Why atheists and Humanists must demand climate action

Print More
Demonstrators march at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, Denmark. Photo by Pechke, via Wikimedia Commons.

Demonstrators march at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, Denmark. Photo by Pechke, via Wikimedia Commons.

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

Most Humanists recognize that the climate crisis represents a serious threat to our biosphere and civilization. But much of the dialogue among atheists and Humanists centers on the “debate” between scientists and climate deniers—and this is a mistake.

  • Larry

    Because too many Christians don’t really care for the environment and welcome global disaster as the second coming of Jesus. They cannot be trusted to make sane decisions on the subject.

    Human centered global warming is not a religious belief, nor irrational, nor touted by “cult centered” processes. It is an accepted scientific thought by those in the field. It is telling that most of the denials come from groups/people with vested interest in avoiding measures which can address the issue.

    Even stupider is the link between the religious right and climate change denialism. Simply evidence of how easy it is to use Christian fundamentalism as a tool for monied interests. A great way to get the poor and working class to support contrary economic interests.

  • mememine69

    Exaggerating science’s consensus of “could be” to innocent children just as an excuse to hissy fit hate neocons is a war crime in the history books. The eagerness of you remaining “believers” to “believe” and exaggerate this misery is sickening.
    If science “can’t” say; “proven” or “100%” instead of 32 years of science’s laughable “95%” certainty for a “THREAT TO THE PLANET”, are they also only 95% sure smoking will cause cancer? Exaggeration is unsustainable.
    Move on;
    *Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.
    *Canada killed Y2Kyoto 2 years ago with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).

  • mememine69

    You don’t even know what the scientific consensus is because if you did you would only be “believing” in their laughable 32 years of “could be” and “95%” certainty that THE END IS NEAR.
    YOU cant’ tell my kids they are doomed before science can no matter how much you wanted this misery to have been real.
    Prove that science “believes” as much as you do and beyond their “could be” consensus.

  • Larry

    Obviously you expect science to be treated like Bible study.
    Moaning that scientists were wrong in the past means simply that you do not understand how the scientific process works.

    In scientific terms the end is always near. Its just a matter of your definition of the end 🙂

    The great thing about scientific information is that it revises itself when new evidence presents itself. One expects older studies to be wrong and supplanted by new convincing data. So far there is none offered which supplants the notion of human centered global warming.

    When something like that exists and is vetted by the field, then one can gladly disregard the current information. Moaning about past revisions does not mean anything.

    Scientific consensus does not depend on belief. It is what it is and uses evidence to back up its premises. You don’t have to believe in global warming. It exists as far as we know to the best of our knowledge regardless of such things.

  • Larry

    All you are doing is displaying your ignorance and asking for levels of proof which will never exist in the world outside of your head.

    Scientific knowledge is always premised on “to the best of our available knowledge and evidence”. I don’t care whether you believe in it or not. If you have CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND STUDIES TO THE CONTRARY you can make a valid point here.

  • Larry

    From Skeptic Magazine, “<a href="http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/&quot; How We Know Global Warming is Real"

  • Larry
  • JC

    Our first step in the Climate March!

    “A 1% reduction in world-wide meat intake has the same benefit as a three trillion-dollar investment in solar energy.” ~ Chris Mentzel, CEO of Clean Energy

    “As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease.” Worldwatch Institute, “Is Meat Sustainable?”

    “If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains… the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund

    If Al Gore can do it, you can too! Step by Step Guide: How to Transition to a Vegan Diet

  • Frish

    There are those of us who believe that humanity has ALREADY overstepped the bounds nature set for us, and therefore we won’t be on the planet much longer.

    Nothing humanity does is sustainable.

    I’ve found the following to be true.
    Individually, humans are pretty smart. In a group, we cannot seem to act with wisdom.

    Here’s a quick thought experiment, just to show you how MESSED up our thinking is…

    We talk about “fisheries”.
    During Human evolution very limited amounts of ocean swimming fish protein was consumed by humans. Rivers and lake fish, sure, but open ocean fish, not so much.

    Yet now we lay claim to anchovies, salmon, halibut, sardines, and what all, totally ignoring there was an ecosystem that was sustained by that “harvest”, and we’ve now messed it up.

    Google Humboldt Squid and JellyFish swarms if you want to see the future of the oceans…we’ve killed off all the sharks!

    Therefore, there is a role/task for humanists and our ilk.

    Recognize that the moral answer is to have fewer people on the planet when it no longer sustains us, since mankind can not survive the coming die off.

    The only moral way to do that is to no longer have children.

    It is now officially immoral to have children, by anyone, anywhere, anymore.

    We’re vehement.


  • Pingback: The original 'atheist church': Why don’t more atheists know about Ethical Culture? | Faitheist()

  • It is actually a nice and useful piece of info. I am glad that you
    shared this helpful info with us. Please stay us up to
    date like this. Thank you for sharing.

  • Pingback: 2014: The top stories in atheism - Faitheist()