How to Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real

  • submit to reddit
Katharine Hayhoe, Years of Living Dangerously, Don Cheadle
Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe with actor Don Cheadle on the Showtime series Years of Living Dangerously. (Photo: Showtime/YouTube)

This post originally appeared at Mother Jones.

Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian, has had quite the run lately. A few weeks back, she was featured in the first episode of the Showtime series Years of Living Dangerously, meeting with actor Don Cheadle in her home state of Texas to explain to him why faith and a warming planet aren’t in conflict. (You can watch that episode for free on YouTube; Hayhoe is a science adviser for the show.) Then, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people of 2014; Cheadle wrote the entry. “There’s something fascinating about a smart person who defies stereotype,” Cheadle observed.

Why is Hayhoe in the spotlight? Simply put, millions of Americans are evangelical Christians and their belief in the science of global warming is well below the national average. And if anyone has a chance of reaching this vast and important audience, Hayhoe does. “I feel like the conservative community, the evangelical community, and many other Christian communities, I feel like we have been lied to,” explains Hayhoe on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast. “We have been given information about climate change that is not true. We have been told that it is incompatible with our values, whereas in fact it’s entirely compatible with conservative and with Christian values.”

Hayhoe’s approach to science — and to religion — was heavily influenced by her father, a former Toronto science educator and also, at one time, a missionary. “For him, there was never any conflict between the idea that there is a God, and the idea that science explains the world that we see around us,” says Hayhoe. When she was 9, her family moved to Colombia, where her parents worked as missionaries and educators and where Hayhoe saw what environmental vulnerability really looks like. “Some of my friends lived in houses that were made out of cardboard Tide boxes, or corrugated metal,” she says. “And realizing that you don’t really need that much to be happy, but at the same time, you’re very vulnerable to the environment around you, the less that you have.”

Her research today, on the impacts of climate change, flows from those early experiences. And of course, it is inspired by her faith, which for Hayhoe, puts a strong emphasis on caring for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. “That gives us even more reason to care about climate change,” says Hayhoe, “because it is affecting people, and is disproportionately affecting the poor, and the vulnerable, and those who cannot care for themselves.”

Recent data from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication suggests that while 64 percent of Americans think global warming is real and caused by human beings, only 44 percent of evangelicals do.

The fact remains, though, that most evangelical Christians in the United States do not think as Hayhoe does. Recent data from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication suggests that while 64 percent of Americans think global warming is real and caused by human beings, only 44 percent of evangelicals do. Evangelicals in general, explains Hayhoe, tend to be more politically conservative and can be quite distrusting of scientists (believing, incorrectly, that they’re all a bunch of atheists). Plus, some evangelicals really do go in for that whole “the world is ending” thing — not an outlook likely to inspire much care for the environment. So how does Hayhoe reach them?

From our interview, here are five of Hayhoe’s top arguments, for evangelical Christians, on climate change:

1. Conservation is Conservative. The evangelical community isn’t just a religious community, it’s also a politically conservative one on average. So Hayhoe speaks directly to that value system. “What’s more conservative than conserving our natural resources, making sure we have enough for the future, and not wasting them like we are today?” she asks. “That’s a very conservative value.”

Indeed, many conservatives don’t buy into climate science because they don’t like the “Big Government” solutions they suspect the problem entails. But Hayhoe has an answer ready for that one too: Conservative-friendly, market-driven solutions to climate problems are actually all around us. “A couple of weeks ago, Texas…smashed the record for the most wind energy ever produced. It was 38 percent of our energy that week, came from wind,” she says. And Hayhoe thinks that’s just the beginning: “If you look at the map of where the greatest potential is for wind energy, it’s right up the red states. And I think that is going to make a big difference in the future.”

2. Yes, God Would Let This Happen. One conservative Christian argument is that God just wouldn’t let human activities ruin the creation. Or, as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has put it, “God’s still up there, and the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate, is to me, outrageous.” You can watch Inhofe and other religious right politicians dismissing climate change on biblical grounds in this video:

Hayhoe thinks the answer to Inhofe’s objection is simple: From a Christian perspective, we have free will to make decisions and must live with their consequences. This is, after all, a classic Christian solution to the theological problem of evil. “Are bad things happening? Yes, all the time,” says Hayhoe. “Someone gets drunk, they get behind the wheel of a car, they kill an innocent bystander, possibly even a child or a mother.”

Climate change is, to Hayhoe, just another wrong, another problem, brought on by flawed humans exercising their wills in a way that is less than fully advisable. “That’s really what climate change is,” she says. “It’s a casualty of the decisions that we have made.”

Climate change is, to Hayhoe, just another wrong, another problem, brought on by flawed humans exercising their wills in a way that is less than fully advisable. “That’s really what climate change is,” she says. “It’s a casualty of the decisions that we have made.”

3. The Bible Does Not Approve of Letting the World Burn. Hayhoe agrees with the common liberal perception that the evangelical community contains a significant proportion of apocalyptic or end-times believers — and that this belief, literally that judgment is upon us, undermines their concern about preserving the planet. But she thinks there’s something very wrong with that outlook and indeed, that the Bible itself refutes it.

“The message that, we don’t care about anybody else, screw everybody, and let the world burn, that message is not a consistent message in the Bible,” says Hayhoe. In particular, she thinks the apostle Paul has a pretty good answer to end-times believers in his second epistle to the Thessalonians. Hayhoe breaks Paul’s message down like this: “I’ve heard that you’ve been quitting your jobs, you have been laying around and doing nothing, because you think that Christ is returning and the world is ending.” But Paul serves up a rebuke. In Hayhoe’s words: “Get a job, support yourself and your family, care for others — again, the poor and the vulnerable who can’t care for themselves — and do what you can, essentially, to make the world a better place, because nobody knows when that’s going to happen.”

4. Even If You Believe in a Young Earth, It’s Still Warming. One reason there’s such a tension between the evangelical community and science is, well, science. Many evangelicals are Young-Earth creationists, who believe that the Earth is 6,000 or so years old.

Hayhoe isn’t one of those. She studied astrophysics and quasars that are quite ancient; and as she notes, believing the Earth and universe to be young creates a pretty problematic understanding of God: “Either you have to believe that God created everything looking as if it were billions of years old, or you have to believe it is billions of years old.” In the former case, God would, in effect, seem to be trying to trick us.

But when it comes to talking to evangelical audiences about climate change, Hayhoe doesn’t emphasize the age of the Earth, simply because, she says, there’s no need. “When I talk to Christian audiences, I only show ice core data and other proxy data going back 6,000 years,” says Hayhoe, “because I believe that you can make an even stronger case, for the massive way in which humans have interfered with the natural system, by only looking at a shorter period of time.”

“In terms of addressing the climate issue,” says Hayhoe, “we don’t have time for everybody to get on the same page regarding the age of the universe.”

5. “Caring for our environment is caring for people.” Finally, Hayhoe thinks it is crucial to emphasize to evangelicals that saving the planet is about saving people…not just saving animals. “I think there’s this perception,” says Hayhoe, “that if an environmentalist were driving down the road…and they saw a baby seal on one side and they saw a human on the other side, they would veer out of the way to avoid the baby seal and run down the human.” That’s why it’s so important, in her mind, to emphasize how climate change affects people (a logic once again affirming the perception that the polar bear was a terrible symbol for global warming). And there’s bountiful evidence of this: The just-released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “Working Group II” report on climate impacts emphasizes threats to our food supply, a risk of worsening violence in a warming world and the potential displacement of vulnerable populations.

So is the message working? Hayhoe thinks so. After all, while only 44 percent of evangelicals may accept modern climate science today, she notes that that’s considerable progress from a 2008 Pew poll, which had that number at just 34 percent. Ultimately, for Hayhoe, it comes down to this: “If you believe that God created the world, and basically gave it to humans as this incredible gift to live on, then why would you treat it like garbage? Treating the world like garbage says a lot about how you think about the person who you believe created the Earth.”

Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist, podcaster and the host of Climate Desk Live. He is the author of four books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science.
  • submit to reddit
  • mark wyatt

    This speaks to the control the gop/big oil kabal have on the Christian church . I strongly believe a huge percentage of Christians now have been coerced into a false message and are actually the adverse of what it means to be a Christian . A true Christian could not vote for a party that openly hammers the poor and is endlessly hell-bent on giving the very top more. If you truly believe the earth is less than 6k years old and the dinosaurs were either myth or all existed in the 2000 years leading up to Gods flood , I can pretty much guarantee your a GOP auto-voter . This is the dupe , these are the people that will support big oil to the end .

  • Wildfawn

    The very rich have hijacked conservatives in this as they have in so many other things, using religion to convince them that a system that allows the rich to get richer is the right thing to have. So much of what is spewed by the propaganda as conservative Christian idealogy really isn’t if you’re not swallowing the nonsense and you think for yourself. Since when did Jesus think poor were worthless bums? Since when did Jesus say to let them go hungry, keep your money for yourself, don’t do anything to help them because they deserve what they’ve got? God gave us the gifts of the earth and the animals and specifically charged us with caring for them. I for one do not think abusing the gifts He’s given us with the excuse that we only need them for a bit longer and letting a few people get really really rich is worth it is going to go over very well with Him.

  • Larry Beaird

    Thank you Katherine, I too am an evangelical Christian who believes in Global Warming and that the is older than 6000 yrs. What a delight to see a Scientest who is a person of faith and science.

  • freeportguy

    Global warming denial is not a religious issue, it’s all about MONEY: 1) people not wanting extra cost or restrictions, especially on gas, 2) corporations not wanting any environmental restrictions or extra costs in their operations. Period.

  • Anonymous

    Larry, I guess you used the word “believe” here in a general sense, without reviewing its significance very closely. However, it is important to be specific in this. You believe in God and that is a matter of faith and faith alone. I’m sure you’ll be able to call up the relevant quote from one of St.Paul’s epistles. And in any case, Christ himself said “Blessed are they who believe without proof” (Acts).

    However, you cannot “believe” in Global Warming, because it is not a matter of faith. You accept, or reject, Global Warming on the basis of evidence presented to you.

    I believe it is this that confuses the issue for many Christians. They feel that they are asked to believe either the one or the other. Belief in Christ, then, seems to exclude “belief” in Global Warming. But of course, that is not the case. The two are neither mutually exclusive, nor antithetical. This is true on practical grounds, as Katherine Hayhoe has shown above, but also on philosophical grounds.

  • Linda Heer Baugh

    Wildfawn, my perspective is that we are one with the earth, universe, animals and all creation….I do not believe the earth and animals were “given” to us to “use”…we are all part of a system and when we abuse the system, all sentient beings suffer. One problem with the selfish, greedy destruction of our planet is that attitude that it’s ours to use…..instead of being part of the whole system. What we harm, ultimately harms us.

  • Garrett Brundage

    Money shouldn’t be an excuse though. Destroying the only planet we have to live on should be a big enough statement to overlook money and have people fight for whats right against those that don’t agree. If we don’t stop thinking about money, and start implementing environmental solutions now – its game over.

  • AnnaFrieda

    I think it is time to move ahead with drastic measures and do what needs to be done to save the planet, without regard to the religious community. If evangelicals find these drastic measures too bothersome, they can always pray for the lord to intervene.

  • jamiejoy

    It may not be a religious issue but this article gives excellent insight AND PRACTICAL ADVICE for how to communicate about the dangers we are facing and get more buy-in. Like she says, we don’t have time to correct the belief in a young earth–we all need to get on board to try and slow down and reverse the damage we are causing to our global home.

  • Common Sense

    The real reason why 36% of the population doesn’t believe in the global warming crisis narrative is lack of trust. The truth is everyone was very concerned about this issue. The problem is that Al Gore and the IPCC oversold the “crisis.” Since 1988 countless predictions of dire consequences, usually within the next ten years, have been made. Yet none of them have come to pass. At this point the people that don’t think that there is an impeding climate crisis aren’t going to listen to you. Can you blame them?

    In general I would say that anyone dumb enough to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old could be easily talked into anything. The fact that you guys are having so much trouble convincing these dullards speaks volumes regarding just how badly the Chicken Little predictions have damaged your credibility. Better luck next time….you will never get that trust back again. Next time…don’t overplay your hand.

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    Very recent technologic advance is shedding light on this (and other) controversial question(s). Below is an introduction; please get the fullest picture if you wish by googling “Climate Moderation Magnetic Interaction”. P.B.Heywood ex. Geol. Surv. Qld.
    1). No climate model as such exists, for the universally
    understandable reason that weather is a ‘chaos’ phenomenon. In fact, weather is the classic, widely
    quoted example of ‘chaos’ mathematics. Chaos mathematics, in some sense like
    pi, essentially solves at or near to infinity.
    I.e., only God can fully predict and ‘solve’ the weather. The Bible, of
    course, says the same.

    2). Global temperature
    being but one aspect of climate, it is not entirely unreasonable to
    attempt to predict temperature, or at least to investigate the control factors
    thereof. This implicates classical physics and ‘cutting edge’ quantum
    physics. We shall touch on the former
    with the note that the latter may throw a completely revolutionary light on the
    scene.

    3). According to classical physics, Earth vaguely
    approximates to a ‘blackbody’. In the
    case of theoretical ‘blackbody’, if we imagine it to be in isolation except for
    an external source of heat, and assume the body’s structure remains constant,
    then emission of heat from the body rises according to the 4th power
    in proportion to temperature. So, theoretically, the increase in heat given off
    in response to a tenfold temperature rise would be ten thousandfold. Earth of course having an atmosphere does not
    suffer such extreme effects. Living on
    the moon would be a different story!

    4). If we assume that relatively minor so-called greenhouse
    gases such as carbon gases, nitrous oxide, CFC’S etc., are a major greenhouse
    contributor – opinion remains divided here, although the satellite measurements
    of the wavelengths of re-radiated light and certain other ‘test tube’
    measurements are suggestive – then we have the prospect that the recent
    increase in CO2 from 0.0003 atmospheres to 0.0004 atm., partly due to human
    activity, could trigger a bank run style flow-on effect which proves
    catastrophic. This despite the ‘blackbody’ proportionately greater increase in
    re-emission. So there are reasons to
    take global warming seriously – even if Scripture and common sense tell us that
    Man is foolish to worry over matters which are ultimately beyond him.

    5). In the 4 thou. mill. yrs during which life reliant upon
    atmospheric carbon existed, by estimation of carbon bearing geologic deposits,
    of the order of 12 atmospheres equivalent pure CO2 was processed through our
    atmosphere and buried. This contrasts
    with the pre-industrial revolution level of 0.0003 atm. – near the level which
    must have been maintained as the minimum for life, 4 thou. mill. yrs. In that incomprehensible time, the sun
    certainly fluctuated in output to boot. Atmospheric carbon and temperature
    fluctuated, although, contrary to claims, there is no known way of getting
    accurate palaeocarbon or palaeotemperature readings. The Earth nevertheless did not run to totally
    destructive heat or cold in all that time – although as far as geologic
    documentation goes (not far!) it went close once or twice!

    6). The two seemingly worst epochs of climate
    difficulty – (Late
    Carboniferous-Permian and Late
    Cretaceous) were associated at least circumstantially with carbon – the names bear this out; (creta is
    latin for chalk); with extinction/renewal events (the former saw the advent of
    the dinosaurs; the latter, their near-extinction) ; and …….. with the two
    best documented periods of muted magnetic field reversal in documented
    geologic history.

    7). As an everyday but largely ignored fact, circulating
    conductors such as ion streams and salt water, cutting a magnetic field,
    generate a magnetic field. Therefore in
    fact our (circulating) atmosphere and oceans generate part of our magnetic
    field. What proportion, is unknown, but the statistics show
    correlation between ocean current strength and secular or time variation of the
    field. Yet another hitherto mysterious yet startling modern correlation exists between atmospheric carbon rise ––
    and fall of magnetic field cohesion (Earth is not a bar magnet as such but a
    collection of magnets which, when cohesive, act as a bar). And – not surprisingly – magnetic field
    reversal behaviour/frequency is of the ‘stochastic’ statistical category. ‘Stochastic’ is in the same family as
    ‘chaos’ — the statistics of
    climate/weather. So climate is linked to
    our magnetic field and our magnetic field links to the sun’s field.

    Full story at my on-line publications. Mainstream science, biblically based, staring us in the face. The Bible and science are as one on this and other totally significant topics.

  • Ryan Hofer

    lawrenceD, are you a climate scientist?

  • http://www.facebook.com/RPManke.solar RevPhil Manke

    In our decadent society, we have become used to instant gratification. In general, most of us have little concept of long term effects and concequenses. Central among our illusions is the concept that God is outside our mind, because we have accepted the belief that only form is real. In truth, we are responsible for what we see; how we see it. Those who believe God is apart from “the self” must accept that the world is His responsibility, and apart from our interaction and participation. The world we see is in our mind. It is our responsibility to bring correction here. There is no sin as most of us have learned it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/RPManke.solar RevPhil Manke

    In our decadent society, we have become used to instant gratification. In general, most of us have little concept of long term effects and concequenses. Central among our illusions is the concept that God is outside our mind, because we have accepted the belief that only form is real. In truth, we are responsible for what we see; how we see it. Those who believe God is apart from “the self” must accept that the world is His responsibility, and apart from our interaction and participation. The world we see is in our mind. It is our responsibility to bring correction here. There is no sin as most of us have learned it.

  • Common Sense

    There is just one problem with your plan. The U.S. Senate. As a group they don’t find your arguments convincing either. So until you change their minds (which is not going to happen) or vote them all out of office (good luck) no drastic measures will be passed (thankfully).

    Just for kicks you should look up the youtube videos of John Christy and Judith Curry’s testimony to the Senate. I think that there sincerity and integrity on this issue is plain to see.

  • Common Sense

    To be sure big oil and big coal do not want any restrictions on their operations. To claim that anyone that is skeptical of the global warming crisis is under the spell of these corporations is naive. Many sincere people have come to the conclusion that the CO2 warming scare has hijacked the environmental movement.

  • Common Sense

    So far nothing has happened. None of the dire predictions have come true. Not one. Twenty six years of doom and gloom claims that we are destroying our planet and nothing has happened. Yet your conclusion is that it is game over? How many more years of nothing happening would it take for you to question the current theory regarding CO2 levels and climate change?

  • JonThomas

    “Nothing has happened”?

    Glacier melt has increased, global avg. temps have risen, and the ocean is swallowing up long-stable islands.

    These affects are happening at a much greater rate than if it was only part of a natural warming cycle!

  • Common Sense

    Which islands did the ocean swallow up?

    I just did a google search…..I can’t find any reports of sea rise inundating any islands recently. I think you are confusing dire predictions with reality. As for global average temperatures. They have been flat for nearly 18 years which indicates a weak correlation to CO2 levels. Also the increase in temperature is within the error bars. The glaciers have been melting since we started coming out of the little ice age.

  • JonThomas

    First… swallowing… swallowing… ing… ING

    Then… imagine if there was some tool a person could use to do research… look-for motor? search machine? Ok, I apologize, I was going to go all out belittling… I’m having a personal issue lately… immediate sarcastic remarks springing to mind when reading comment boards…

    Here you go, I had nothing better to do, right?…

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/04/world/asia/nauru-ocean-danger/

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/09/06/environment/pacific-islands-fighting-for-survival-as-sea-levels-rise/#.U2Z7loFdVrY

    http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10?op=1#!Ikkw4

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/6-island-nations-threatened-by-climate-change/rising-anxiety

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131113130029.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Tuvalu

    http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NOWonPBS+(NOW+on+PBS)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/drowning-nations-sea-level-rise_n_1783931.html

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/climate-change-jan-june12-louisianacoast_05-30/

    And one for good measure…

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/south-florida-rising-sea-levels/

    Finally, again before we digress into ‘natural cycles’… yada, yada, yada… sure, admittedly there has been a slow change since the late 1800′s, and one must reasonably question if human activity was to blame at that time (who knows,) but the speed at which these areas are experiencing problems is increasing exponentially. The changes fit into the ‘chicken little’ predictions perfectly.

  • Common Sense

    “increasing exponentially”? That just isn’t true. It is interesting to me that someone whose ideas are as far removed from reality as you are is talking down to me. You implied that islands were currently being swallowed up by rising sea levels. Yet all the articles that you cite seem to point to a long term sea level rise and effects of that trend in the future.

    http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37cd65f0-802a-23ad-4a69-5a1509a4a551

  • AnnaFrieda

    Evangelicals are staunchly aligned with republicans who are aligned with corporations who are aligned with their almighty god, the dollar. As a strategy it would of course be much more beneficial to convince the religious community that climate change is real and a danger to life as we know it, which might persuade them to convince their republican politicians to adjust future votes on environmental issues, which might just force corporations to comply with new regulations. But I think all this will take too long and time is not on our side.

  • JonThomas

    Ahhh… editing after I posted and proved you wrong?!! Shame shame… I’m done… one last edit to my post below… you have shown what you are…

  • JonThomas

    Do you not understand gerund? I implied EXACTLY what I said! You are the one who read into my words from your obstructionist perspective.

    “Increasing exponentially” … ok, in all the fairness that you won’t offer… I shouldn’t have used the short-cut word ‘exponentially’. “Sea level is rising at an increasing rate.” http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

    Instead, I’ll have to do more of your work for you… the problem is that really, this information is public knowledge. If you were an earnest and honest person, you wouldn’t be nit-picking every detail, and which makes you look like a troll.

    In the original comment I replied to, you claimed… “nothing has happened.” Now, after you were called out on your ridiculous assertion, you are nit-picking as if hanging off a cliff, holding on to a quickly failing twig…

    Here you go, [ugh, I detest laziness, and even more so...willful, obstinate obstruction]… corrections to my ‘exponentially’…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html

    Poor misnamed poster, GPS is making your life difficult on this issue, huh?

    And… done!

    Sorry moderator… done with this exchange.

  • Common Sense

    Your name calling and insults speak volumes about you.

  • Common Sense

    Sea level rise has been happening at a steady rate since the end of the last glaciation. Long before rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

  • Common Sense

    I have no idea what you are talking about. If anyone wants to see who I am they can just click on my name and read my posts.

  • Common Sense

    Good thing it really isn’t a crisis. Since none of the dire predictions that have you worried have come true in the last 26 years why should they listen to you now?

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    “There is no sin as most of us have learned it.”

    I didn’t learn about sin: it comes, naturally. We have to learn about God, the God who is love, the God who created heavens and earth.

    Sin always has “I” in the middle of it. When “I” goes, the God of love and selflessness and personal satisfaction can step in.

    “I” worries itself sick over food and drink and personal security and thus over the future.

  • Invasive Evasion

    Religion fills a void in our superficial culture. People turn to religion to find the emotional comfort and social support which they cannot find elsewhere. If religion focused solely on these supportive functions, then it would be a positive influence. Unfortunately religion also attempts to pass off mythical stories from ancient cultures as science, and deeply flawed ancient cultural value systems as morality. The ancient Hebrews were ignorant and morally flawed people whose cultural beliefs are no more worthy of being placed on a pedestal than the culture of any other group of people, ancient or modern. This placing of blind faith in a pet ancient culture is where religion moves from being beneficial to incredibly harmful. All of the ancient cultural nonsense which poisons religion is completely unnecessary for its emotional and social functions. People need a source of comfort, but that source also needs to be compatible with facts and logic. Having a representative of science who can reach out to the religious community is beneficial, but ultimately a short term band-aid. The real solution is to uncouple the nonsense of ancient cultures from the pursuit of personal meaning and emotional comfort.

  • Invasive Evasion

    Instead of doing intellectual gymnastics to make bible stories “scientific,” why not just admit that the ancient Hebrews were ignorant people who invented stories to fill the gaping holes in their understanding of the natural world. You seem to have no problem eliminating the myths of every other culture in human history from your “science.” Just add one more, and then you can begin looking at science as a pursuit of truth, rather than a justification for nonsense.

  • Invasive Evasion

    The real reason is a combination of several factors:
    1. Most of the population is scientifically illiterate.
    2. For any complex topic such as global climate systems, correcting lies is a defensive game in which defenders of truth are always multiple steps behind lying propagandists. Defending a complex truth is always much more difficult than simply pulling lies out of your rear end.
    3. Right wing propaganda is incredibly well funded and effective at harnessing anger and appealing to ignorance.

    The IPCC has been incredibly cautious and has not oversold the crisis. It’s very difficult to simplify a complex scientific argument to the point where it is compatible with the sound bite media industry, and the typical short attention span of media consumers. Without some degree of oversimplification, and emphasizing specific consequences, the message is completely lost on the public.

  • Invasive Evasion

    Global warming is the largest environmental crisis humanity has created for itself. The dire predictions are true, and continue to unfold right in front of our faces.

  • Invasive Evasion

    No, the natural world doesn’t care what we believe, whether we believe in imaginary beings, or whether we even exist. This planet was around for 4.5 billion years before humans evolved, and would continue to exist for probably another 4 or 5 billion years if we destroyed ourselves. The question is, are we wise enough to keep it inhabitable for ourselves, or will we destroy it through our foolish short sighted self serving actions.

  • Invasive Evasion

    You are right that the source of the issue is protecting corporate profits, for the fossil fuel industries. But when that corporate profit issue gets played out in the public arena of politics, then religious people (along with every other conceivable demographic group) become a player.

  • Invasive Evasion

    I give you credit for trying. If his denial is from sincere misinformation, then you have a chance of changing his mind. If he’s a right wing ideologue, then it’s wasted effort.

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    “…. intellectual gymnastics to make bible stories “scientific,”"

    I was attempting to teach geology/origins in a classroom — being of mainstream geologic background –and the intellectual gymnastics were so painfully baffling, I got on my knees so to speak to find how it could be done. The answer to how it can be done was right there, in the Bible — coupled with mainstream science. No more intellectual gymnastics! Before rushing into print, it might pay to find facts. E.g, the facts that almost all respected foundational scientists, Bacon to Einstein, were creationist in the dictionary meaning and some specifically stated that the facts they uncovered were given to them by divine inspiration. Furthermore, it might be good policy to actually investigate what people have written and desist from telling the world how they got it wrong, having never investigated what they are supposed to have got wrong!

    When people out there desire to learn of important matters such as eternal destiny or even the lesser matter of climate control, they aren’t going to be too fussed on hearing it from someone who implies that the tiny race of people with the outlandish tally of nobel prizes, who were foundational to the advance of science and christianized civlization, are fundamentally deceived/ignorant.

  • Common Sense

    So when Al Gore said that the Arctic would be ice free in seven years….was that the truth? Do you have any idea just how many similar predictions have been made since the early 1980′s? None of them have come true. Not one. In the last thirty years nothing unusual has happened. Zero. Nada. It is time to wake up. You have been had.

  • Common Sense

    More name calling? What do you make of Michael Crichton? How about John Christy?

  • Common Sense

    The IPCC has been incredibly cautious? Seriously? Have you heard what John Christy has to say about the IPCC?

  • Larry Mutter

    How about a simpler explanation,they are idiots living in the 1st century,the same wonderful people who brought us the Inquisition,300 yrs of death penalty for any type of belief in Science

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    Belief in sciences, eh? Let’s display a belief in the science of reading straightforward history. Your entry is so breathtakingly void of anything factual, it must be a real burden to any moderator to decide whether to allow it.

  • Anonymous

    I was floored by your statement that you don’t think there is a concerted organized effort to lie to people about climate change. Have you not heard of the Heartland Institute? I urge you to check them out. They have sent a package of materials out to every school teacher, college professor, and news agency in America containing bogus science trying to prove that climate change is a hoax. I’ve had many college professors hand me their packages. I can show you one. I’m going to try to listen to the rest of your interview, but on that note, you have already lost me.

  • Larry Mutter

    So you are also an Inquisition denier

  • Anonymous

    Nice think about science. It doesn’t matter what you believe or accept. It just is.

  • Anonymous

    Science doesn’t look for trust or common sense. Science just is.

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    Read my reply to Larry below and apply it to your entry. In the immortal words (paraphrased) of Oliver Cromwell to elements of the non-conformist ‘rump’ parliament: “Brethren: in the bowels of Jesus Christ: Did it ever cross your minds you could be mistaken?”

  • Common Sense

    Well I believe the point of the article was how to convince bible thumpers that global warming was real. Trust would play a huge role in that conversation.

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    To be honest, — and good luck to you, anyway — I’m not totally sure of what you are trying to say. Perhaps you have some private experience that puts a contrary slant on things. I was merely referring to the facts of history and the world about us. You seem to have heard of an Inquisition. For first hand experience, duck over to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Or N. Korea. Or even perhaps get a whiff of it from the dark past over in Ukraine. Land of the progrom, then, the land of the Gulag.

    Notice anything about those sorts of places? Excluding in small part Ukraine, vehemently anti-’evangelical’ christian. The Bible a criminal book. Evangelicals are made to be tortured and killed. Climate change? Only if it lines the pockets of the ruling elite.

    The facts of history are that the Inquisition’s purpose, through infiltration of the ‘mafia’, temporarily came to be that of anti-evangelicalism, the rooting out of evangelical christianity and the removal of Holy Writ from the face of the Earth. Stalinism/emperor worship. Man his own gangster God.

    Whatever you are talking about, you don’t seem to have talked about? Cheers.

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    So, explain to us all in clear English as she is spuck, the obvious mathematically based science (and science is mathematics, not politics and religion, and not the way you or I feel when we get out of bed in the morning, and it’s certainly not the basis for criminal slander of honest businessmen –) explain to us, mathematics, one plus one, what caused the lack of ice in the Arctic region approx. 6,000 yrs past, humans presumably here by then but not doing much more than campfires, definitely no coal mines — what caused the lack of ice in the Arctic about 6,000 yrs past as evidenced by wave-formed not ice formed beach deposits (classed as ‘ridges’) N. Greenland, which may be seen by you and I today? The only possible question mark being the precision of the dating, which is a side issue in the circumstances. The CO2 level 6,000 yrs ago? Surprise, surprise, going on ice cores — which have their own problems, but never mind — ice cores, if accurate, which they possibly aren’t — ice cores indicate lower CO2 than today. No Arctic ice for a sufficient time to allow wave-formed, large beach ridges. Geologic Survey of Norway, signed and sealed, been published for years. That’s only the tip of the iceberg. No humour intended.

  • NotARedneck

    Larry is 100% correct. Right wing fundamentalist imbeciles have been the bane of civilization of millennia.

  • Larry Mutter

    Despite your historical digress,the Inquisition ,the torture of heretics,i.e. anyone who expresses an opinion contrary to the Church went on for centuries,killing thousands.No one is justifying the above mentioned atrocities,merely pointing out that Christians have been willing and enthusiastic participants,and I stand my original thesis,anyone who denies climate change on the grounds that somehow a God is involved is seriously deluding themselves.

  • NotARedneck

    “The real reason why 36% of the population doesn’t believe in the global warming crisis narrative is lack of trust.”

    No, the real problem in the US is that right wing criminal scum determined 4 to 5 decades ago, that to promote their racist, tax evading philosophy required the gutting of public education. Most Americans were only too willing to cooperate with this because, due to the wealth existing at that time, they really didn’t value education. Chickens ——> roost.

  • flora68

    “….millions of Americans are evangelical Christians and their belief in the
    science of global warming is well below the national average.” Face it; their belief in a heliocentric universe is below average. Their understanding that women, gays, and racial or ethnic minorities are created equal to straight white men is below average. And those who cling to the belief that the universe is roughly 6,000 years old have a WAY below average grasp of science and scientific method in general. That’s a tricky population to educate, especially when they’ve been buried in lies. But I admire and appreciate what Katharine Hayhoe is trying to do and I wish her well, even though the cards are kinda stacked in favor of fantasy vs reality in this area.

  • ooskaloosa

    “Clear English”. That’s hilarious coming from you.

  • JonThomas

    Well, I can’t speak from the ‘down side’, but I think I can give you an honest answer about why the switch isn’t, and won’t be happening soon.

    Basic economics and human greed.

    The infrastructure built around fossil fuels represents an investment from which driving interests are not willing to walk away.

    From the drilling industry, to the refining industry, to the consumer-level delivery methods, and every other step along the way, there is so much invested that it is cheaper for the existing players to fight tooth and nail against clean renewable energy than it is to switch.

    And really, if you’ve noticed, there was a time when these vested interests fought against even the feasibility of renewables.

    However, now that the price efficiency points are getting closer and closer, you don’t hear so much about the supposed worthlessness of renewables. Why? Because the same groups invested in fossil fuels are ready to switch over as soon as the costs break even.

    Remember a few years ago, when under former President Bush, gasoline prices soared to over $5/Gal. at the pump? Investors such as Mr. T. Boone Pickens made headlines for investing in, and praising the value and potential of wind energy.

    However, as soon as gasoline prices dropped… not a word.

    See, it’s the same as with climate change. The deniers will cry… “hoax”… and they will deny, deny, deny. However, as soon as the price point of clean energy surpasses the fixed investment and maintenance costs of fossil fuels, watch the pendulum swing!

    You had better duck, because all these nay sayers will jump on the clean energy band wagon faster than you can say… “Greedy, hypocritical, planet-killing dirt bags!”

    All the true believers that bought into the “climate change is a hoax” propaganda will be left behind like yesterday’s newspapers. Even FOX news will be the asses pulling the wagon, and through an amazing couple-of-year transformation of trickling-in commentary like…

    Joe Liar: “hey, did you hear about…?”
    Frank Lee A. Taleteller: ” Yeah, If so-and-so is doing it, maybe it will become something… but not yet…”

    To…

    Blonde D. Sweetvoice: “I can remember when I was young [she's 30,] us young people always knew renewables would amount to something once the job creators got a hold of it…

    Don A. Newhat: “Yep, back when the dirty hippies were selling solar panels and wind turbines they were selling inferior products. Back then the dems were scamming the public for subsides. But now that the heroes of industry are involved, I can trust them to make it work.

    Clean energy will be news, and any country trying to sell fossil fuels will be the in-vogue, convenient pariahs.

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    The downside is telling all those Chinamen to go back to hand cultivation of rice. Dashed hard on the back. Ever tried it? We could try going back to horses but they produce methane. Right now the world price of wheat is up because of shortage and if farmers such as myself don’t plant, people who type in blog entries will have growling bellies. They might just wish to kill me, for not planting. There are no existing viable methods of large scale agriculture by electrical powered machinery. I spent a few days recently hoeing weeds and you are welcome to join the fun. You might need some especially tall weeds to hide in after confiscating the neighbours’ cars and telling them they are to walk. Not to mention turning off their indoor heaters and coolers.
    Clean air, we are all for it. Carbon dioxide and methane, incidentally, are colorless, odorless gases which are absolutely essential to our existence.

  • Hawkroad

    “Treating the world like garbage says a lot about how you think about the person who you believe created the Earth.”
    I guess so! And everyone that believes in the Creator also thinks that they will be facing him at the end of their lives for judgement. How do you think the Creator is going to feel about what we let happen to his creation?
    It’s sort of like house-sitting for someone, and while they’re gone you party down with all your friends, burn down the house, get the chainsaw out and cut the trees in the yard, sell his livestock and eat what you don’t sell, and put his old granny in an abusive nursing home. We were given free will. We were not given the right to trample over everything and everyone else’s rights.
    We are the caretakers of the Earth. Not the owners.

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    Having actually studied the geologic record as distinct from cracked records, and having actually attempted to think — you could try it — there are several possibilities regarding the lack of Arctic ice a few thousand years ago. (It seems to have happened more than once in the past few million yrs, — there are beaver fossils on Ellesmere Is. — these things aren’t easily catalogued): 1) Change in ocean current; 2) Greater CO2 than at present but not picked up because ice core analyses not accurate; 3) Either CO2 a red herring or some additional factor influences temperature.
    So the geologic record of the Arctic proves nothing except that nothing has been proved. We do know that the ice cores are not diagnostic and in fact one expert analyst says they are likely to be off the mark in terms of palaeocarbon. Nothing in geology gives better hope at this stage than ice, for atmospheric recordings. So the entire premise upon which all these cracked records are playing is mostly cracked records. There are no unquestionably reliable palaeotemp. and palaeocarbon records! If you desire references and facts, say on. There are nevertheless conclusions which may be drawn re. climate, obvious to anyone. The only reassurance from a totally trustworthy source nevertheless is the Bible. And it doesn’t say things are necessarily going to be smooth, by any means. But it heads off the little Stalins, the little Hitlers, and the big headaches from cracked records.

  • Jim LaBelle

    The downside is that plants need carbon dioxide to live. If you bring down the levels of carbon dioxide, plants grow slower. If plants grow slower, you will not be able to grow enough to feed the world. Eventually everybody dies.

  • Mike

    Its not just that they are buried in lies. Most of them are members of cults and have all the psychological markers of it.

  • Mike

    ‘Most of us are smarter than she is.’

    Yeah ok buddy.

  • PaulaQ

    Tooo funny! Once upon a time ther was a dummy with sunspots where his brain was supposed to be……….no one cared.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds like modern day Islam.

  • http://www.facebook.com/RPManke.solar RevPhil Manke

    Your opinion of all others beliefs is flawed. Most fundamentalists may think this way, but their many ways to see Creation. That is the main difference in choice. To believe God is outside your mind is the primary mistake, and that is all. Just a mistake. “Sin” is a belief established by early churches to establish themselves as the “forgiveness go-to-guys”. God, dispite early written stories, did not make it. Ego did! And the ego is still running the mind of the separated self. God is in your mind. It is not debatable. He is not outside yourself, or “up there”. Neither is their a “devil”. That is a construct of the ego to make wrong decisions “not within our control”. It is an insane concept. You may also choose to deny what I have said, but you cannot change it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/RPManke.solar RevPhil Manke

    Sounds like your Granny recognized her “Spiritual Self”, something that has been denied by many today. Our crazy national economy is far from truth in the real world, and your Granny probably knew it. She accepted her blessings, given to everyone, and you may also. Also, know that all renewable energy is not a scam. It works quite good for me, and I am very frugal. on fb; practical solar water heating, and web; atthebridge-practicalsolardotcom.

  • http://www.facebook.com/RPManke.solar RevPhil Manke

    That’s just BS,Jim. There is plenty CO2 for plants at 350 PPM. We have been systematically been destroying plant life while raising CO2 levels (and climate change). There are many other pollutants that enter with rising CO2 levels, and they will end life long before any over abundance of CO2 itself.

  • http://www.facebook.com/RPManke.solar RevPhil Manke

    The application of ones ego for memory selection is the killer. Most “wrong decision makers” decide on a desired outcome first, and then seek for evidence to support that first, and wrong, decision. This includes the “right wingnuts” today.

  • Anonymous

    If the plants can’t grow due to heat waves, droughts, floods and increasingly violent weather, not to mention the economic/social upheavals from food and water shortages and displaced populations, many more people will die. Anyway, the increased CO2 levels over the norm for millions of years isn’t suddenly making crops grow like beanstalks — they’ve grown just fine for thousands of years without our extra CO2.

  • Anonymous

    The cost of global warming will dwarf these considerations. 1) Prices are controlled by the industry anyway — has the domestic boom in hydrofracking resulted in a huge drop in prices? Transportation is only one component of greenhouse gas emissions and technology is already making it less and less polluting. 2) It has been proven that environmental restrictions doesn’t add significantly, if at all, to production costs. In any case, the health and environmental costs should be required to be factored into production costs. As it stands, taxpayers foot the bill via healthcare costs and toxic cleanups.

    Climate change is similar to chronic disease — we know dietary/lifestyle changes can prevent many disorders but unfortunately choose not to act.

  • Anonymous

    Greenhouse gases are necessary to life, in the right proportions, which we are exceeding. Water is also essential to life but too much can kill you. We can get greenhouse gas emissions down to acceptable levels without going back to horses, the technology exists or is being developed. Horse breeders and blacksmiths probably gave dire predictions with the advent of the automobile.

  • Jim LaBelle

    I don’t know if you ever read any of Carl Sagan’s books, but he was one of the first people to talk about global warming. He died about 20 years ago but was the most notable scientist in the country. Anyway, in his book “Billions and Billions”, he talks about the rain forests being cut down which account for about 35% of the worlds oxygen. He predicted that we start running out of oxygen when the population hits about 10 Billion people if we continue to keep cutting down the forest at the rate we have been. I have a friend that uses CO2 to make his plants grow quicker. There is only .3% CO2 in the atmosphere. We really don’t know how much increasing the CO2 levels by 10% helps plant growth. We do know that right now we are able to produce enough food to feed everyone despite the increase in population. We could not do it 20 years ago.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, but when searched for the section, there’s was nothing to be found in the Bible in regard to Climate Science and what to do in case of unnatural amounts of green house gases catastrophically changing the natural course of the weather. But it did say something about it getting cold in the winter and hot in the summer with varying weather and temperatures in between. And something about some guy named Noah getting condamned by the Jesosuar riders for suggest that a change in the weather was coming and that folks should take it seriously. Sorry, but Noah was right then and now. So maybe you should climb back on your chicken and take your useless get out of hell free cards with you.

  • Anonymous

    Then you are explicitly saying that it is a sin to be concerned about the well being of your grandchildren’s children since that would concern food, drink and security in the future of a personal matter.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, but the are no Ice Records to be found in the Bible, or any palaeocarbon records. Please specify the chapter and verse you keep referring to as containing atmospheric information that disclaims climate change.

  • Anonymous

    Doing one or two dumb things, like forgetting that your keys are in your pocket, or putting your foot in your mouth on occasion, comparing a mile to your little toe and measuring it with a toothpick, or claiming to be an all knowing oracle of fact and prophecy doesn’t necessarily make one stupid, but it’s always wise to allow for exceptions

  • Anonymous

    Piety is colorless and odorless too. Is it absolutely essential to our existence?

  • Anonymous

    Definitely not the owners. Caretakers is a stretch. Maybe we’re good for getting DNA of the planet and into deep space, but the Earth will do fine without us. We’re just guests.

  • Anonymous

    The major oil companies give more revenue to the treasury than they make.. i.e. Exxon Mobil reported 484 billion in revenue of which they paid approx 41 billion in taxes & with a net income of 39 billion. What is the treasury going to do without all the tax money. This is not to count the huge amount of taxes all their 100′s of thousands employees pay..There are huge amount of capital available for investment into economically feasible alternative sources of energy.. huge amount. so if there is a great source it would be supported. What % of the current energy is from solar & wind.. Very little & very expensive.

  • Anonymous

    In my many years of practicing a Christian life & active in the church I do not recall our many congregations discussing fossil fuels or big oil. I will admit that we study the Lords word & discuss & guard against false teachings..I for one have not been convinced that factually global warming is man made. The predictions by their scienitific supporter have not come true.. Not one.. Like the folks in Wash who have misrepresented facts to us.. Many of us don’t believe them anymore.. It is hard to regime trust.. I am not closed minded on the subject but its going to take something to regain the credability of the folks whose trust your group lost. Christians & conservatives are by far the greatest contributors to charity even tho the Liberals have folks of great wealth as well. VP Biden filled taxes with earnings of 400,000 dollars.. gave all of 500 to charity. What a shameful example of a national leader.

  • JonThomas

    Nelson, let’s go out on that ledge and assume that you’re a well meaning guy who fell for the corporate public-relations propaganda.

    What gives me the confidence to say that are 2 things…

    1. I like to see the good in others. It goes against my nature to see everyone as part of the evil, lie-producing crowd…. besides, we are so surrounded by such evil, if I didn’t see the good in others I wouldn’t see the need to carry on.

    2. Your phrasing.

    See, when average, salt-of-the-earth people speak of the taxes they pay, they are referring to income tax. Usually, unless specified, they mean federal income tax.

    Your phrasing uses the words… “treasury,” and “revenue.”

    However, when the Public-Relations department of Exxon-Mobile announces their tax burden, in an effort to shine the company as a good public citizen…. they obfuscate.

    In fact, ‘Exxon-Mobile pays an effective tax rate of about 1/2 of the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate.’ And… in 2009, they didn’t pay any federal income taxes at all… http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-oil-companies-really-pay-in-taxes/2011/05/11/AF7UNutG_story.html

    That same article points out that; unlike you and I when we speak of what we pay at the end of the year, ‘they count everything… federal, state, local property taxes. Even payroll, sales, and gas taxes.’ “Exxon Mobil’s tax rate is ‘lower than the average American’s.’”

    Further, there’s a problem when comparing what a company pays in taxes and what they report as profit. For one thing, your comment follows the ‘good-corporate-citizen’ formula spouted by the company’s PR dept. However, when a real citizen pays taxes… THEY PAY the TAXES.

    When a business pays taxes, just like rent, utilities, and every other item of overhead, it’s already been factored in as a cost of doing business. Exxon Mobil didn’t really pay a dime… THE CUSTOMERS PAID THOSE TAXES!!!

    It’s really insincere to compare profit to taxes as if it where some burden upon the company. And… it’s a lie (intentional or not) to infer that it went into the “treasury” as “revenue”.

    Doing research to counter evil is getting tiresome. We didn’t even cover the subsides they, a profitable company, receive.

    Honest people shouldn’t be so lazy. Before any person posts such misleading information, they should look it up. Please wake up. Please stop falling to the evil. This world has enough bad in it, why make it worse?

  • dash_bannon

    This article seemed to me that one has to talk down to an Evangelical Christian like they’re children who believe in Santa. We have to tip toe on egg shells to get their approval on whether global warming is real or not. What kind of way is that to live?

  • Earl Shaff

    This is proof that the Sun is
    absolutely in control of the heating and cooling of Planet Earth.
    The lies and fraudulent claims that have been made were leading to a
    World Socio-economic disaster. These actual numbers are basic
    Physics and applied Thermodynamics. This does not even consider that
    CO2 is a fraction of crude when consumed.

    Consumed Crude Fuel Energy per Day
    = 87,000,000 Barrel/Day X 5,800,000 Btu/Barrel X
    1055Joule/Btu = 5.32 X 1017 Joule/Day

    Sun Energy/ Day
    = 1.279 X 1014m2
    X 1400watts/m2
    X 60sec/ min X
    60min/hr X 24hr/day

    = 1.547 X 1022
    Joule/day

    Divide
    1.547 X 1022
    / 5.32 X 1017
    = 29,078.9 as the ratio of the Suns Energy to the consumed daily
    crude World Wide.

  • Anonymous

    The point I was trying to make is the govt needs those tax dollars from the oil & coal industry or what are they going to replace them with. I do believe in a profit motive society companies are greedy… that is a given. There are two objectives in business.. l. make a profit.. 2. Stay in business. Right now we more companies failing than starting up. Yes Corporate taxes are passed on as “cost of goods or services sold” & we are individuals can not do that. The whole corporate tax question is : Are we competitive with world corporate taxes to keep businesses here.. today no. The whole corporate tax code has needed to be addressed. Govt is responsible for forming & enforcing laws of commerce.. but they end up being in bed with industry members for campaign money if not given they can extort funds from them by calling of the govt watch dogs..Evil..yes it is tiring & disgusting to establish what & who is doing what & who to whom..I’ve idealistically expected govt to be more forth right & honest in enforcing the laws of the land. They have let us all down. We now have 6 huge banks that they allowed to merge & acquire when I feel they should have been broke up .. just one example Looking for facts on PBS can be frustrating when Moyers has a guy on who stated without supporting evidence that the world oil companies received 1.9 Trillion dollars in subsidies… REALLY?? Moyer did not even question his figure..this too is a form evil… Thank you for your comments.

  • JonThomas

    Okie dokie… Just keep in mind that switching to renewables is just that… switching. The tax revenue received from the old is replaced by the new.

    Please remember, that posting misleading information to make a point is still a form of lying.

    A further thought… if you can’t make a society work without tax revenues from poison, then what does that tell you about the type of people you are? … Just saying…

    As far as the banks… same thing… If you bailed out a thieving industry which literally destroyed the world economy… what type of people are you?

  • JonThomas

    I’m curious… where do you stand on how a greenhouse works? Does the sun play a role? Are there any factors which cause the temperature in the greenhouse to rise, compared to an equal area outside of the greenhouse, besides just the sun?

    How about a greenhouse frame with no material covering the frame?

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    On almost every blog you get people who are interested in communication and in learning. Then you get people who are interested in showing the world they can type. Follow it up in your case by showing the world you can read. I won’t be copying and pasting the rheems of ‘paper’ published elsewhere, to save you the trouble of learning how to google — outside a bathtub, in a bathtub, or under the bathtub. Talking about weather — are you under that as well?

  • moderator

    Philip,

    Please make your points without personal attacks. If you cannot do so, your comments will be deleted.

    Sean @ Moyers

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    “Piety” look something like your brains? Which obviously aren’t essential to your existence. Remarkable advances in human morphology! Since there are people who have an interest in the universe and our place and proper function within it, I will quote that which technology has now made plain. May as well begin at the beginning. The deductions of cosmologists are in the square brackets. OOYAH’s keep in mind, “virtual” is the status of certain mental faculties which have possible future capacity but no content as yet; “inflation” is why you have more money in your pocket than you counted (incorrectly) yesterday; and if you wantum a “quantum” you are a red Indian with speech impediment. Ah, no, quantum physics is how things really happen. Having to do with the subatomic. Keep that in mind and you will understand as much as ever. OOYAH’s — Help yourself now by making a Big Bang! (No, don’t drop your computer.)

    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.[Creation of space-time].

    2 And the earth [Man's reference point, existing in the virtual sense at this stage] was without form, and void [intense organizational capacity, initially without any structure and presumably without even mass] ; and darkness [the initial universe was either invisible or opaque] was upon the face of the deep [very distant analogy to an ocean] . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face [surface/cutting edge] of the waters [the intense information/energy then begins to take on fluid characteristics -- embryonic matter!].

    3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.[Electromagnetic radiation kicked in: universe became visible].

    4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness [a complete and baffling mystery to this day -- why is there darkness? What are 'dark energy' and 'dark matter"? Was this where gravity and quantum dynamics were separated and distinguished from one another, having previously been unified(???) ].

    6 And God said, Let there be a firmament [expanse/ongoing expansion] in the midst of the waters [fluid characteristics], and let it divide the waters from the waters [ubiquitous inflation and concurrent segregation of future or virtual galaxial masses] .”

    My addend: God, of course, couldn’t possibly know anything about the weather, nor express himself in terms of modern physics? Every drop of rain, the scriptures imply, has a hint of the ‘big bang’ in it. Quantum physics is of the same opinion. All documented, published, today.

  • moderator

    Please avoid personal attacks. If your comment includes one it will be deleted.

    Sean @ Moyers

  • Anonymous

    To paraphrase Matthew 5:35 “The Earth is the footstool of God.”

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    To save the Moderator (my compliments to him) from doing things he doesn’t wish to do, since the Moderator and indeed no-one else wishes to see you being reprimanded, if you are indeed serious about facts — some people do attempt to dabble in facts — simply google my full name or the term, “Climate Moderation”, go from there, and come back and give us all the relevant parts of the Bible- plus the geophysics etc.. My publications are usually top under terms such as that — usually top under ‘Questions Arising, Species Origin’, sometimes top under “Lunar Origin”, almost always top under “Creation Theory”, etc.. The people at GOOGLE need to get things accurate. When you can sustain a top ranking under a significant title for a decade or more, you are possibly somewhere near the money. If you get serious, I can do likewise. But desist from telling me everything that’s wrong about items you obviously have not read.

  • Frank N. Blunt

    The greenhouse model is wrong. Why isn’t the lack of convection considered? The actual & sole source of energy? Among many problems with this model that make it bunk or simplistic when applied to the dynamic activities happening on this planet that require external forces. You can’t isolate Earth from the Sun since insolation has definitely changed. Beside that problem, many other confounding factors are ignored as well as whom benefits from the sham.

  • Frank N. Blunt

    None of it is ‘clean’. Material extraction, environmental degradation, habitat loss, manufacturing processeses, waste material, maintenance, whom actually profits, … true life cycle assessments are rare in considering all factors & issues.

  • Frank N. Blunt

    Check your math.

  • Frank N. Blunt

    How do you know what happened before supposed recorded (use some data but disregard confounding factors & opposing evidence) history that makes current weather any worse than ever? People put themselves into known hazardous areas (coastlines, tornado zones, floodplains, landslide prone, remove ecosystems & barriers, destroy habitats, …) ignore history & warnings about imminent disaster. Nothing is any different, people are purposefully ignorant because they will get bailed out & desire pity as supposed innocent victims so they can indebt others for their benefit, which means a perpetual cycle of insanity which indulges those that get hooked up to continue as they have if not better & disparity for those that are innocent but get betrayed. Much of this climate scam is greenwashing, obfuscation, & perverted policy.

  • JonThomas

    Perhaps I’m getting old and slow. There’s a few things unclear from your comment.

    How has the Earth been isolated from the sun?

    As far as convection… I suppose you mean outward convection, and not inward convection.

    Again, it’s been a while since I’ve been in school, but if I was to place a piece of metal heated to 90 degrees centigrade, consisting of a specific size and mass, directly atop, and in full contact with another piece of metal, heated to 50 degrees centigrade, consisting of a specific size and mass, and measured the convection rate… then repeated the process, this time the first piece of metal is heated to 110 degrees centigrade… would the convection rate increase?

    How about if there was an insulator with a certain r value between the pieces of metal, that while allowing convection, slowed it down so that the convection equalization was not fully achieved before the first piece of metal received a secondary heating. Would an aggregate warming above the experiential starting point occur in the first pieces of metal of either beginning temperature?

    And pray tell, who is it you see benefiting from global warming warnings?

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    Are you familiar with the ‘faint early sun paradox”? The physicists all agree that a star such as our sun generates 1/3 -1/4 less heat for the first thou. mill.yrs or so. Something to do with nuclear fusion. There was plenty of running water on planet Earth back then, yet the heat from the sun theoretically was not sufficient to allow it. Some geologists put it down to an early greenhouse effect, although there are other obvious possibilities.

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    I am no physicist but if we look at planets with no atmosphere they do act something like a lump of metal. I looked up WIKIPEDIA and discovered that as temperature of a theoretical ‘blackbody’ (such as a stand alone lump of metal) rises, the amount of extra heat emitted per unit increase in temperature, rises by the power of 4. Increase temp. tenfold, extra re-emission rises tenthousandfold. The reverse of course will also hold true. Greenhouse effect when atmospheres are introduced. The question becomes the ‘enhanced greenhouse’, How much enhancement? Problem being the Earth does not fit in a test tube. And, obviously, the sun can not be left out of the equation because stars are not necessarily constant heat emitters. To top it off, stellar nuclear fusion as occurs in the sun, cannot be accurately replicated on Earth. There could be all sorts of as yet undisclosed factors. Man is right out of his depth here, playing with mathematics that only solves at or near infinity. There could even be an entirely new method of heat transfer besides convection, conduction, radiative, whatever?

  • JonThomas

    Did you read the pages in that NASA link at the bottom of my post?

    I thought they gave an excellent explanation of how the natural greenhouse effect works to keep the heat radiation emissions level.

    Then, on the 3rd page they went even further, explaining in exquisite detail the reasons we should act decisively to be good stewards of the Earth.

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    Yes, NASA is quite polished. I would assume their mathematics and measurements are reliable as far as they go. If you will overlook the digression: there is a principle in the investigation of Nature. It was well expressed by King Alfonso 10th of Castille (1221 — 1224). After being briefed at length by the astronomers he gathered together to (unsuccessfully) get the planetary navigation tables clarified — under the old ptolemaic or geocentric system — he observed: “If the Deity had asked my advice, these things would have been better arranged”. There are many items of physics and mathematics I find way out there beyond me; but the Creation is never inherently self-contradictory. We may ask the question, along with Alfonso: “If I were designing this, what would I do?” And apply simple common sense.
    NASA appears to be saying that CO2 of itself and alone (but in conjunction with other factors) governs the temperature. Consider this: I have a planet which is to go 4 thou. mill. yrs. without ruinous temperature extremes. In that time of the order of 12 atmospheres equivalent pure CO2 will be processed through the atmosphere and buried in the strata. CO2 must always remain above roughly 0.0002 atm(?). to allow vegetable life to continue and to stop totally disastrous planetary freezing(?) and will be at about 0.0003 atm. when Man comes along. Man will be able to re-extract enough buried carbon to perhaps double that figure(?)
    Fine balance? Too much CO2 — according to NASA, runaway high temperatures: too little, perhaps runaway low temperatures — and the extinction of life due to lack of atmospheric carbon. Fine balance? Here is the punch line.

    There are two and only two known ways of keeping up the carbon supply. Donation from other bodies of Space — comets /atmospheres of other planets —- and volcanic activity. Our climate was governed with the necessary level of fine tuning, whilst the sun fluctuated as all stars do, 4 thou. mill yrs. — life continued and our climate was delicately balanced and managed –by volcanoes and comets. NASA doesn’t believe that any more than would King Alfonso.

    There is a thermostat built into the system, staring us in the face. The data are coming home very nicely.

    NASA did top work esp. the moon landings. Some time past I almost accidentally got involved in teaching Origins. When the solar system came along (Day 4 in the Bible) I scribbled something down, and being a geologist saw something (I should say, it was given to me to see something) which solved the existing puzzlement. It was just plain common sense, like a temperature governor. I sent it to people such as NASA, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, etc, who went back to sleep. Over the past decade or two the data came home very nicely. At the time of writing, my paper is second only to the WIKIPEDIA waffle, under “Lunar Origin”, on my brand of GOOGLE (Qld. Australia). The same will presumably happen with climate.

  • Earl Shaff

    The factor of Energy that the Sun radiates to earth is overwhelming and these numbers I posted are not reflecting that CO2 is another factor of roughly less than 29,000. So, it then comes to a factor of roughly 58,000. This number is absolutely staggering to any honest scientist… No true Physicist can be honest and support the Fraud that is being promoted….

  • Earl Shaff

    I do hope that the scientist who allowed emotions instead of actual science to prevail will realize how wrong that they are.

  • JonThomas

    Thank you for your reply, but I’m sorry, you digressed too far for me to continue a practical discussion I’ll stick with the NASA science.

    This issue is too serious to get involved with parenthetical fancy.

  • Total Legend

    World wide, billions of dollars a year are spent to try and convince people on climate change and global warming. And a lot of money is made to convince everyone global warming is made by man.

    They’re taking something that occurs naturally which is natural climate change and declaring it to be a crisis and then offering to sell us all a solution in exchange for our obedience and our carbon tax money by buying and selling carbon tax credits. Back in the 1990s when the world was going through a warming trend they were talking about global warming, human caused global warming, and they specifically targeted carbon dioxide because that could be linked to human activity, but the fact is carbon dioxide is not the worst greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, in fact recent NASA research says it actually tends to act more like a coolant. Water vapor is by far the most powerful greenhouse agent in the atmosphere but you’re not going to get people to pay a “cloud tax”.

    Then you have methane which is 10 times as potent as CO2 in greenhouse effects but most methane comes from deep crust microbes and termites which are life forms that are far too intelligent to listen to Al Gore. They sell us on carbon dioxide so they can say human activity causes CO2, but human activity only contributes a tiny fraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide. We have a volcano that cranks out more Co2 every day than all the cars in America, but the global warming myth creates the illusion of a crisis and offering to sell us a solution.

    We know Al Gore set up his first carbon exchange with the assistance of Kenneth Lay of Enron basically to do to planet earth with carbon dioxide with what Enron had done to California with electricity and its just this huge money making scam and suddenly mother nature basically done a surprise on them with all these really harsh winters, so now they’re trying to rebrand and get away from “global warming” and say it’s “climate change” — but climate ALWAYS changes. There’s never been a period in the 4 billions years of the earth where climate wasn’t changing, and it’ll continue to change long after humans are gone.

    Climate on Earth is dominated by two factors, first there’s that giant glowing ball of gas in the sky called the sun, which fluctuates in intensity and energy output, and of course you have the Earth’s orbit which very slowly changes shapes from circular to elliptical and back to circular. And when it’s elliptical as in Kepler’s law of orbital motion, the Earth spends MORE time away from the sun and that’s where you get the ice ages, then when its orbit circularized then you get the interglacials which is what we’re in right now.

    Solar activity is now at a 100 year low, and looks like we’re going into a repeat of a Maunder minimum, which was a lower solar activity associated with the mini ice-age of Europe. Now we’ve only been able to study the sun scientifically for about a hundred years and we’re familiar with the 11 year solar cycle and 22 year magnetic cycle, but we don’t know if there are other longer period cycles taking place. Russian scientists are now saying they think they’re seeing indications of longer cycles of maunder minimum to the present time that going to make dramatic changes in climate here on Earth. So until Al Gore and his Carbon Nazis can control solar output, or shift the Earth in its orbit, it doesn’t matter how much money they take, they’re not going to be able to stop climate change.

    People wrongly believe that man made pollution, of which man actually does (no one argues that) is the cause of climate change. They’re confusing something that IS man made, with something that is a natural occurrence. With or without humans, climate has, does and will always change. The problem with all this misguided focus on “man made climate change” takes focus away from the actual issues of “man made pollution”. For example, California did a great job of clearing smog from 15 years ago, however that isn’t climate change. The real focus should be on, how do you get people to understand the difference between climate change and pollution?

    The idea of controlling pollution, something obviously we need to be looking at, but we also need to remember that a lot of people out there talking about protecting the Earth and protecting nature are doing so from financial motives. And we have this government that is out there talking about a new carbon tax because it doesn’t look like they’re going to get the tax windfall from Obamacare they were hoping for. So you got John McCain back out there pitching a new carbon tax and this is the same government that absolutely turns a blind eye to the fracking problem which is a one way street. Once those toxic chemicals are down there in our drinking water, there is no way to get them back out. And there’s this weird double-standard and hypocrisy where they’re talking about this tiny fraction of Co2 humans are putting out there is a major problem, but all these toxic chemicals going into the ground water are not, underscoring the fact that a lot of people are proclaiming their love of nature and environment and are doing so basically as a sales pitch to make themselves a profit.

    So with the cycles that change, when do people who believe in man made climate changed say to themselves, “Holy crap, we’re having blizzards! It’s cold, this could be a mini ice age.” Will they ever see that? No, but it is kind of amazing to see some of the explanations from all the pseudo-science gobbledy-goop from the global warming people. Look at all these agencies, university scientists who literally bet their reputations on global warming and now we’re getting all these blizzards. 10 years ago they were proclaiming snow was a thing of the past now they’re trying to claim that global warming is “causing” the blizzards. They’re trying to claim the world is getting warmer, that the heat was “hiding” at the bottom of the oceans — which if you understand physics and convection currents, that’s obviously not going to happen.

    The raw data continues to argue against global warmists, but they invested a huge amount of money selling this danger, this illusion, a threat to the people; and now before they can sort of harvest their financial gain from it, the world ends up cooling.

  • Earl Shaff

    Great job Total Legend

  • Anonymous

    I believe solar energy is the way to go! I was referring to all the so-called “energy saving” and “recycled” commercial products. So many of these products are misleading. Will definitely take a look at those sites. Thanks!

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    Ahh… some of the conclusions about humanity I wouldn’t second entirely. There are many sincere and even self-sacrificing people trying to address what they (rightly or wrongly) see as their responsibility. Definitely not the GREENS party, though, which in Australia can only be classed as gangrenous. Destroy! is their motto. The excitement over CO2 I think you will find is because of its habit of keeping in the wavelengths that the others — water vapour especially — let pass. All ‘test tube’ observation of course but not without a probable basis somewhere. And there is a circumstantial link between carbon deposition and climate disruption in the geologic record — mystifying to date. If it means anything, as I see it, since the climate difficulties happened when the carbon was going into the ground, and we are getting the carbon back out of the ground — we shouldn’t get too worried on that score? Magnetic field reversal frequency ties in there — – which I expand on elsewhere. The Creator got us safely here through it all, he’ll see us through. Ahh,., rise in CO2 from Industrial Revolution level of 0.0003 atmosphere (approx.) to modern level 0.0004 atm., is certainly largely due to Man. However the published estimates are estimates only, as submarine volcanism presumably is a contributor to CO2. Undersea vents are not monitored. It is legitimate nevertheless to point out that natural events at any moment could render all the climate bizzo irrelevant, and to point out that the order of 12 atmospheres equivalent pure CO2 (by estimation of geologic deposits) was processed through the atmosphere over geologic time — life surviving.

    We are undoubtedly in an unprecedented position in human history. But we don’t need gangreen policies, we need faith and sturdy assurance. Going on the geology etc., I wouldn’t necessarily be saying it’s going to be smooth. That’s another story and not necessarily good for going to sleep on. The crazy economics is likewise looking rough. Good men will pull through.

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    I don’t quite follow your heat dynamics or whatever it is of how the sun-earth system works, but “emotions instead of actual science” is spot on. It’s emotion in many cases mixed with fear, religious bias, and even outright lies and fraud. The once great and respected institution of Science which we all respected is now at war with itself. Galileo & co. right up to Einstein relied upon intentional rational design — a mathematically based Cosmos. Modern ‘science’ classes design as ‘religion’ — and becomes a lamentable public spectacle. The illuminati, clinging to peer review on the revolving door principle, ‘scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’. Frightened of publishing facts lest they lose their pay or be accused of bigotry. — “Only our exclusive brand of never-never-land political correctness is science!” Galileo, Einstein & co.? Benighted, outdated tools, stepping stones to the glorification of those who have finally got the goods. Thank God for the Internet even with its disgusting side and thank God for all the people (many of them science-oriented) who stick to rationality and decency.

  • Earl Shaff

    I got interested in the Energies involved and had to chase down several numbers in order to arrive at the real truth…. The numbers I have posted are real actual values that prove what I state. I did not know the truth until I did the numbers operations and they are what they are… There are several people who should go to prison for such outrageous Fraud they are promoting without truth, and are just emotional claims that are seriously wrong.

    This is too serious of issues to be so wrong, and not be exposed such….

  • ccaffrey

    What is it, stuck on this 26 years and Al Gore? Scientific study has not stood still…if anything it’s increased because of the number and severity of events occurring! 98 percent of the worlds’ leading scientists now agree not only that the climate is warming but that the cause is largely manmade. Are you waiting for the last 2 percent? You think that Al Gore got to the other 98% and paid them off to make himself look good? The data has gotten BETTER not worse, the measurements more sophistiated not less. The only major dispute at this point among scientists seems to be if we stand an iota of a chance of turning this around!

  • ccaffrey

    What’s mind boggling is that we’re not talking about a little business struggling to make ends meet. These corporations have huge wealth to retool for sustainable energy–they could be leaders in solar and wind and hydro technology. I thought one of the tenets of smart business was you’ve got to change with the times (and conditions) or you go bust. Happened to a lot of companies when computers came along. The stakes are SO much higher! Are they willing to take everything and everybody down with them because they refuse to change with the times and realities? Look how many wars have been held, how many lives lost over over fossil fuels? Is that not enough of a toll already? Frankly, I think it’s even beyond business…it’s about power and ego and control.

  • Anonymous

    I was responding to Mark Wyatt comment about a true Christian could not vote for the GOP which hammers the poor..As for VP Biden’s charitable giving as represented on his tax return.. yes it is pathetic for a man in his position to set such an example for the nation. The best forms of charity are that which is handled by the private sector… Why look to the federal govt for taxpayer money for every need. Yes our God is a God of love & I wonder what he feels about the millions upon millions of aborted souls of the unborn.. might he be weeping about that as well? Both political parties give God plenty to be concerned about. Greed is not a GOP character defect alone.. some of the wealthiest people are of the Democratic party as well. To say only GOP followers support big oil is beyond logic.. Warren Buffet owns railroads which are prospering carrying crude oil from the Bakken field

  • Nick

    Blah, blah, blah. We’ve all heard this crap before. So, YOU ran the numbers. Well, I guess we can all go home now. Thanks a lot!

  • Nick

    Faith in what?

  • Nick

    Lol.

  • Nick

    Gag me

  • Nick

    Lol.

  • Nick

    Right on.

  • Nick

    We dont have to do that at all. Why would you feel you have to do that with them and not with anyone else? First of all they have no way of knowing whether or not what they believe is true or not. Second they dont want to know what is true or not. Researchers and geologists can find no concrete evidence that jesus existed. That being said I have my own reasons for believing he did.
    Butprotectionexplanation of human nature which plays a big part in religion:
    Humans have an inate nature as herd animals. And because of this they tend to be led by one or more alpha and beta males per herd. After the alpha secures his role as leader, most other humans defer to his judgement regardless of misgivings, suspicions, and contrary beliefs. Moreover, once secure in the anonymity of the herd, humans will collectively turn to the alpha for protection, even in derogation of their own sense of survival. They seem to turn their will over to the alpha and follow blindly, even unto death. The sense I have is that fear drives humans to trust their leader more than their own survival instincts and resources. In other words, a herd with an alpha expects a savior. The Messiah movement was born by infusing these human animal traits into religious traditions.
    The hope for a savior permeates the thousands of years we call BC, and consequently the Bible. The jewish people, once a proud independent nation, had been subjugate for ccenturies by conquering foreigners and longed to return to political prominence. So they pinned there hopes on a future descendent of the house of David, a long revered and highly mythologized early monarch. Human nature gave rise tothe hope for a messiah—a strong king whowould leadthe Hebrews out of captivity and restore their sovereignty. Religion elevated that hope to exepctation.
    Jesus of Nazareth did not fit the mold of Messiah. According to legend, his message, like that of others at the time, was that mankind should repent its wickedness and prepare for the coming of the Lord. He is represented to have believed that the kingdom of Yahweh was to be instituted on earth during jesus’s lifetime. When that did not happen, his followers were at a lost to justify their core believes.

  • Nick

    Humans are animals. Period. Thus earth now reflects the human character traits of violence, waste, and self destruction. This is the only reason we have the problems we are having. We call ourselves people, but that really means nothing. Just a word.

  • Earl Shaff

    I do not believe there is any true scientist who will continue following the Fraud that has happened on this issue…. I did not know the real answers until I actually chased down the numbers. I now know the serious fraud that is being promoted…. Our Federal Government People are terrible liars in positions they do not deserve,,,, There are too many things are going to go wrong unless they become honest and read my science that tells the truth… This affects too many quality of life issues and will fill the pockets of the evil doers

  • Earl Shaff

    Those who want to destroy our Energy Industry are not decent people… They are liars and are in fact deceiving evil doers…….

  • pointofgrille

    I found the article informative. The ensuing conversation (now 16 days old), on the other hand, has given me a stronger attachment to my agnosticism. My belief, that when faith denies rational thought, it will most often lead to inaccurate conclusions, has been bolstered.

  • DiaboloMootopia .

    The Chinese are charging ahead with rolling out renewables. Much more efficient than the US.

  • Anonymous

    What a crazy nut you are. LMAO

  • Anonymous

    Imaginary sky fairies don’t ya know?