommended keeping a commonplace book to record facts, and Faraday did. Watts recommended he be guided by observed facts, and Faraday was. Watts recommended finding a great teacher, and Faraday starting attending lectures. (my emphasis)

    • that seems like a fairly pointless game. I could just as easily claim that Newton who a devout christian would have believed in climate change for exactly the same reasons. Who knows what they would have thought?

      • You have used a reference to Newton to attempt to refute my argument but not addressed the reasons I gave for why I believe Faraday would have rejected the current climate alarmism. Prove me wrong by pointing out how I am in error. I did not discuss what Faraday would have stated based on his Christian beliefs or how these would not have conflicted with his faith but only his careful scientific practice.

        As and aside: If Newton were as muddled in his science as he was in his theological views we would certainly not be viewing him as a great scientist today.

        • Michael,
          many sincere and honest scientists believe in climate change and that it poses a threat to humanity and that it is currently being driven by human CO2 emissions. Do you really think that all scientists who agree with that do not think they are following the scientific method just as you seem to think that people who take the oppossite view also claim to be following the scientific method? Claiming that a dead scientist would have agreed with you simply based on your beliefs makes as much sense as Mormans baptising the dead.

          • “many sincere and honest scientists believe in climate change” just about says it all.

            Real scientists show the data.

          • Izaak
            I quote extraordinary dead people, not because I believe they would have agreed with me but because I believe they share an insight into the best aspects of scientific practice and have proved themselves even long after their death.

            What George Polya, an extraordinary Mathematician wrote in 1944 applies to the climate change issue:
            in theoretical matters (which makes up the bulk of climate science)
            the best of ideas (the science is settled/all scientist agree)
            is hurt by uncritical acceptance (critics are climate deniers/not real scientists)
            and thrives on critical examination.” (Is it simply alarmism or a real alarm?)

            Many sceptics are happy to discuss these but rarely do climate alarmists want to engage in logical discussion. Where is the honesty here or is it because of the real threats to dissenters?

          • Most of the so called “scientists” who believe that CO2 is dangerous, aren’t scientists.

            The alarmists tend to define anyone with a degree, in anything, that agrees with them, as a scientist.

            Reminds me of the time when Obama dressed up a bunch of his staffers in white lab coats, then held a press conference in which he declared that all the doctors agreed with ObamaCare.

          • “many sincere and honest scientists believe in climate change and that it poses a threat to humanity and that it is currently being driven by human CO2 emissions.”

            I am reminded of Dr Judith Curry, who said that at first, she agreed with CAGW, because she trusted that the scientists who were proclaiming it had “done the science.” It was when she actually read the IPCC reports and started looking into the science that she realized it was a load of garbage.

            I wonder how many of your “sincere and honest scientists” who “believe in climate change etc.” are in the same position as Dr Curry once was – trusting that the scientists have done their job but not actually checking their work.

            And I further wonder how many of them have come to the same conclusion as Dr Curry, but are saving their jobs by keeping their heads down and saying nothing.

          • “many sincere and honest scientists believe in climate change and that it poses a threat to humanity and that it is currently being driven by human CO2 emissions”

            Based on what?

            Not one of those sincere, honest scientists knows definitively whether CO2 warms or cools the Earth’s atmosphere. Nor do you. Nor does anyone else. Yet we get endless speculation about CO2 and the Earth’s climate based on no evidence at all.

            The basic question which has not been answered is: Does CO2 ultimately cool or warm the Earth’s atmosphere, and by how much. Until those questions are answered, all the rest is guessing.

            The answer to “Based on What?” is: Nothing. This endless speculation is based on nothing.

            One doesn’t have to be a scientist to figure this out. All you have to do is ask some scientist how much warmth CO2 adds to the Earth’s atmosphere and when they can’t give you a definitive answer, then you realize they don’t have an answer, and all their predictions are done without the basic knowledge they need to make such predictions.

            Alarmist Climate Science is a complete fiasco.

        • The disaster claims of climate change advocates will always exist in the future. For that is the place where no evidence will ever exist, thus it a place free to model junk speculations to roam at will like nightmares in a child’s head.

      • The problem with your assertion Izaak is that there are no facts that support the belief that
        1) CO2 is the major driver of climate
        2) That there is anything unusual going on in our climate
        3) Models are proof

      • Izaak- the problem we seem to have here is that “belief” can have a broad meaning and also different meanings.

        Fact, as for Faraday, is something tangible that can be measured, recorded, and related to other facts in theories of how the universe works.

        One can also believe in ideas, something intangible that cannot necessarily be measured, recorded, or related to other ideas in theories of how the universe works.

        Tangible climate change has obviously occurred extensively through the earth’s history. One can accept that change as part of earth’s history and based on facts.

        Climate change in the discussion here is a theory that is not based on Faraday’s facts but on many different types of computer models that are not nearly good enough to count as theories.
        Modern climate change is unbridled speculation put forward as facts for the usual political purposes- political power, control, and money.

        Until we can cancel out “climate change” as a political tool we will never be able to do effective climate science. We are some 10,000 years into an interglacial period. The know records suggest that the climate could, at any time, start to abruptly cool at much as 9-10deg. C. in a few hundred years. Or it may take another 10-15,000 years. We don’t know and the current version of “climate change” does not even address this. Almost all the research is aimed at particular ends for political reasons.

        • Philo, I am pleased you picked up on why I quoted Faraday.

          What would bring a scientist a little closer to understanding weather and climate: A lifetime of staring at models or a lifetime of observation and empirical measurements outside his front door? Faraday had no doubt where the anchor of good science is.

          It is particularly interesting that Jane Marcet – whose chemistry book was so helpful to Faraday – was a “student” of the English painter, Sir Joshua Reynolds. He had an extraordinary insight into the importance and use of observation and careful reasoning. Every scientist would do well to read Reynolds’ Seven Discourses on Art. We need to understand and appreciate what good men (and women) have written in the past if we want to successfully navigate our way through the waves of confusion crashing over us.

  7. Christians already have a god and a religion with it’s own ‘man got clever and expelled from nature, he must undo that to be re-admitted’.

    Why would they want a second?

  8. “This raises the question: Does religion itself predispose people against climate science?”

    No. And, as a religious person and a scientist trained by Jesuits, I find that to be one of the most thoughtless questions ever to escape the so-called mind of a self prepossessed ivory tower hack.

    Father Jim Skehan at Boston College drilled into those of us in the Geology Dept. the importance of multiple working hypotheses, and the necessity of considering every bit of evidence no matter how uncomfortable it made you. Group think? Ha! Ask six geologists a question and you get seventeen answers.

  9. “… failing to “exercise some self-awareness and concern for well-being…””

    Truly funny considering how self-unaware progressives are. I have never seen a group so blinded to their own hypocrisies and double standards. But it just goes to show how foundational paradigms are so important. Get them wrong and, at least at some level, everything you do will be wrong, while being convinced everything you do is right.

  10. “Christian communities are failing to exercise some self-awareness and concern for well-being rather than blindly denying the overwhelming consensus”.

    Philosophical arguments are needed when the science and math arguments are weak or flawed. As in, “the less we know the scarier it gets” logic in climate science where the null hypothesis is that it’s the end of the world and the alternate hypothesis is that maybe they don’t really know. This is the exact opposite of how it works in real science where the null is that the hypothesis is wrong and the alternate is that which is to be proven.

  11. Climate skepticism is a political opinion, held mostly by those whose political views chime with the right of the US Republican party, or its analogues in English speaking countries.

    Accepting climate science and climate science itself is nothing to do with the left: belief in a worldwide leftist conspiracy is itself a feature of US right leaning political opinion

      • Eric,
        the only main stream political party in the world that disagrees with the consensus on global warming is the Republican party in the USA. Which explains why every country other than the US signed up to the Paris agreement. Which is not to say that individuals in other countries and other parties don’t hold skeptical views but they do not represent the majority view in any large political party in the world outside the USA.

        • Yet there has been remarkably little green progress Izaak.

          Even green Germany has been backsliding. Hardly anyone is on target with their Paris commitments.

          Not exactly the behaviour you would expect from politicians who genuinely believe we face an imminent crisis.

          Perhaps US Republicans are just a little more honest about what they actually believe when it comes to climate change.

          • Socialists as a group seem to feel that virtue signaling is more important than actually doing something. Especially when doing something requires effort from themselves.

          • … and don’t forget earlier periods of politicking by turning off the air-conditioning on a hot day before testifying to congress about CAGW …

          • Eric
            “Even green Germany has been backsliding. Hardly anyone is on target with their Paris commitments.”
            No one said this was going to be easy. In fact it is incredibly hard to get everyone to do their bit when it is so easy to do what the US has done lately, and that is free load on others.

          • Poor slimon..

            hates the fact that the USA has stopped all the other countries from free-loading on the American economy.

        • The Parisite Farce does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to combat rising CO2 emissions globally.

          Trump was the only on clever enough to see that.

          Why should the USA send money that will go on green totally worthless boondoggles and payments to dictators in third world countries.

          • Fraud250
            “Why should the USA send money that will go on green totally worthless boondoggles and payments to dictators in third world countries.”
            1. That is not what will happen
            2. The US is a huge emitter
            3. We are all in this together. A concept the right in the US (with their everyone for themselves philosophy) seem to find too difficult to comprehend.
            And let’s face it Trump is in it for the votes and and short term financial gain. He couldn’t give a flying fig about what is round the corner. Add to that he is clueless about the science and you have the perfect storm.

          • And let’s face it Trump is in it for the votes and and short term financial gain.

            That’s an oddly uninformed claim (emphasis added):

            “President Donald Trump’s net worth has dropped to $2.5 billion as the coronavirus pandemic and economic recession wreaked havoc on the family business, Forbes reported.

            In 2019, President Trump’s real-time net worth was an estimated $3.1 billion, earning him the 715th spot on Forbes’ billionaires list. Before he took office, his wealth stood at $4.5 billion.”


            He donates his presidential salary each quarter.

          • Poor little simon.

            US have reduce emission s FAR more than any other countries

            The Parisite Farce will do absolutely NOTHING by send money to renewable scammers and despotic nations

            We are all in WHAT together? … what a moronic comment…

            I’m not part of the climate scam.. are YOU !!

            Trump is in it for THE USA…. you most certainly are not.

            Enema of the state. ! or a foreign agent ?

          • “and short term financial gain.”

            Again the totally farcical suppository from slimo…

            Totally devoid of any evidence.. OF COURSE.

            And yes. Trump CARES about the USA..

            …. the dumbocrats what to destroy the very basis of the US economy

        • Which explains why every country other than the US signed up to the Paris agreement

          And how many of them are anywhere close to meeting their Paris targets? Pretty much none.

          Which is not to say that individuals in other countries and other parties don’t hold skeptical views but they do not represent the majority view

          And yet, poll after poll, shows the voting masses in pretty much every country rate Global Warming/Climate Change at the very bottom of issues that voters are concerned about.

          All those politicians and political parties you are holding up as paragons of Climate Change support haven’t done a thing about it (that haven’t even managed to meet their Paris agreement targets) other than line the pockets of themselves and their cronies via “green” boondoggles at the taxpayers expense. Despite all the politicians and political parties (other than, as you claim, one) being “on side” for years, if not decades, we’re hearing ever more shrill claims of imminent Climate doom . Now why is that? Surely all those politicians and parties (being the vast majority you claim them to be) should have had no problem doing something significant to solve the issue by now. yet they haven’t, and they won’t. Because, despite whatever lip service they may give, most of them don’t really believe it (and you can tell they don’t believe it by their actions, not their lying words).

        • …the only political party in the world…

          Wow, quite an assertion and clearly wrong as A, the Republican party does not have such a clear cut line of CAGW, and I seriously doubt you have studied the CAGW policy if every political party in the world.

          I suggest you consider what politicians do more then what they say. Then you will notice that China is building massively more coal fired power plants. And India as well with a very popular prime minister that very much likes and supports Donald Trump.

          I must suggest to you Izzack that your claims of what the world political view is regarding CAGW only exist in your erroneous thoughts, and are falsified by global actions.

        • Once again, the alarmist has to proclaim that the consensus proves the science.
          That’s because even he knows that the facts don’t support the consensus.

          The fact that political parties that are seeking to gain power and wealth for their leaders latch onto climate change as an excellent vehicle for fulfilling their desires just proves that socialists will do anything to make government more powerful.

          Regardless, signing onto the Paris agreement was never anything more than virtue signalling as it required no actions of anybody.

        • “the only main stream political party in the world that disagrees with the consensus on global warming is the Republican party in the USA.”

          Did you know that one of the Democrat presidential hopefuls, Gov Jay Inslee, campaigned on a Climate Change agenda almost solely? He didn’t even reach 1% in the polls, and eventually dropped out. But not before flying, and riding in SUVs all over the country.

        • OPEC has more accountability among its members than the Paris Climate Agreement and that’s not saying much. Maybe the political party of accountability needs to speak up more.

    • “Climate skepticism is a political opinion”

      Only in your little zero science world.

      Real science depends on real evidence

      And NOT ONCE have you been able to present any real evidence for even the most basic farce of so-called “climate change”, warming by atmospheric CO2

      “Climate Change™”, is the political opinion, It certainly isn’t based on any actual real Science.

      I don’t think you actually “BELIEVE” most of the crap you spew !

      You are just making ludicrous, scientifically unsupportable statements as an attention seeking activity in your lonely pathetic little pseudo-existence.

    • Griff:

      March 28, 2012

      The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
      NASA Administrator
      NASA Headquarters
      Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

      Dear Charlie,

      We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

      The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

      As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

      For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

      Thank you for considering this request.


      (Attached signatures)

      CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

      CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

      Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

      /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

      /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

      /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

      /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

      /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

      /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

      /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

      /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

      /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

      /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

      /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

      /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

      /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

      /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

      /s/ Anita Gale

      /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

      /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

      /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

      /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

      /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

      /s/ Thomas J. Harmon

      /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

      /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

      /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

      /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

      /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

      /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

      /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

      /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

      /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

      /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

      /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

      /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

      /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

      /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

      /s/ Tom Ohesorge

      /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

      /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

      /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

      /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

      /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

      /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

      /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

      /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

      /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

      /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

      /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

      /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

      /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

        • Poor slimon… these guys sent man to the moon.. get over it.

          Only thing the current NASA can manage is data corruption and unsubstantiated climate alarmism.

          Who are the “scientists” !!

        • Pathetic, Simon. You laugh at people who put men on the moon yet at the same time worship St. Greta of Angst who hasn’t even graduated from high school. Your standards need a serious upgrade.

    • Fascinating.
      Accepting the facts on climate is a political opinion.
      Using climate alarmism to drive a political agenda is science.

    • And almost every single warmist is a progressive socialist.

      There’s your political opinion. It has EVERYTHING to do with the left.

      And I guess Grift has missed the absolute collusion between every aspect of the progressive left, from politics to media to education – it’s a very open movement – a hell of a thing for even a total hack idiot like Grift to deny – but I guess that’s the point of a hack.

      And by the way, you can correct Grift a thousand times and it won’t make a dent – he’s hear to deliberately spread misinformation, with no open-mind at all, and no interest.

    • Griff, I can easily be agnostic about whether CO2 is the control knob for earth’s climate – let’s see how proper science ultimately resolves this conjecture – but I am an unalloyed denier of the ability of wind & solar to provide grid-scale reliable power at costs affordable for most households & industries.

      This 2nd part of the AGW boosters “package” runs headlong into hard physics & engineering fundamentals that no amount of pr fluff from disciples will surmount.

  12. Labelling someone as a Christian really simplifies the complex person down into a nice stereotype for the media, and clearly as far as the media is concerned, all Christians are idiots.

    I’ve a number of Christian friends who are skeptics and others who have drunk all the green kool aid they come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of professions. It’s up to them as to what they want to believe as CAGW may as well be another religion to cling to for some.

    My issue is where ministers or priests try and conflate the two in regards to Christians being stewards of the earth and that sort of thing. One particularly good example was one of the church members asked “How do we talk to people about global warming like we do Jesus?” For that person, they are practically the same thing.

    Many Churches arent entirely skeptical by nature, but thats not to say that everyone that goes there is an ‘uninformed denier’.

  13. The “Conversation’ is surely an ironic name. This group never publishes anything resembling a real conversation, only propaganda for their AGW point of view. If you think this is a real Conversation, then Hitler is your man.

  14. I’d say that the clue here is in the word ‘blindly’

    Maybe The Other People are not blind – maybe the author himself is letting slip something…

    Remember – The Human Animal finds it very hard/stressful to pass off untruths – it always gives itself away somehow
    That fake smile/grin at the top speaks volumes too – *what* is he trying to hide?

    (The term Grinning Idiot’ comes immediately to mind – he’s obviously learned not to be sweaty, stressed and bloated a-la Lewindosky. haha)

  15. To ascribe the view of evangelical Christians on climate to their faith and politics is disingenuous. Their views are likely determined more by what they observe where they live than by what they are told.

    30 months ago Cape Town and the Western Cape was facing a crisis. They were fast approaching Day Zero when they were told they would run out of water. This was attributed to the drought caused by climate change. It was predicted that they would receive far less rain in coming years and be faced with drought after drought because of climate change.

    Today, after three good winters, the dams are 96% full with the prospect of more rain before the seasonal change at the equinox. Anyone living in the Cape is familiar with the weather patterns with the recurrence of both droughts and good rains. It is normal to have long dry summers with wet Mediterranean climate winters and drier winters not unexpected.

    Evangelicals in the Western Cape did not view climate early in 2018 as some threatening monolithic monster but believed that they would see good rains again – and they have for a third winter. Does their scepticism about alarming climate change mean they are climate change deniers or simply realistic observers? I believe that many evangelicals in the US form their views in a very similar fashion.

    • But then the Western Cape does not have 10,000 academic positions with volume-based publication count incentives for grants, promotions, and accreditation purposes. In that context, it does not matter what the cycles are or what locals know or what the weather cycles or science factors are.

      • I think the scientists most likely to speak against the climate alarmism are those close to retirement who have little to lose. The threats made and actions taken against those who have stuck their necks out have been brutal. It is really sad but understandable when scientists go along with the lie to protect their livelihood. It is also disgraceful that many top scientific journals are not prepared to append the names of reviewers to articles.

  16. Full of it Eric.
    “There is substantial evidence of group enforced conformity and intolerance for divergent views on climate change in modern academia.”
    This “substantial evidence” at the link, is not evidence at all, it’s just a link to more echo-chamber opinion.

    And this link: There is no proof the climate consensus is “overwhelming” in an objective sense. Deviation from the groupthink position on climate change is frequently punished by public humiliation and ostracism.”
    Is the same. You’re not mounting a case, you’re just masquerading opinion and groupthink as evidence.
    It’s you Eric that “has failed to consider the possibility that he is the one who is ensnared in a large scale climate alarmist groupthink movement.”

    • Loydo

      “You’re not mounting a case, you’re just masquerading opinion and groupthink as evidence.”

      That is exactly the way how you climate idiots prove your vision. You have opinion, and that´s all. If real science doesn´t agree your science denying vision, what it is?

      This nonsense has now been going on over 30 years, and climate”science” can´t show a bit which could proof its opinion. All you have is this “97% consensus” BS. Well that´s not enough, try harder. In old USSR real consensus was over 120%.

      • All you have is this “97% consensus” BS.

        And what is a “97% consensus” but the very definition of group think!

        • Group think, yes, but highly corrupted group think, as any rational person looking at the so called 97% studies would come to the understanding that the 87 percent claim is nonsense.

    • Yet again a load of mindless, brain-dead gibberish from Loy-doh !

      And of course, absolutely zero evidence.

      “Climate Change™” IS group-think…

      You certainly have no science to back up your feeble regurgitations of the AGW mantra.

    • Intellectual tolerance is what is missing from alarmists Loydo. Look at how Peter Ridd was mistreated, or Willie Soon, or Lennart Bengtsson when he joined the GWPF, or a string of other scientists in Climategate or elsewhere who were subject to bullying.

      The words of Lennart Bengtsson when he resigned from the GWPF;

      “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

      Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”

      Contrast that with how climate skeptics treat people who disagree with us. When Robert Mendelsohn gave a speech in 2017 at a Heartland Conference, urging climate skeptics to reconsider, I was in the room – everyone cheered and thanked him for sharing his views.

    • Name one person who has been fired for drinking the Climate Change kool-aid.
      The number of people who have been fired for disagreeing with the climate alarmists is legion. Not just in academia.

  17. According to a Pew Research Center poll from May 2020, while 62% of religiously unaffiliated U.S. adults agree that the Earth is warming primarily due to human action, only 35% of U.S. Protestants do – including just 24% of white evangelical Protestants.

    Good to see Christians are keeping faith where it legitimately belongs, i.e., in the realm of religion rather than science.

  18. Religious fundamentalists and climate zealots are two sides of the same coin, both using fear to sell their version of happily ever after. You’d think either would want to convert agnostics and atheists to their vision but both seem intent on destroying those who believe a different liturgy.

    • Consider a religious fundamentalist and a climate zealot on their dead beds. One will be at peace and ready for their well-earned future. The other will always be angry and tormented that the future is still bleak for humanity. This most basic outcome for these religions should be enough to crystallize the analysis. But faith is very different to virtue-signalling and the climate side has not been around long enough to learn about sacrifice. The status of voluntary climate offsets (not government enforced) is clear evidence that these religions have very different motivators.

    • It really is fascinating to observe the lies atheists fall for.
      They are as bad as climate alarmists when it comes to denigrating those who don’t believe as they do.

        • Jeff,
          You might want to hold that thought when you’re next tempted to spew your vitriol against religion and religious believers. Maybe stick to attacking their inappropriate use of apostrophes. It’s slightly less off-putting.

          • I respond to specific comments. I don’t make blanket statements that all religious people are the same. Apparently something struck a nerve.

            Can you point out an example of vitriol I’ve spewed against religion and religious believers?

          • Jeff,
            Since you ask, the remark at 8:17am 9/11/2020 on this posting is a minor but typical example. I’d have to look back to see what formed my opinion that you show contempt for religious belief, but my recollection is that you frequently seem to feel the need to ridicule religious belief and advertise your atheism as if that is relevant to a discussion about climate. You are certainly not alone in this behavior which I see as counterproductive because a lot of persuadable people also hold some degree of religious belief.

            I often talk about CAGW as a pseudo-religion. I don’t intend that as ridicule of religious belief. It is intended to jar the (typically atheist) CAGW believer into recognizing in themselves the thought patterns which they disdain in others.

            It’s not that I’m personally offended by your comments, either. As a fellow climate skeptic, I’m embarrassed to see you gratuitously ridicule all religious faith as if you have certainty that every religious belief is wrong, unreasonable, and ignorant. That’s actually a faith-based proposition ironically. It’s also one hell of an effective way to persuade somebody about an unrelated topic (climate change), by showing contempt for something that they consider integral to their identity (their religious beliefs). “You’re a hopeless moron, but let me tell you something about climate change. Are you listening?”

            But maybe being effective at persuasion isn’t important to you?

            You often say things that I agree with and you seem quite intelligent. I’m not looking to attack you. Just some frank feedback.

          • “my recollection is that you frequently seem to feel the need to ridicule religious belief and advertise your atheism as if that is relevant to a discussion about climate.”

            That’s a fair point. And I could turn that around and say “my recollection is that you frequently seem to feel the need to ridicule atheism and advertise your religious belief as if that is relevant to a discussion about climate.”

            Neither are relevant to a discussion about climate.

            “You’re a hopeless moron, but let me tell you something about climate change. Are you listening?”

            I know that wasn’t a quote from me, but I don’t think I’ve ever said anything that vitriolic, except maybe at Mosher, who brings it upon himself. It actually sounds like something Mosher would say, lol.

            “You often say things that I agree with and you seem quite intelligent. I’m not looking to attack you. Just some frank feedback.”

            Thanks Rich. The same to you.

          • I know that wasn’t a quote from me, but I don’t think I’ve ever said anything that vitriolic,

            But that’s precisely his point, while you don’t think attacking someone’s religious beliefs the way you do is “that vitriolic”, frankly it *is*. Just, as I’m sure, you find someone attacking atheism to be “that vitriolic” judging by your response that started this little sub-discussion. It’s clear that you don’t realize just how off-putting you come across at times. Perhaps, as suggested, you should stick to your grammar nazi-ing, as annoying as it is, at least that isn’t totally insulting to otherwise persuadable people.

      • MarkW
        “They are as bad as climate alarmists when it comes to denigrating those who don’t believe as they do.”
        Again… it is just beyond ironic you can’t see that statement reflects so beautifully on you.

        • Again, simple ton produces ZERO-evidence to back up warming from atmospheric CO2

          scientists that “just believe” despite zero-evidence should be denigrated

          Pseudo-scientists that twist and distort data to support their scientifically unsupportable “beliefs” certain deserve to be denigrated.

          Wouldn’t you agree, simple simon

  19. “Faith and politics mix to drive climate alarm-ism.”
    There…fixed it.
    My there are a lot of “isms” lately.

    BTW…to deny consensus is not to deny science. To not trust “scientists” is not the same as not trusting science. I don’t trust purported “scientists” who don’t show their work, who don’t show their data, who don’t show their math, who don’t reveal their funding, who don’t reveal conflicts of interest and organizational agendas.
    I for sure don’t trust “scientists” who call other credentialed scientists “deniers”.

    • “who call other credentialed scientists “deniers””

      I have often wonder what it is that we actually DENY, that they have hard empirical scientific proof for.

      Can’t find anything.. maybe LoyDoh or griff can enlighten us…… with evidence , of course 😉

      • Fraud250

        “I have often wonder what it is that we actually DENY, that they have hard empirical scientific proof for.”

        OK Fraud. The world is warming, very few with an IQ over 100 dispute that. Let’s hear your version of why that is? Because everything happens for a reason.

        • So.. absolutely NOTHING that you can state we deny..

          I have stated many times that the Earth has warmed out of the COLDEST period in nearly 10,000 years.. and that warming has been totally beneficial to all mankind.

          And that the warming in the satellite era has come ONLY at El Ninos, hence has NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2.

          Pity your IQ is barely above single digits !!

          Now where is your empirical evidence of warming by human CO2, simple slime-on.

          • Fraud
            There are just a few little glitches with your thinking, which I am happy to help you with. And today free of charge coz that is what us socialists do.
            1. Saying the earth is warming and so that is the reason for the “warming” is like saying people die because they die. Here’s a clue Fraud, try to look past the obvious to find the answer. Ask yourself this question… why are we warming now when all the indicators would say we should be cooling? There is only one answer that makes any sense at this stage. See if you can guess what it is?
            2. Saying El Nino is the reason has two fatal flaws. a) If it is the reason, given El Nino’s are not a new thing, then why are we not boiling? Another clue for you. We have La Nina’s. They cool us. Yin and yan, black and white, benson and hedges. It’s like saying the tide is responsible for sea level rise. to be clear it is not, and nor is El Nino the reason for the heat increasing on our little planet.
            3. Another little helper for you. Saying there is no evidence and adding the word empirical in front does not make you clever. There is enough evidence to last several lifetimes and it gets more confirming by the day. You just have to look and try to put your commitment to denial behind you.
            There I have cured you. Have a nice day.

          • My FACTS and DATA…..

            …. against your empty, mindless gibberish.

            You cannot be cured, your mind has only one neuron, and its misfiring. !

          • Great to see you are STILL totally incapable of producing any actual scientific evidence.

            At least this time you ADMITTED it. ! 🙂

            So funny, and so PATHETIC. !

          • “There is enough evidence to last several lifetimes”

            Well where is it , slimo !!!

            I reckon you haven’t got even the slightest clue what scientific evidence looks like.

            Poor simpleton…. Keep up the headless chook distraction routine.. Its funny 🙂


          • Fraud
            Here is a very well explained document that outlines the science extremely well. It is by the Royal Society and the US Academy of Sciences. Two highly respected bodies I am sure you will agree. This documents provides all the evidence a thinking person should need to understand the current thinking.

            Now your turn. Maybe just give me a simple explanation for the warming we are experiencing. I will look forward to it.

          • A repeat of the AGW propaganda mantra and suppositories…. nothing more.

            Where is the EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

            There is NONE in your feeble little link.

            Science works by EVIDENCE not by empty rhetoric.

            Some other moron or Jackass posted that same link to mindless propaganda that contains ZERO-evidence of any human cause in the highly beneficial warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

            The link was DESTROYED so completely he had no come-back .

            If this is what you class as “science”, no wonder you remain as totally clueless as a slimy squashed slug.

          • 1…
            Faked temperature series that don’t match reality

            NH s cover is actually increasing

            Model assumption driven OCH.. See that little red squiggle

            Yes, planet has warmed, thank goodness,
            .. why not mention that the LIA was the COLDEST period in nearly 10,000 years

            No acceleration in SLR at any tide gauge in the world.

            2, 3, Contains no science or data whatsoever.. garbage

            4…. Lack of understanding of solar and cloud influences.. gobble it up slimo..

            5. Vertical structure is PROVEN by balloons to be in thermodynamic equilibrium..
            …. this MEASURED FACT absolutely destroys the CO2 warming myth.

            6.. gibberish propaganda.. based on nothing by suppositories.

            7.. Current levels of atmospheric CO2 are just above the MINIMUM to sustain life on Earth. Life on Earth developed when CO2 levels were MUCH higher.

            8.. More anti-science gibberish , based on nothing but assumptions.

            9.. How would they know.. they have a tainted manipulated ex-data set, with little resemblance to reality. That data USED to show that 1900-1940 warmed faster than the recent El Nino bumps. The only warming in any reliable data shows that warming has come ONLY from those solar charged El Ninos., no evidence of any human CO2 effect.. never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet

            10.. yet more gibberish based on mantra…

            So really slimo.. you have just swallowed that load of GIGO without a single scientific reflection or thought…

            You are not capable of a single scientific or rational though,

            …. just MINDLESS mantra regurgitation.

            Now, where is your evidence for increased temperatures due to atmospheric CO2.

            So far you are still in the bottom of an abyss.

          • Fraud
            It is just beyond me that you are so fixated on the concept of being duped. You really think these evil scientists sit around making plans to take your money? Do you look under the bed every night just in case the commies are there? The Royal society are are about as good as it gets when it comes to credibility. Those pages are full of science, with clear explanations for why the science is rock solid. It seems it is just science you don’t want to hear.

            But let us not waste anymore time on this. If you really believe what you have written, and that the commies are out to get you then good luck to you. Meanwhile the earth warms the ice melts and the seas rise.

            Have a nice day.

          • Again the ABYSMAL lack of any actual EVIDENCE for human caused global warming

            Those pages are NOT full of science.. they are full of AGW rhetoric, un-backed by any actual EVIDENCE of human causality.

            IT IS NOT CREDIBLE SCIENCE, because they are just blah, blah…

            You are a mindless twerp. incapable of understanding basic science and evidence even are..

            YOU HAVE NONE, so you just keep up the mindless empty rhetoric, and links to propganda pap.

            PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE , and stop trying to slime your way out of it.

            Current Sea ice levels are FAR above the Holocene norm.

            Sea level rise shows no acceleration,. no human cause.

            Now, I ask YET AGAIN…

            where is your empirical evidence of warming by human CO2

            So far you have produce absolutely NOTHING, just mind-numbed evasion.

          • STILL WAITING.

            Please point to exactly where in your little propaganda pap link, they show EVIDENCE that the highly beneficial warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years, has been caused by human CO2.

          • Fred, you’ll have a long wait. All simple simon has is the fact-less propaganda that his “betters” hand down to him. He’s incapable of finding, much less understanding, anything of scientific merit, as shown by his numerous posts that link to assertions that lack evidence and appeals to authority. Sadly that’s as good as you’ll ever get from the simpleton.

          • I am well aware he will never provide any actual evidence 😉

            Still have to keep asking, because it highlights to everyone his total ineptitude and ignorance of any scientific knowledge.

  20. Being a devout Christian is exceedingly uncool in American society. So, to be a devout Christian, you have to be the kind of person who either doesn’t care or purposely ignores what “all the cool kids” think. And climate alarmism is definitely what all the cool kids believe in. There’s just a natural divide in both philosophy and disposition.

    And I might add that nothing puts the cool kids in a state of livid, high dudgeon like having their cool opinions ignored.

  21. When a religious belief can be due to conscious effort without scientific evidence, or even contradictory to science, other beliefs can be held that way. In the human psyche it becomes possible to believe hard enough in magic and/or miracles to become real to the believer.
    People “believe in” the damnedest things. There are a huge number of wildly different religions worldwide which people “believe in.”
    Some people “believe in” CAGW.
    Any activity which is practiced is easier the next time.

    • IMO the main issue with religion is not so much what people believe, but rather when those people try to force their beliefs on others who don’t believe. This includes CAGW. I couldn’t care less if someone believes in elves and faeries, but if they try to enact some kind of tax on me to take what they perceive as necessary action towards that belief, then we have a problem.
      Sadly, believers of CAGW arent’ content to practice their religion amongst themselves but rather they keep demanding that all of us non-believers contribute tithes to their “god” and strictly follow their green rituals of abstinence (from fossil fuels).

      • “Sadly, believers of CAGW arent’[sic] content to practice their religion amongst themselves but rather they keep demanding that all of us non-believers contribute tithes to their “god” and strictly follow their green rituals of abstinence (from fossil fuels).”
        Well said, lee Riffee, well said.

  22. Which ‘consensus’ doctors will get to perform tests on the subjects held in the climate detention camps?

    Sign zee papers denier or we ship you out tonight.

  23. Perhaps they just can’t handle more than one religion so stick with their first one and shun global warming.

  24. Christians already believe in something. We don’t need to worship a false God in order to make our lives complete.

    • Their God is their religion’s philosopher, who advises them to recognize a separation of logical domains. Other religions and quasi-religions (e.g. Pro-Choice), ostensibly “secular”. have their “gods”, mortal gods and goddesses. Judge a religion by its principles, internally, externally, and mutually consistent.

  25. Peak Climate Fraud could be modeled with each accretion of hangers on like Philosophy ‘experts’ pontificating. You can’t even call it the straw that broke the consensus since in this case the science consensus is derived from fraudulent methods to support a political pitchman like Al Gore and his anti-science “debate has ended” claim. We are going to need Nelson Mandela’s Truth and Reconciliation Court approach when the Climate Crusade fraud is exposed.

  26. Ironically, Christians recognize a separation of logical domains, while ostensibly “secular” faiths (e.g. Twilight), and quasi-religions Pro-Choice, will, on principle, conflate logical domains for personal and social progress and profit. As for [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] global cooling, warming, climate change, this is not supported by observation or evidence, over 30 years and longer, but rather inferred (i.e. creative knowledge) and forced from unskilled models backed by em-pathetic appeals (e.g. social justice).

  27. “identification as a political conservative, and as white, is much more predictive of rejecting the climate consensus”

    Maybe becasue such people are more likely to be thinking for themselves rather than accepting whatever they are told by others. “White’ factors in because the left has forced all too many blacks into poverty ghettos with poor schools.

  28. The environmental left believes that all “deniers” are religious fanatics. I was accosted by a guy soliciting for an environmental group and decided to engage him. When it was clear to him that he was outgunned on climate alarmism itself. He suddenly said, “So you don’t believe in what Charles Darwin said?”

    My response: “What the hell does Charles Darwin and his observations in the small Galapagos Islands have to do with GLOBAL climate? I’m not aware that anything he said has anything to do with global climate.”

    The guy hemmed and hawed. I’m sure he was told that all those opposed to the narrative were religious “bible thumpers” whose unscientific outlook would be easily exposed by any reference to evolution. I took advantage to demonstrate that he was the one who didn’t understand science. He actually went away saying, “Yeah a person who knows science could reject the warming.”

  29. There is a connection between beliefs, and science, but not what the authors claim. It’s not groupthink nor culture. This connection goes back to the Reformation, which is one reason why educated evangelical Christians tend to be more skeptical of CAGW than others.

    Before the Reformation, the scientific consensus was to start with a model, then look for confirming data. The scientist par excellence that scientists harkened back to for his models was Aristotle. Even today there are teachings held by a consensus of scientists that start with a model, then look for confirmation for that model. Woe betide the individual who bucks the consensus.

    The Reformation turned that on its head. Instead of starting with the model, it starts with observation. Then models are made to try to explain observations. If the models don’t adequately explain the observations, they are to be adjusted or discarded. Those evangelical Christians who still strongly identify with the tenets of the Reformation, favor this view of science even to the point of skepticism of other “scientific” teachings which are a consensus in the scientific community. The stronger is his connection to the original Reformation, the more likely is the Evangelical Christian to buck the consensus.

    CAGW started with a model, then looks for confirmation. Can you think of other teachings that likewise started with models, then look for confirmation?

    • Interesting comment R. O.

      Do you happen to have a bibliography on the subject you could pass along?

      Many thanks!

    • With all due respect R.O., this sounds like a chauvinistic abstract argument that Protestants are better than Catholics. What are these “observations” that Luther or Calvin or Zwingli made? They disagreed with some conclusions reached by Catholic theologians and came up with their own faith-based models to replace the old model. They didn’t start a process of continuous change of doctrine based on an experimental method, they pretended to rediscover the true unchanging doctrine that just happened to agree with their model. After which they were every bit as rigid and dogmatic as the Catholic clergy they supplanted. (Thinking here of my Puritan ancestors).

      More importantly they didn’t like practices that had developed and especially where those practices implied their position in the hierarchy of power. Happily, the rediscovered Truth placed them back at the top of the hierarchy where they were predestined to be. Or at least moved them up the hierarchy by getting their local warlord out from under the jurisdiction of the pope.

      I recognize that your comment is on topic because of the article’s reference to evangelicals, but I don’t think it hits the mark.

  30. When I was in University back in the Dark Ages, some really smart profs instilled one point on me regarding experimentation that has stuck. The objective of any experiment is to prove that your hypothesis is WRONG! What you believe does not matter. What you assume to be true is worthless. What can you prove? Very little. If you work hard, you eventually arrive at the stage where you have exhausted all avenues of disproving your hypothesis and have been unable to do so. Then, you can assume that your hypothesis is most likely correct and can build on that assumption. However, you have to be ready to toss that assumption aside should someone come up with a repeatable experiment that proves you wrong.

    Unfortunately, this ‘group think’ prevents most people from critically examining the foundational hypotheses on which their worldview rests and are trapped in error, unable to see the truth that can set them free. Such groups as ‘global warming is true’, ‘anthropogenic climate change is true’, ‘Antifa’ (who are the REAL fascists), BLM (who are the REAL racists and communists to boot), …

    With groups like this permitted to be in charge, there is no hope for the future of civilized society. It will devolve into top-down ruthless dictatorships and one-world governments run by the most ruthless dictator.


    • Hi Ian.
      The equivalent experience I had to your professor’s guidance was being prepped by a top-tier barrister as I was to take the stand in court to give evidence in a high-stakes commercial property dispute.

      He played the part of what the lawyers from the other side would likely hit me with to refute our case.
      Although we were only role-playing, he had me stammering, confused, sweating and rendered speechless.

      My initial cock-sure belief in the robustness of our position was in tatters.

      So then, he led us back to the fundamentals that we could unequivocally prove, and worked out response tactics for dealing with the other side’s distraction attempts.

      We won, but only because we had ourselves torn down our own ‘belief pyramid’ and relied only on what we could prove before we made our claims.

  31. Matk W
    I’ve been an atheist for about 60 years.
    I don’t denigrate anyone.
    Although it is very tempting to denigrate you.

    Othets should fell free to believe in anything they want to believe … but not to the point of forcing the government to believe as they do.

    You appear to feel the need to criticize atheists — just what religion teaches you to do that?

  32. These Christians are such a pain. The old Roman authorities just wanted them to worship the emperor a liitle bit so that honour was satisfied; but no, they refused. Still, they made good lion fodder and they did prove useful scapegoats for a fire.

    Christians were persecuted in the old Soviet Union, and still are in Xi Jinpin’s China and Kim Jong Un’s Korea, primarily because of a stubborn refusal to give unreserved and wholehearted allegiance to anything or anyone other than Christ: not emperors, not despots, not dictators, not presidents, not kings – and not Gaia. Especially not Gaia.

    And being an often-villified minority they are generally seriously unimpressed by “consensus” as a reason to believe anything

  33. CAGW alarmism was never science-based. It is and always has been a plot, a scam, and a global hoax planned and operated by rent-seeking Globalists. It’s about more power and money for the Ruling Elite.

    Astute observers have noted that CAGW alarmism only one arrow in the Elite quiver. The Elites seek to revolutionize Academia, Government, all of Science and Medicine, and various Social Structures (like families) to achieve their dark ends.

    One of those foundational structures is religion, specifically Christianity. Christianity has been under attack for decades by the exact same cabal that promotes CAGW. It is not surprising then that the targets of the Ruling Elite dismiss and reject all of their insidious arrows.

    Christianity is the glue that holds our civilization together, that underpins our laws, ethics, morals, and social interactions. Rejection of the glue is what the Elite desire. Those who refuse to abandon the foundation stones, who push back against the cabal, are heroes, not superstitious fools.

  34. “Climate science denial may stem more from politics than religion” In my case it stems from science more than anything else. Howevver, I do admit the idea that mankind thinks they are so powerful that they can affect what God has created is a part of my thinking. Short of a nuclear holocaust, man’s involvement on the planet is insignificant compare to God’s creation. Climate change is nothing more than a modern day Tower of Babel. Don’t get me wrong; I think we need to be smart in how we treat the planet.

  35. We are instructed to carefully check claims from people:

    Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. – Acts 17:11 (NIV)

    And when you do check the claims of the climate activists, and look carefully at the data, it’s immediately apparent that most of the temperature rise last century was due to natural changes, especially in solar activity and the thermohaline cycle.

  36. Fortunately, I had an excellent grounding in the “scientific method” in my physics and geology classes. Modelling, while a useful tool in learning is no substitute for observation and field work. An office bound geologist is an oxymoron as is a “climatologist” who wouldn’t know a “Stevenson Box” if they fell over one. As a Christian, truth is paramount and I’m afraid the activists and alarmists are dismal failures in sorting out the facts of climate change.

  37. Eric
    “Even green Germany has been backsliding. Hardly anyone is on target with their Paris commitments.”
    No one said this was going to be easy. In fact it is incredibly hard to get everyone to do their bit when it is so easy to do what the US has done lately, and that is free load on others.

    • LOL, Your ignorance is shining like a dim beacon

      USA is the ONLY country that is anywhere near meeting any farcical targets..
      (except China, which already had 20% renewables)

      USA has STOPPED the freeloaders, and they don’t like it.

      Totally pointless for the USA to send money to green scammers and third world dictators in the UN.


      Trump realised that it was all just a SCAM

      Other should wake up to that fact.

      • USA is the ONLY country that is anywhere near meeting any farcical targets..
        (except China, which already had 20% renewables)

        You mean China, whose target was “emit as much as they want until they peak in 2030”. That China? You’d have to work really hard to miss that particular target.

  38. From the article: “According to Kahan’s data, identification as a political conservative, and as white, is much more predictive of rejecting the climate consensus than overall religiosity.”

    I guess that means conservatives are pretty smart people. They know a scam when they see one.

Comments are closed.