Several hundred people took part in a prayer walk on Sept. 14, 2016, from the Oceti Sakowin camp near Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota to the site up the road where Dakota Access began digging over Labor Day weekend for construction on a nearly 1,200-mile pipeline project. Construction temporarily has been halted. RNS photo by Emily McFarlan Miller

For Christians, the green revolution is stalling — and politics may be why

(RNS) — Over the past two decades, many Christians have made a dramatic public conversion to environmental causes.

In Protestant churches across the country, they have gone on carbon fasts, planted church vegetable gardens, and struck alliances with Native Americans and others to protect the country from the environmental harm caused by drilling, fracking, mining and building underground gas pipelines.

Following Pope Francis’ lead, Catholic bishops in cities such as Atlanta, Cincinnati, Des Moines, Sacramento, San Diego and others, have ordered churches to undertake energy audits, install solar panels and transition to wind energy.

But despite widespread efforts to advance environmental awareness in churches and seminaries, a new study shows that two decades of advocacy have not made Christians any greener in their outlooks.

[ad number=“1”]

The study, a longitudinal look at Gallup’s annual surveys on the environment, reveals that Christians have not become more concerned about the environment, and in some cases have become less so.

Although the study is limited — it was not tailored to religious people but to Americans generally and it did not drill down into particular denominational affiliation — it suggests that the dangers of climate change may not be registering with church members.

“The idea was to see if attitudes have changed over time,” said David Konisky, a political scientist at Indiana University and the author of the study, which is to be published in a forthcoming issue of Environmental Politics.

“In fact, the trends move in the opposite direction. People’s concern over issues such as pollution, in the air, water or toxic waste, their concern about climate change and its urgency, those have all been declining over this time period studied.”

Volunteers harvest at Holy Name Church in Cedar Lake, Ind. Photo by Debra Rubin

The latest study adds to two previous but less exhaustive studies examining data from the General Social Survey that show similar results.

Konisky’s study examined Gallup environmental surveys during three years during the 1990s and then annually from 2005 to 2015. About 1,000 U.S. respondents each year were asked whether they worried about water, air, soil or toxic waste pollution, whether they see global warming as a threat, and whether they participate in the environmental movement.

The overall pattern that emerged is that concern about the environment has been flat over the past two decades, and in some cases declined. For example, more Christians prioritized economic growth over protecting the environment in 2015 than they did in 1990.

Pope Francis' encyclical titled "Laudato Si' (Be Praised): On the Care for Our Common Home," is displayed during the presentation news conference at the Vatican on June 18, 2015. Photo by Max Rossi/Reuters

 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

The study does not reflect the impact of “Laudato Si': On Care for Our Common Home,” Pope Francis’ 2015 encyclical on the environment, which was published after the Gallup Poll’s 2015 survey — the last one examined in the study. (The Gallup surveys broke down Christianity into Catholics and Protestants but attitudes toward the environment were similar in both groups.)

Advocates working at the intersection of the environment and religion were sanguine about the study’s findings.

“This involves long-term change and that’s not going to happen in 10 or 20 years,” said Mary Evelyn Tucker, co-director of the Yale Forum on Religion and the Ecology. “All social movements have had pushback. That’s going to happen. But change will go forward.”

Tucker pointed to programs such as Yale Divinity School’s master’s degree in religion and ecology, which trains future ministers to view the environment as a critical component of faith formation.

[ad number=“2”]

But others questioned whether the Gallup surveys reliably reflect the concerns of religious people. For many evangelicals, words in the survey like “climate change” and “global warming” invoke pitched political and ideological battles. They may have been more responsive when asked about environmental stewardship — or, in the more common Christian parlance, “creation care.”

That's the language evangelicals such as Richard Cizik, Rick Warren, and Joel Hunter have used to argue that Christians have a religious duty to be stewards of God’s creation.

Removing weeds by hand in a garden. Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

Words matter when talking to evangelicals, said Emily Wirzba, a lobbyist with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker organization.

“We did find that framing it as a moral issue or a faith and religious issue and using 'creation care' helps provide political cover and the support members of Congress need to be more vocal on the issue,” she said.

A waning concern on environmental issues may also have something to do with the massive public relations campaign developed by several industries, such as tobacco, gasoline and coal-burning power plants, to sow doubt and confusion about scientific data.

It’s possible that Christians’ lackluster responses to climate change are an indication that these disinformation campaigns were ultimately more successful than the sermons they may have heard in church, said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University and an evangelical who works to convince Christians about the reality of global warming.

[ad number=“3”]

“We have to consider all the important factors that influenced the trajectory of people’s opinion,” Hayhoe said. “We can’t leave out the negative factors, especially when we know they exist and we know they work.”

In the past two decades the environment has become politicized, with Republicans often assailing environmental agencies and regulation and Democrats generally fighting for greener policies. A Pew Research poll this month found that 81 percent of Democrats say protecting the environment should be a top priority, compared with 37 percent of Republicans.

Pope Francis plants a tree as he visits the Pontifical Oriental Institute on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, in Rome, on Oct. 12, 2017. (L'Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP)

 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

Those divisions affect many Christians too, especially white evangelicals, loyal Republicans who helped elect President Trump.

For these evangelicals, partisanship trumps religious considerations when it comes to the environment.

“Religion is not a very powerful predictor and ideology is,” said Aaron McCright, a sociologist at Michigan State University who co-authored a similar 2014 study finding lower levels of environmental concern among Christians based on the General Social Survey.

All of which means political partisanship may have played a larger role in many respondents’ answers, McCright suggested.

For these more politically minded Christians, environmental awareness may be a much more difficult sell.

The lesson for environmentalists in all this?

"The political Christians are not changing and I do not expect them to change,” said Hayhoe. “They won’t change until the leadership tells them it’s OK to say this.”


  1. It’s not trickling down because there is nothing specific to follow or focus on. It has all been philosophy no actions. If people want this green revolution to gain ground then there is going to need to be specific actions for people to take. Like recycling where people must be told what is recyclable and what is not in order to be successful, so too is the green movement. Until then we are all in a hold pattern.

  2. I have the impression that evangelicals hate the idea of “being green” (etc) because they think that’s a liberal idea–even tho they claim to believe the bible, in matters such as god creating the earth.

  3. “Environmental causes” engaged by Christians are many times not good, but bad, especially with they join forces with decidedly anti-Christian pantheistic groups.

  4. Yes and no. The political right-wing Christians are decidedly antienvironment because of their political alliance with the fossil fuel industry.

  5. I’m not so sure. That may be recent. I’ve read, a few times, that right-wing “Christians” (isn’t “right wing Christians” a contradiction in terms?) are anti-environment because they see “environmental concern” as something that is associated with “liberals” and folks who in general are their political opponents.

  6. Well, sure, but there’s different levels. The elite, like I said, have a practical alliance. The masses have no clue about that. The masses in some ways are like you said because of the success of Lemuel Boulware’s propaganda machine which tells them that. And, sure, it’s a contradictory term, but it accurately describes what is.

  7. I’m sure you have proof of the great “right-wing” political conspiracy with the fossil fuel industry?

  8. “Conspiracy” is something that’s illegal. Political alliances are perfectly legal.

  9. What’s the matter? I’m just asking you to show your work. Support your assertions with information, or remain identified as a blowhard. Your choice.

  10. I support my county’s recycling program. Recycling is certifiably good.

    But unlike recycling, the freaked-out Global Warming cult is certifiably bad.

    The global warmers have given us the Climategate mess, (and when the GW boys started fudging data, it couldn’t be un-fudged, so to speak). They’ve blocked an open flow of information and robust debate. They’ve brought intimidation tactics & economic blackmail, even against reputable PhD scientists who generally supported global warming. The GW cult is a standing insult to the scientific method.

  11. The Carbon Hoax is just the latest, most aggressive piece of manufactured hysteria in the long history of the collectivist Left’s manufactured hysterias. It’s the same old Communist propaganda machine.

    The Climate Hoaxers have been predicting for about thirty years that the oceans are going to rise 10-100 feet any day now.

    If the oceans rose ONLY ten feet, then much of England and the American South would be underwater–not to mention coastal areas all over the world. Yet, the people who have an absolutely existential interest in knowing whether actual science predicts the inundation of whole states–namely, bankers–are cheerfully handing out 30-year mortgages in those areas.

    In other words, the most RESPONSIBLE, sober people in our society, are exhibiting NO credulity when it comes to the Carbon Hoax or Climate Hoax.

  12. And your proof that “right-wing” Christians and “fossil fuel industry” are in cahoots? There is none but in your mind.

  13. Communism? – you must be even older and more stupid than I.

    And no – 10 feet will not cover most of England; and flood prevention matters are a part of the urban planning process for the properties that are being mortgaged.

    You have been misinformed.

  14. What evidence?

    Looking at 100+ year sea level data from Battery Park NYC, the rise rate is virtually constant, with no statistical increase in recent years, indicating no significant glacier melt & ocean warming.

    A better indicator is that banks still give morgages to expensive Manhatten property.

  15. So why has CALPERS invested big in oil giant Chevron?

    It pays dividends for the retirees.

    So much for CA left wing beliefs when it comes to money,
    i.e. H. Clinton expensive Wall St. speeches.

  16. OK – so you exhibit confirmation bias.

    Forget picking a particular place or a particular time and look at long-term trends on an international basis. Also just spend five minutes searching the many articles (with pictures) that demonstrate the increasing amount of glacier melt. Have you factored in the natural rebound of newly ice-free land into your calculations? The consequences of the effect on salinity? The resulting impact on the earth’s temperature due to reduced reflection from ice and snow?

    A no – bankers lending money is not a valid indicator – based on recent past experience they will take an up-front profit and sell the debt (with full disclosure?) to any mug daft or desperate enough to buy it.

  17. “A better indicator is that banks still give morgages to expensive Manhatten property.”

    Actually they aren’t doing too many lately. Manhattan has one of the lowest % ownership levels in the nation. Most property being purchased these days is cash by Russian and Chinese oligarchs using it as a way to launder money and siphon wealth away from their countries.

    The fact that the Arctic Sea is becoming a navigable waterway is pretty compelling evidence

  18. The Great Commission

    Matthew 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[b] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
    That is what Christians are worried about.

  19. I understand that scientific evidence got fudged at Climategate, and that professional PhD scientists who support global warming — even one of Obama’s scientists — got ripped off for publicly adhering to only 98% instead of 100% in the GW religion. Care to disprove?

  20. Same reply. These scandals are public record. Care to disprove?

  21. Okay, sure (regarding GW). First, Alfred Dunn notes that you have groups who seriously reject the claims & authority of the Bible in key areas. Pantheism, Earth-worship, etc. Christians joining with GW’s of such beliefs, is a problem (2 Cor. 6:14).

    The great foundational claims of the Bible on how the Earth, its dynamics, and its biology were created by God through Christ, are very often rejected by GW’s. (Hat tip to Spuddie and Give.) The Bible’s future historical claims about how God will do Earth’s final outcome, are rejected too. Pope Francis messed up when he sold out to GW.

    Richard Lindzen of MIT wrote in 2003, “Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.” (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol.18, No.3)

    So you’re dealing with a new Non-Christian religion (GW), one that rejects much of the foundations of Christ’s non-negotiable statement (that Sandi quoted above.)

  22. Pathetic.



    Either you can’t answer any questions – after all, that requires knowledge and understanding of the subject – or you have a need to appear to be thick.

    You won’t look at (can’t understand/massage) the base facts – so instead you just desperately search for something minor/irrelevant that can be used to try to divert attention from the real data.

    What can it possibly matter if what you say is true – the current evidence is overwhelmingly clear to the vast majority of those who are professionally knowledgeable.
    Sometimes the imperfection in an early argument can destroy its validity –
    we know that some bits in the Bible are untrue – The Creation myths, The Flood, The Captivity/Exodus, Jonah and his big fish, the trek to Bethlehem – each and every one just plain fiction – the Bible’s problem is that, unlike Climate Change, the Bible doesn’t have a constant stream of supportive data updating and revising and confirming the early edition.

    You being ignorant of the facts does not invalidate the rational conclusions that clever, trained people, almost without exception, draw from them – they may vary by degree but the underlying reality is, based on the evidence, indisputable.

  23. And I thought Christians were just self-centred people worried about ensuring that their (non-existent) soul goes to a (non-existent) Heaven and is bored stiff for (a non-existent) eternity.

    OK – I’ll bite – what on earth does the great commission have to do with climate change? Is it somehow mangleable into being an excuse to damage the environment for ourselves and future generations – if so how?

  24. Here you go:

    “How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God”

    “The Fundamentalists Holding Us Back from a Climate Change Solution”

    “How the Religious Right Is Fueling Climate Change Denial”

    Judging by your tone, you do not appear to be someone who is willing to even look for evidence, let alone accept it. Someone likely to be a “Liar for the Lord”.

  25. So science is not acceptable if it conforms to new evidence and research?

    Since when?

  26. “especially with they join forces with decidedly anti-Christian pantheistic groups.”

    Meaning they don’t usually involve right wing Christians.

  27. Richard Lindzen is a paid hack who is not even taken seriously by MIT

    “professional societies including the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union have all released statements affirming the scientific consensus on man-made climate change and its grave risks. A recent analysis found that 140 of the world’s national academies and top scientific geosciences, biological, chemical, physical, agricultural and other organizations have issued statements about human-caused warming. “

  28. You haven’t proven He isn’t there yet, give

  29. Yes, the GW’s put on a huge Damage-Control PR game after Climategate. The GW’s had a lot to lose (of $$$$). Science or no science, PhD or no PhD, people fight hard when you threaten their Cash Cow. That’s what your links prove.

    But honestly? The GW’s did do their “tricks”, did their mess, and fudged data to milk their lovely Ca$h Cow. Emails don’t lie. Even the Muir-Russell probe (or GW whitewash, as some suggested), at least confirmed that much.

    “Testifying before the inquiry, (Richard Horton, The Lancet’s scientific editor) said: ‘The Muir-Russell review has rejected all claims of serious scientific misconduct. But he does identify failures, evasions, misleading actions, unjustifiable delays (in releasing information), and pervasive unhelpfulness – all of which amounts to severely sub-optimal academic practice.
    Climate science will never be the same again.'”

  30. The Bible-based Christian God?

    Rationally impossible and totally unnecessary doesn’t, I’ll give you, equal proven non-existence – but then – it doesn’t have to.

    The person making the claim – that there is something – is the person who has to demonstrate the validity of that claim. Otherwise every other crackpot idea (flat-earth, we live on the inside of a globe, people can live on nothing but sunshine etc. etc. etc.) would have to be treated equally with god(s).

    You have to prove the existence of the god you claim exists, just as every other god’s believers have to do for their preferred deity. And guesses, co-incidences, mis-diagnoses, remissions, lies etc. etc. don’t meet the standard of proof for any of you.

    PS – so what does the great commission have to do with climate change?

  31. Such lame excuses.

    You got pwned in various articles and now you are trying to save face.

    Larry Bell’s OP-ED PIECE is not actually a rebuttal. He is known for misrepresenting evidence against global warming. A hack.
    “Bell uses the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop””

    “Larry Bell is a weekly columnist for Forbes Magazine with no evident climate expertise who writes columns dismissing climate science

  32. You didn’t address Lindzen’s point that “Global Warming has become a religion.” You already know it’s true, his description is quite accurate. Meanwhile:

    “We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. What we need is more basic research, freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver, and only deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough.

    It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues, it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals. The whole concept behind (the United Nations global-warming group) IPCC is basically wrong.”

    — Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, top European climate & meteorology researcher.

  33. Debaters can escape a “Gish gallop”, by selecting one or two items and just focusing on them.

    So, how about you disproving Richard Horton’s one little paragraph there? Hmm?

  34. I asked you first, give. Prove He doesn’t exist

  35. Sandi – this isn’t an infant school playground – who asked first isn’t relevant.

    The only logical option is for the claimant (you) making the claim (there is a god – even there is a God) to demonstrate that your position is tenable. Otherwise every claim, however daft, is valid until disproven

    How would you prove that I don’t have an invisible unicorn which has neither substance nor odour sitting on my left shoulder and teaching me to be even nicer than I already am? Would you accept that such a being existed despite the lack of evidence or need for it? It’s called proving a negative and it can’t be done – by you, by me or by the best AI in the world.

    And, since proving a negative is impossible and accepting every claim, however ridiculous, would lead to clashes which would prove only that some, but not necessarily which, claims were false, your request is invalid.

    What happens in reality is that human beings adopt one of two positions

    1 – without evidence or valid need we adopt a sceptical stance. That is what atheism is – a sceptical stance – I can’t find any valid reason for thinking that god(s) exist(s) so I won’t waste my time, effort and money pretending there is.

    2 – Faith. The rejection of rational thought because the individual’s ego cannot accept the possibility of error leading to to an irrational but egotistically comfortable position in which even faux persecution reinforces the conviction that the believer is uniquely blessed.

  36. but overall Christians aren’t very smart. They are ignorant and easily fooled

  37. How would you prove it? I’m sure you can come up with some lies that will convince some poor soul

  38. I’m not trying to prove anything – that’s for you to do – and you can’t.

    And, FWIW, I don’t lie – even to myself – perhaps that’s why I’m incapable of faith..

  39. People who have legitimate points to make and factual support don’t Gish Gallop. Purveyors of nonsense however love doing it. Richard Horton was disproven by the entirety of the field and even MIT. You are not quoting what the consensus in the field developed by the weight of the accumulated research are saying. His authority on the subject doesn’t have to be taken at face value.

  40. Didn’t have to. He lacks authority to speak on the subject in a way which must be taken seriously. Crackpots like creationists love to pretend their opponents are as religiously biased and ignorant as themselves. Facts prove otherwise.

  41. Yeah I know! It’s so straight to the point, succinct, and accurate.

    Roy you are as Christian as they come. Don’t let any of them him tell you otherwise.

  42. I don’t need to prove anything Give and I told you that a long time ago. He healed my dad of cancer.

  43. Just because some hack claims “global warming is a religion” doesn’t make it so. It’s similar to cult claims freemasonry is a religion and and that creationism is science.

    It’s like saying the fundies need to control everything because everybody else’s views (including those of most Christians who reject the fundie cult) don’t count. IOW like Nietzsche they say, “If I can’t be god, I won’t participate.”

    The rest is just fundie crawfishin’ that’s meaningless to anybody who’s not in a cult.

  44. Okay, what’s CALPers? Investment isn’t an alliance. Democrats are pro-business, but much less so that Republicans, who are pro-plutocracy. Michael Barone said the Republican Party was the most conservative political party in the world. And he added the second most is the Democrats. That means the Japanese Liberal Party (the conservative one that wins most elections there), Merkel’s Christian Democrats in Germany, the British Conservative Party, etc., are all well to the left of both major parties in the U.S.

  45. Read Weird Nut Daily, Barbwire, Charisma News, or any other right-wing news outlet. Hardly a week goes by without a fossil fuel propaganda piece.

  46. I’m very glad that your father doesn’t have cancer.

    The fact that your father is alleged to have had cancer at some time and is now alleged not to have cancer is not proof of your God, any god or anything else. You want to believe so you misunderstand the basic concept of proof.

    It also begs the questions

    1 – why would a loving god allow cancer in the first place and
    2 – what sort of evil entity refuses to heal unless someone says “pretty-please”.

    Those two questions are much more indicative of the absence of God than your father’s alleged recovery is of its existence.

  47. –or–maybe they have looked into the green religion and rejected your worldview. maybe, just maybe, in a free society there are people who DISAGREE with your worldview by looking at the evidence and come to a DIFFERENT conclusion than you about environmentalism….maybe it’s because they already have a religion so they don’t need yours (green religion)

  48. you have no evidence… simply want to control peoples lives because that’s what liberals do….it’s inherent of marxism

  49. The comments are enlightening. A bunch of Carbon Hoax supporters bashing Christians.

  50. Yeah, that’s what all the articles were saying? Riiight. They even tried it a second time and it failed miserably. You are repeating a long debunked story. Typical trolling behavior.

    The “actual data” accumulated by the field in various forms of research which has been vetted for methodological accuracy all points to global warming is a real thing. I sincerely doubt you have any credentials in the field of Climate Science to be able to talk of “the actual data” with any degree of credibility. Nor do you have the weight of peer reviewed research in the field to back up your claim.

    Despite the yatterings of Creationists, Anti-Vaxxers, and Global Warming Denialists, one accepts the scientific consensus of the field as true to the best of our knowledge and weight of the evidence unless proven otherwise. To do otherwise flies in the face of what is already established and known.

  51. You didn’t read the links. You are making an argument from ignorance. Evidence was requested, it was provided. Your response is not worth taking seriously.

  52. Have you bothered to look at actual long term, sea level data?

    From your comments, probably not. For that, you need to get actual primary source tidal gauge from international organizations such as PSMSL ( Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level), out of the UK.

    This shows the Holgate-9 sample of global tidal gauges. With over 100 years of data no significant increase with a average 2.85 mm/yr rise rate has been detected, especially in the recent 30 year period.

    Hence if sea level rise rate change isn’t present, it would appear that ocean temperature isn’t rising (H2O expands when heated), and glaciers are not dumping any significant amounts of water into the oceans.

    Looking at the NYC station:

    one sees a continuous & similar long term trend, without any increasing rate from 1895 to the present. If one were to add uplift or vertical land movement, per GPS data ( -2,2 mm/yr correction), the actual sea level change at the lower end of Manhattan would be about a continuous 1 mm/yr.

    Which would explain the lack of any fire sales of NYC property, & question any significant glacial melt into the sea.

  53. According to the most recent satellite data from CryoSat, a satellite designed to measure ice thickness, Average ice thickness haven’t changed much since 2011:

    Also Antarctic sheet ice seems to be growing, except in the west, where volcanic activity is present, as noted by the concentrated decrease in ice:

    Seems last year a couple of Russian icebreakers got stuck in the ice, so the NYT may be a bit premature.

  54. Look, in FL, the governor forbids any state employee to mention the words, “climate change” lest potential homeowners be scared off. He wants to help developers sell properties that will be under water within a hundred years.
    They also don’t tell people who might move there if they are buying into an area where sinkholes have developed.

  55. That is your belief – it is not something that you can know. There are other possible explanations which cannot rationally be discounted.

    And there is still the question as to why would a god heal one person and not another – and why would it not simply heal everyone before anyone was aware that there was a problem?

  56. Oh you silly boy.

    The Bible’s authority is, and only is, what you choose to endow it with. If it were a scientific work its errors and inconsistencies would have consigned it to the remaindered list many years ago.
    And when will you learn that quoting the Bible to those who do not endow it with the same irrational submission that you (sometimes) do devalues any argument you might have.

    I reject what you call “foundational claims” because they conflict with the evidence and make no rational sense. The claims of future events deserve no attention since they are not rooted in any discernible potential.

    Richard Lindzen got his facts wrong according to his peers

    Global Warming is not a religion
    Religion 1 -the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods – NO
    Religion 2 – a particular system of faith and worship – NO
    Religion 3 – a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. Nearer but not that near. It is not possible to be devoted to climate change – people can be devoted to another person or to an activity – climate change is neither.

    Just because you are gullible enough to believe in unevidenced and unnecessary supernatural entities doesn’t mean that we all suffer from the same delusion – much as you might feel more normal if we did.

    As to the great commission – it’s in the book – so is a talking snake, a man-swallowing-without-harm fish and demon-infested pigs.

  57. Look – you believe it – OK – I get that. You believing it doesn’t make it real.

    But – either he’s a nasty piece of work who lets millions of people (and their grieving, impoverished families) suffer unnecessarily or he doesn’t exist outside human imaginations. The lack of evidence and the absence of need suggest the latter.

  58. So you think the twisted so-and-so who lets human beings suffer because he loves them exists – and I don’t.

  59. You “reject the Bible’s claims” because they rationally fit the natural world and the existence/nature of humans, 100 percent better than your religion of atheism.

  60. The seas has been rising since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago, that’s science.

    Politicians will say whatever gets them elected.

    So who are you going to believe, science of the politicians?

  61. An isolated spreadsheet without context is nonsense.
    The same source refuted your claim

    “As the glaciers accelerate, they have to take ever more ice from the interior to compensate for the speed-up. This means they thin; they lose height, which we can detect from space,” explained Dr Hannes Konrad from the UK’s Centre for Polar Observation and Monitoring (CPOM).”

    “What is interesting in the data is the individual responses of the glaciers to the melting assault.”
    “But because of the warm autumn, these regions simply haven’t been able to build this volume,” said Dr Rachel Tilling from the Nerc Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at Leeds University, UK”

  62. JBob, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Obviously you don’t know or would deny all the evidence for climate change. I suggest you go to the arctic and talk to a thousand people up there who are losing their way of life.

  63. For me as a christian from the Netherlands, it is beyond my imagination that christians from the US can be so ignorant. In our country we see the consequences of climate change. We receive more water, more storms, we see our winters vanish. Yes it is al going slow and yes it is exactly as the scientists predicted. We pepare for it by creating more room for our rivers, by making our dikes stronger and we will be ok. No panic, but carefully planing to be prepared. For other countries it will be less easy. Cape Town will run out of water in April. Africa in general will suffer more and more droughts, In Australia the Great Barrier Reef is dying. This is NOT a matter of left or right, not a matter of politics, this is a disaster in the making that will hit the poorest of the poor the hardest. Please open your eyes and your hearts!

  64. The article suggests that US Christian concern about the environment parallels the same concern in the general US community. It will be interesting to see if environmental activists can change this.

    Of course, a 1 meter rise in the sea level might work wonders in convincing people that climate change is real. If the Greenland ice shelf were to melt, the sea level would rise by 7 meters. Just think what a 23 foot rise in the sea level would do to American real estate!

  65. !0,000 years ago, there would be no one to talk to, in the Arctic & upper US. It was buried under miles of thick ice. All without the help of humans.

    So where is your evidence (charts, graph, climate data, etc.) that humans, & evil CO2, is causing any climate change, over say, the past 100 years?.

  66. It would be helpful if you presented some evidence, instead of opinion.

  67. With respect to Antarctic sheet ice melting, seems the melt is over some volcanoes under the ice.

    Perhaps you might volunteer to cork those vilified climate change volcanoes.

    Moving on to the Arctic.

    Anyone who has studied Arctic sea ice, knows that the Nov. data point you ref., is when the ice is forming, and not representative of the yearly whole picture, However your ref. shows the Nov. ice has a fairly flat trend line, indicating not much has changed in the 2011-17 time frame.

    However one must look at the 7 months/year charts to get a better picture of arctic sea ice volume. Again the yearly volume has remained fairly constant, with the usual ups & downs.

    It might be best to follow your own advice, & not just look at an isolated yearly data point.

  68. So now you change the subject. After misrepresenting the data from a given source. Drawing a conclusion which was not supported by its own data collectors and analysts.

    Now you are drawing a conclusion based on supposition and again using a wild self-serving interpretation of information not supported by the scientists involved. The volcanoes were recognized as exacerbating existing conditions and activity being in part caused by global warming, not as THE cause of global warming or rapid ice melting.

    “The discovery is particularly important because the activity of these volcanoes could have crucial implications for the rest of the planet. If one erupts, it could further destabilise some of the region’s ice sheets, which have already been affected by global warming

    “Scientists theorize that ice sheets and glaciers mitigate volcanic activity. However, global warming is leading to rapid ice loss in the region, meaning disastrous effects could be in store for the rest of the planet. Though Antarctica’s average elevation of one mile above sea level has helped stave off the effects of climate change that the unraveling Arctic has been experiencing, current trends have shown Antarctica ice loss has surpassed the rates that can be deemed natural. Earlier this year, a large chunk of the Larsen C ice shelf broke off the continent.”

    You seem to have a problem with honestly referencing scientific data.

    “Anyone who has studied Arctic sea ice, ”

    YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM. Your interpretations of that data aren’t worth a pile of crap. You are neither a scientist nor someone who is providing the vetted interpretations of them. You are simply engaging in nonsense rambling pretending a level of knowledge you do not possess. Those who did have already indicated arctic melting is not only occurring but has deep ramifications for many of the countries involved.

    “It might be best to follow your own advice, & not just look at an isolated yearly data point.”

    Its even better to follow the findings of actual scientists and the accumulated data and research in the filed and not dishonest crackpots pretending to be them.

  69. “The seas has been rising since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago, that’s science.”

    It has been rising faster in the last few centuries than the millennia before. That’s science you are ignoring.

    “Politicians will say whatever gets them elected.”

    Climate change denial helps politicians call upon the contributions of the fossil fuel industry. Entities far far larger than anyone who stands to gain from mitigating global warming.

    Just to make a Pascal’s wager argument here. If making efforts to combat global warming leads to more efficient use of resources, more recycling, less waste of what limited fossil fuel supplies we have, environmental protection, increases in forestation and green space, then what harm is there in doing it even if it might be incorrect?

  70. You haven’t been correctly or honestly representing scientific knowledge so far, no reason to expect you to be doing so now.

    “So where is your evidence (charts, graph, climate data, etc.) that humans, & evil CO2, is causing any climate change, over say, the past 100 years?”

    Have you seen NASA’s site

    Interestingly enough the Department of Defense has been trolling the President on the issue. Ignoring directives to pretend global warming doesn’t exist and analyzing its effect on future conflicts

  71. “In other words, the most RESPONSIBLE, sober people in our society, are exhibiting NO credulity when it comes to the Carbon Hoax or Climate Hoax.”

    Yeah! Just like they did during the housing bubble that collapsed and brought the economy along with it.

  72. A flippant one-liner about carbon hoax supporters is no answer to the scientific consensus around climate change.

  73. Lower Manhattan, Queens, eastern Long Island are already endangered. Further up on the island of Manhattan, there’s bedrock and the land is higher.
    J.Bob is a waste of time, he with his spurious articles.

  74. you will go to any extent to lie. Volcanoes?? egad what a loony.

  75. J-Bob, if you wanted to make any sense, you would look at the last two hundred years. The facts, the graphs, the tables all show climate change. Stop grasping at straws.

  76. Sandinwindsor does not accept your facts or your logic. There are many others that have been indoctrinated to accept only that knowledge which agrees with their faith. Her/his world cannot be affected by facts or logic from this reality.

  77. To disprove your ridiculous assertions would take much more time than they are worth.

  78. You are right. Also some have been indoctrinated to the point that they actually believe that the “End Times” will get here before they need to worry about climate change, and all of the other environmental disasters that are coming. They expect to be saved. They have also been trained not to accept facts or scientific knowledge that conflicts with their faith at the cost of loosing grace. Evangelical Christians are self-controlled by fear.

  79. Christians in America have the greatest opportunity to take the gospel of ‘Environmental protection ‘ across the world. Christians especially the evangelical and the fundamentalist types prefer not to talk about the environment, from the pulpits of these churches but prefer to sermonize from the Bible. Christians are more concerned about the hereafter rather than the ‘here-and -now’. However, the most important point as mentioned in the article is their lack of awareness of the environmental and ecological disasters faced by the planet presently particularly among the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who formed a major voting block for Trump n the last election. These Christians have a low average income and that’s why they fell for Trump’s MAGA magic. The education level of most of these people are below graduation or Grade 10 and only a handful of them are scientifically and/or technically qualified. These people easily believe in talking snakes and other fables from the Bible. So, things such as climate change and global warming (despite three hurricanes as compelling evidences), have failed to convince them. It is time US churches sent missionaries to countries in Africa and Asia to preach the gospel of environment and eclogical protection.

  80. Yes, older and stupid but as well as a minion and a soldier of Trump and the oil, coal and gas magnates.

  81. My home town in Long Island has for the first time in its 100 year existence been considered a flood zone in its entirety.

  82. Spuddlie,
    in spite of all your rhetoric, you have still not produced a graph or chart, showing recent increasing speed of sea level rise.

    If all those glaciers were melting, as you say, & the ocean temperature was rising (water expands when heated), by the laws of physics, there should be a speed up of sea level rise.

    However that has not happened.
    From PSMSL ( Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level), out of the UK.

    The 100+ year tidal gauge data, I referenced, pretty much follows a straight line. This shows NO significant curving upward, which would indicate abnormal increasing volume of ocean water. Seeing that contradiction to the human caused global warming theory, the words of the Nobel Physics winner come to mind:

    It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. Dr. Richard P. Feynman

  83. It has nothing to do with climate change, that’s her point. Although I don’t see how you can make disciples if they’re under water.

  84. The Polar ice caps are melting and polar bars are starving, but it’s all just a hoax. The scientists who believe global warming is real are not communists.
    They are just scientists following where the science leads them.

  85. I agree entirely – but I think it important to challenge that indoctrination; not in the expectation of changing the minds of the indoctrinated but in case any undecided persons are reading the comments and assume that the confidence exuded by the believers means that their points are valid.

    I also suspect that the repeated silliness of some of those who post here may, by the depth of contrast, be rather more beneficial to reason and logic than my comments. I’ve even wondered if a few of the more stridently nasty “christians” are, in fact, atheistic trolls!

  86. I guess you have more patience than I do. however I appreciate your effort.

  87. “It has been rising faster in the last few centuries than the millennia before. That’s science you are ignoring.”

    I take it you have consistent, measured & accurate sea level data to support your claim.

    Perhaps you might share your data.

  88. Have you checked out NASA’s site on the subject?

    Have you checked out sites from the Climate Science community?

    Read any decent peer reviewed articles on the subject?

    Have you seen the Department of Defenses paper on global warnings impact on international conflicts?

    Did you bother to read the articles which cited scientists from the agency whose data you cribbed from in isolation?

    Then I suggest you start there and then come back. Your ignorance of the subject does not mean something does not exist.

  89. Well, that was pretty funny — the Potato offered up three leftist rags as his “evidence.” You just can’t make this stuff up. 😀

  90. No, you’ve actually misrepresented the experimental data. Spuddie has nicely explained your problem there elsewhere. And here’s a sea level graph, down the page here:

    Feynman’s quote that you provided blows Christianity away, anyway, given all that cult’s holy [email protected]’s disagreement with experiments. Thanks for bringing up RPF. I had the honour of working with him for a while.

  91. No, Sandi Luckins. It was the great lord Saggyman who healed your dad’s cancer. However, that left gracious Saggyman with only eight teats left out of his nine manbreasts and you won’t be getting any more suckle from them. Your family allotment was used up.

  92. What made you decide I had a “green religion”? Are you just incapable of logical thought, or a manipulator?

  93. No, Sandi Luckins. It was the great lord Saggyman who healed your dad’s
    cancer. However, that left gracious Saggyman with only eight teats left
    out of his nine manbreasts and you won’t be getting any more suckle from
    them. Your family allotment was used up.

    You lose. Eat your dirty shorts and be silent.

  94. Too funny! Like your flat round young earth fits the natural world too!

    Floydlee, eat your own dirty shorts and shush up already, you ignorant dolt!

  95. That’s correct.

    But by CryoSat measuring thickness, it gives a much better indication of ice conditions such as volume & mass.

  96. Yes to all, including some of NASA’s initial publications.

    Have you actually looked at, & analyzed, any long term data ( > 100 years), such as temperatures & sea levels

  97. And your doctorate in climate science comes from what institution?

    Can you direct me to peer reviewed research you have published?

    The problem is you assume I have to take your criticism of the scientific consensus on the subject at face value. In reality, unless you have some kind of credentials and your own work in the field, nobody has to. The aspects of scientific research which give it credibility also act as a screen from the ramblings and dishonesty of amateurs.

    Until the weight of research causes a change in the scientific consensus, there is no reason for people outside the field of expertise to deny or dispute their findings.

    I don’t have to prove global warming to you. It’s already been established by the scientific community. If you want to criticize it, you need to do your own research and publish your findings in a peer reviewed publication accepted in the field.

  98. Science is not a matter of consensus, despite the propaganda campaign to the contrary.

  99. Another subject you are ignorant of.

    Science very much is a matter of consensus formed by the weight of evidence gathered in methodologically sound forms. It is credible precisely because of the mechanisms from which that consensus is reached.

    If you think such things are a propaganda campaign, you are just demonstrating either your ignorance or dishonesty in denying the established findings in the field.

    Let me guess, you are also a Creationist as well?

  100. Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

    Among “scientific” consensi that proved to be nonsense were cold-blooded dinosaurs and the impossibility of an atomic bomb.

    What you’re describing is a political process, and the number of non-expert “scientists” weighing in on the topic makes that clear.

    If tests, not models, demonstrate the truth of an explanation, then it will be science.

    As it stands there are alternative explanations that also fit the data points.

  101. You got your doctorate in what scientific field?

    “Among “scientific” consensi that proved to be nonsense were cold-blooded dinosaurs and the impossibility of an atomic bomb.”

    Gee Whiz! revising opinions based in new evidence and research technology suddenly makes scientific discovery less credible? Since when?

    The scientific consensus changed when the weight of the research forced the change. But until that happens, the consensus is the accepted knowledge of the field based on available evidence. There is nothing political about it.

    Science doesn’t become less credible for changing, it becomes more credible. One has to prove their point by weight of the evidence out there. It’s self authenticating.

    Your argument is cretinous nonsense to dishonestly deny the current research and conclusions made to the best evidence currently available. L!ars like creationists, alternative medicine purveyors and anti vaxxers make such claims because evidence and rational study do not support them.

    As it stands there is no methodologically valid alternative that holds up to scrutiny or weight of evidence and research. If there were, scientific consensus would be far more guarded on the issue than it is.

  102. It does not require a doctorate to find the definition of science.

    As to “revising opinions based in new evidence and research technology suddenly makes scientific discovery less credible” – no, in both cases there was little or no evidence, there was consensus. In fact you accidentally hit the nail on tye had -“opinions”. Opinions which in both cases was dead wrong.

    The closest analogue in science is a hypothesis.

    We form a hypothesis, and then we test it.

    “Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of TESTABLE explanations and predictions about the universe.”

    OK – explain the TEST you propose to perform on whatever model of climate change you hanker for.

    Once real science was conducted, in the case of dinosaurs actually examining the existing fossils and making the calculations, the consensus collapsed. But it did not collapse without a fight. Scientists, like the rest of us, love their opinions.

    There are methodologically valid alternative explanations that explain the weight of evidence – 12 data points – and research – measurements over a hundred years.

    Real science rarely makes 180 degree turns. What you call science does because it is not science, it is politics.

  103. If you measure the thickness of a pizza, add olives, eat the outer third and re-measure the thickness the result will be greater than your initial assessment – but you will still have 30% less pizza.

  104. Couldn’t be. Christ was too busy killing and torturing and creating cancers and new diseases to hurt people with. Christ is a horrid ogre. The bible says so.

    Saggyman FTW! Munch those shorts Sandi.

  105. Shawnie, you horrid, deluded bit​ch, eat shi​t and die painfully.

  106. It takes a doctorate and research in the field to come up with alternatives to the weight of accumulated research in the field.

    Your assertions as to what the scientific community does and doesn’t do amount to statements from a basis of ignorance. You are not qualified to say what is and isn’t proper science.

    “in both cases there was little or no evidence, there was consensus.”

    Untrue on both accounts. New discoveries spurred revisions on both. Again you are in no position to even draw such a conclusion due to lack of expertise. (And evidently lack of research on them)

    Not all scientific fields rely on experimental testing. Many use historical data collection and analysis. Your criteria of testing is ignorantly limited.

    As an amateur, you are not skilled, nor educated in the fields to produce your own qualified opinion on current scientific research. Nobody has to prove this stuff to you. You merely have to see the results of the research done.

    “Scientists, like the rest of us, love their opinions.”

    Unlike Bible Thumpers they are always willing to revise them when evidence is discovered refutes their opinion. There is no apologia in science. Scientists also love to be the ones who refute other scientists and form a new workable theory to be famous for.

  107. Just to be clear there is hardly a “weight of accumulated research in the field”.

    We know that we have been in an Ice Age for roughly 100,000 years, waxing and waning.

    We know that within mankind’s history wooly mammoths lived in Florida and died out less than 4,000 years ago in Alaska.

    We can see the results (e.g., the Pueblos in the American Southwest) of rapid climate change.

    Statements from a basis of ignorance about a “weight of accumulated research in the field” explain nothing.

    Anyone is qualified to weigh whether something meets the definition of science who can read.

    In fact “in both cases there was little or no evidence, there was consensus”. It was a “follow the leader” mindset, just like the Piltdown Man.

    No new discoveries spurred revisions of the cold-blooded dinosaur paradigm – the evidence had already been discovered .

    Historical data collection and analysis involves data and statistics, which can be used to formulate hypotheses, not as a substitute for actual science.

    Since there has been zero testing, mere statistical correlation of smoothed data, expertise in testing is irrelevant.

    As an amateur, you are not skilled, nor educated in the fields, to substitute other methods for the scientific method or apparently to even identify what is and is not the scientific method.

    Computer models are simply models.

  108. “Just to be clear there is hardly a “weight of accumulated research in the field”.”

    Nope, dead wrong on that.

    “We know that…”
    You are not a scientist working in the field and your knowledge and opinion of what is known in that field is limited and cannot be considered to be an informed enough to be taken at face value.

    “Anyone is qualified to weigh whether something meets the definition of science who can read.”

    You are entitled to your opinion as to the definition of science. But it carries no weight since you are speaking from outside the subject and those with expertise within it.

    You have no idea how scientific research is conducted or evaluated. There is an entire structure in place to filter out junk which cannot be supported or results which cannot be reproduced. It is vetted by people known for taking contrary positions to ensure “its not political” as you claim. The whole purpose of peer review is to avoid what you are claiming is happening. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

    “No new discoveries spurred revisions of the cold-blooded dinosaur paradigm – the evidence had already been discovered .”

    Repeating a statement made from ignorance and laziness does not make it any truer. In fact warm blooded dinosaurs is not even the consensus in the field.

    “In fact “in both cases there was little or no evidence, there was consensus”. It was a “follow the leader” mindset, just like the Piltdown Man.”

    False as well. There was no consensus on Piltdown Man either. From the outset, skepticism persisted. You are either too lazy or ignorant to learn the facts on that as well.

    “Historical data collection and analysis involves data and statistics, which can be used to formulate hypotheses, not as a substitute for actual science.”

    Your opinion as to what constitutes “actual” science is worthless since you lack even the most basic education in the field. You can’t pretend entire fields don’t really exist because you don’t like or understand how they operate.

    “As an amateur, you are not skilled, nor educated in the fields, to substitute other methods for the scientific method or apparently to even identify what is and is not the scientific method.”

    Cretin Bob is trying to mirror my syntax and substitute something stupid. I dominate your thoughts! That doesn’t even make sense.

    You want to know standards here, the best one to use is a legal one. Legal evaluation of expertise is a common intersection between science/expertise and laypeople/amateurs.
    Do a little homework and look up “Daubert” and “Frye Standards”. Both lay out how one can evaluate scientific information for use by people who are not scientists but need to apply their findings. In both standards, “Acceptance in the field” is a paramount criteria.

    “Computer models are simply models.”

    Ramblings of a person too lazy and ignorant to educate themselves on the subject.

    [Seriously, this is stuff which shows up on a basic web search, you are being both lazy, ignorant and insistent a dangerous trifecta if you want to be taken seriously. ]

  109. Here is what I don’t get about climate change denialists:

    If efforts to combat climate change result in more parsimonious use of limited fossil fuels, increased green space, reduced air pollution, alternative energy derived from less politically unstable places, more fuel efficient machinery, increased recycling, less waste, would it even matter if the theory behind it may not be correct?

    Are these not unambiguously good things for the world?

  110. Your source is not a reliable one.
    “In this new case I’ve located Dr. Ole Humlum PhD from The University Courses on Svalbard (UNIS), Norway. He is a professor of physical geography at UNIS.

    Dr. Humlum runs a website called Climate 4 You where he presents a wide range of data related to paleoclimate. What caught my eye was that Dr. Humlum makes the same mistake that everyone else seems to make. They append the modern instrumental record on the end of the GISP2 data to suggest that current warming is nothing out of the ordinary. But as I’ve previously pointed out in Crux of a Core Part 1 and Part 2 this is in error. This is comparing one high latitude local proxy (GISP2) with the modern global record.”

    More criticism of the good Dr. Humlum’s use of research data
    “Citing irrelevant quotes or taken out of their context, misunderstanding fundamental concepts, concentrating on precise points without looking at the broad picture, cherry-picking or even inventing scientific facts and data in order to provide with justifications to their hypotheses, etc.

    So we would like to thank them from the heart, because they have chosen to be good examples of how science should not be done, how climate science can be at worst when left to the sole hands of so-called climate “skeptics”.”

    If you can’t rely on peer reviewed methodologically vetted research in the field, your assertions as to current scientific theories are full of crap.

  111. Thank you (?) for your sad ignorant lazy response.

    The 2004 (!) article by Naomi Oreskes you cite actually supports my argument.

    You provided a url to the summary, but fortunately my Science subscription provided me access to the article itself.

    What Oreskes does is survey the scientific literature and concludes there is a consensus (not evidence) global climate change is occurring affected by human activities.

    Sadly for your argument there is not a great deal of additional actual data that has been accumulated in the last 14 years, and some of it appears to undercut the basis for the consensus she found then.

    Computer models, btw, are simply models. Using them to form hypotheses, scientists then have to contrive experiment to validate them (testing).


    You’re just regurgitating nonsense you’ve read on the internet and provided your usual ungrounded opinion on a topic you know nothing about.

  112. Ends justify the means, eh? The push for those things has been around since the popular fears were about global cooling reducing food production. You can have all that without shutting down inquiry on climate, which is a very shortsighted thing to do. They are mostly value judgments that aren’t even dependent on climate science. You have to sell these policies to the people either way — and over the years the people have seen an awful lot of faulty, incomplete, and flip-flopping science called in to support one party or another’s agenda. People tend to balk when they suspect they’re not hearing the whole story.

  113. Couldn’t be. Christ was too busy killing and torturing and creating millions of cancers and new diseases to hurt people with. Christ is a horrid ogre. The bible
    says so and you admitted it. You agree again when you post again.

    Saggyman FTW! Munch those shorts Sandi.

  114. I am simply employing an argument frequently employed for the acceptance of religious belief. A play on Pascal’s wager you guys like so much. 🙂

    Still not seeing the downside to the measures dealing with global warming. You aren’t demonstrating them either,

    You mention about past popular fears, but what was done in response to them? Nothing of note. Global cooling was something more in the public mind than a well established scientific idea. The 70’s had a lot of that going around.

    The problem with your statement about inquiry is that science is not democratic by nature. It is a meritocracy. Not all inquiry is in good faith or can be worth considering. Only those which are methodologically sound and well supported by evidence can be considered. Climate Change denial largely is neither honest inquiry nor methodologically sound enough to be credible on its face. Its not Bible Study. Its not something anyone can pick up and expound upon. That is why science is performed by scientists. Not internet commentators.

    You decry science for “flip flopping” but it is far better to revise opinions based on new data than to hold to an idea irrationally when evidence does not support it. The constant changes is what keeps science credible.It represents the changes in our knowledge and updates to the best of what we have. What you are extolling is dogma. Something not respected as rational thought.

    Again, please show me the downside to any of the policies I have mentioned? Please answer the question directly and on topic for once.

  115. The folks at Skeptical Science already answered your question.

    “Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

    1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

    2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

    The real proof of the weight of scientific consensus
    “(over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’ published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.”

    97% of all research and evidence gathered on the subject points to global warming.

  116. “Not all inquiry is in good faith or can be worth considering. Only those which are methodologically sound and well supported by evidence can be considered.“

    Exactly the 17th century objections to the heliocentric model. Which went against all the scientific “consensus” since Ptolemy and for which firm evidentiary support would not be forthcoming for another 200 years. So in the meantime no further inquiry was worth considering? Please.

    “Again, please show me the downside to any of the policies I have mentioned?” Re-read what I wrote. I have no particular objections to ANY of these policies. But they are achievable without pushing dogma. It is the idea that there is nothing wrong with treating certain scientific views as unassailable dogma which is objectionable — and you eventually will as well when the “consensus” and the agenda of the moment changes.

    “If your government lies to you it’s for your own good!” — Archie Bunker

  117. LOL! You have to go prior to the existence of the formalized scientific method to make your point?

    ” I have no particular objections to ANY of these policies. ”

    That must have been buried in the pile of nonsense you were throwing up at the time.

    “But they are achievable without pushing dogma.”

    True, but right now the only people pushing dogma are the ones who are ignoring the findings of the scientific community. The denialists. Too bad those denialists also have seemingly no interest in even approaching any of those goals mentioned. Quite the opposite.

    “It is the idea that there is nothing wrong with treating certain scientific views as unassailable dogma which is objectionable”

    Good. Because that is not what is happening. You are objecting based on ignorance of how the scientific community operates and your own personal biases. When the weight of the evidence points to a different direction, that is the one the scientific community will go towards.

    You are a hypocrite on the subject. At once assailing the scientific community for revising its findings based on new evidence (calling it “flip/flopping”) and then accusing it of holding fast to ideas without being willing to revise them. I guess when you have a position which is irrational and anti-scientific, talking out of both sides of your mouth is expected.

  118. “You have to go prior to the existence of the formalized scientific method to make your point?” The scientific method dates from Francis Bacon in the 16th century. Get an education.

    “True, but right now the only people pushing dogma are the ones who are ignoring the findings of the scientific community. The denialists.” Oh? You’ve conveniently forgotten the ExxonMobile fiasco?

    http://thehill dot com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/234478-without-evidence-ariz-democrat-questioning-climate dot html

    Or California’s failed attempt to ban climate-change dissent: dot gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1161

    Even to the point of federal meddling in public education on behalf of the dogma: https://www.washingtontimes dot com/news/2017/apr/4/house-democrats-urge-teachers-to-trash-book-by-cli/

    “You are a hypocrite on the subject. At once assailing the scientific community for revising its findings based on new evidence (calling it “flip/flopping”)” And you are severely reading-challenged. I have not “assailed” the scientific community for flip-flopping on many questions. That is entirely to be expected. What I said is that the people have seen many of these cycles and are therefore skeptical and indeed resentful of any attempt to silence dissent. If you are going to sell your stated environmental objectives you are going to have to do it while acknowledging and addressing the limitations of the current scientific “consensus.” Because tomorrow (figuratively speaking) it will very probably be something different.

  119. Still an irrelevance to anything relating to the topic here. Most put the full fledged creation of the scientific method with Newton’s work. Newton being an actual scientist to boot!

    “You’ve conveniently forgotten the ExxonMobile fiasco”

    You mean their funding of junk science to defend fossil fuel use and their embarrassing use of paying for junk science/psuedoscience.

    “Or California’s failed attempt to ban climate-change dissent:”

    Which is still not accepted science. Much like banning the use of references to voodoo or creationism.

    “Even to the point of federal meddling in public education on behalf of the dogma: ”

    You mean trashing dogma. Since “Climate change dissent” is not an established scientific theory. ““Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, ”

    The problem you have is Climate Change Denialism isn’t established science, so it does not get the benefit of being taken at face value like things which are. Having a different opinion in science is not the same as having an equal opinion.

    Your whining is much like how Creationists make a stink about their writings being banned from public schools. They claim its an atheist conspiracy. Non-wingnuts know its because their stuff is dishonest religious junk which has nothing to do with science.

    “I have not “assailed” the scientific community for flip-flopping on many questions. That is entirely to be expected.”

    Now you are playing revisionist. How typical.

    “What I said is that the people have seen many of these cycles and are therefore skeptical and indeed resentful of any attempt to silence dissent.”

    So you are saying the lay public is rather ignorant, prone to panic and generally misinterprets what goes on in the scientific community. Standing behind unsupportable junk because it calls itself dissent. Much like how people support pure crap like alternative medicine, anti-vaccination, and Creationism. Climate change denialism adds the extra layer of being supported by the vast resources of the fossil fuel industry and panicky Bible Thumpers who are easily led by fiscal conservative politicians.

    The great thing about this subject is its not a matter of just having a different opinion. Its that one side is entirely wrong and there is the huge weight of evidence to prove they are. Climate Change Denialism isn’t recognized science nor has to be treated as such. Nobody has to be fair to the other side or pretend they deserve to be heard. That scientific consensus is not political or an agreement on an opinion, it is the accumulation of peer reviewed research and reflects the evidence gathered by it.

  120. ” The percentage of publishing climate scientists who accept AGW is at least 99.9 percent and may verge on unanimity.”

    “Remember that the 99.9 percent figure does not represent what we usually mean by consensus: agreement of opinion. Rather it is derived from the peer-reviewed literature and thus reflects the evidence therein. It tells us that there is virtually no publishable evidence against AGW. That is why scientists accept the theory.”

  121. “Most put the full fledged creation of the scientific method with Newton’s work. Newton being an actual scientist to boot!” Nope, most don’t. Did you see a movie about Newton and think he was the first scientist?

    “Now you are playing revisionist. How typical.” Nope, you just lack reading comprehension skills.

    “So you are saying the lay public is rather ignorant, prone to panic and generally misinterprets what goes on in the scientific community.” Nope, exactly as I said, they are justifiably suspicious of attempts to shut down inquiry and dissent. But thanks for demonstrating again for us the attitude of disdain (I believe Ben calls it “wholly imaginary superiority” or somesuch) that put your Madame President in the dustbin of history and is threatening to put your entire party in there with her because not nearly enough of you have learned anything from it.

    The rest of your screed is merely dogmatic garbage. Science is only “established” until it isn’t. Free inquiry matters. And yes, it matters whether theories are faulty or not. Only an ignoramus with no acquaintance with academia — or a sociopath — pretends otherwise. Stalin, as I recall, did not like having his pet scientific theories questioned either.

    “Nobody has to be fair to the other side or pretend they deserve to be heard.” I seriously doubt that anybody cares very much about a fair hearing from you. I think the coffee’s done, dear.

  122. You already agreed with me that doing the various things in response to global warming are good things. Everything else is just fevered ramblings of someone who doesn’t know how scientific consensus is created.

    All you demonstrated is there is a segment of the population which is generally ignorant of science, prone to panic and gullible towards directed hucksterism. It’s not being skeptical, it’s being irrational. “Dissent” on scientific issues requires scientific training, inquiry and evidence. That is not what you are discussing here. You are talking about unqualified amateurs complaining and disputing things beyond their knowledge and skills.

    Of course one can feel superior to science denialists. One side has evidence, the denialist doesn’t.

    ” it matters whether theories are faulty or not.”

    And not being a scientist in the field, your opinions on a given theory are worthless. You lack the skills, education and ability to make any informed determination on such things.

    “Science is only “established” until it isn’t. Free inquiry matters”

    Inquiry done by scientists in the field. Not delusional amateur know it alls. There is no restrained inquiry here in the field. The claim to the contrary merely demonstrates ignorance of the process and procedures of scientific inquiry.

  123. Restating your emotional garbage does not make it any less garbage-like.

    Look, Lare, I feel for you. I wish you could have gotten an education, as you would probably have been a much more pleasant person if you did not feel constantly compelled to try to cover up your ignorance and project on others the insults you’ve likely swallowed all your life. But your thinking is far too disorganized and your argumentation too clumsy to do yourself, or your side of any issue, any favors. Truth matters independently of whatever your agenda may be: the truth or falsity of scientific theory matters in science, the meaning of the Constitution’s words matter in law, the meaning of scripture matters in theology, the lessons of history matter in formulation of current and future policy. When you suggest that it doesn’t, you become the very face of your party’s problem and you cause others to not see the faces of the very good people who some liberals undoubtedly are.

    And reading matters. Turn off the TV and the phone and try some.

  124. I’ll add “science” to my list of topics you think you can bluff your way through.

  125. Of course there is the problem that for the most part climate scientists who accept AGW cannot get published.

    The phrase “there is virtually no publishable evidence against AGW” may describe an effective propaganda campaign, similar to the stone silence on the Holocaust.

    James Lawrence Powell is a geologist, geology being an earth science concerned with the solid Earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the processes by which they change over time. It has essentially nothing to do with the climate.

    In 2012 Powell conducted a survey of scientific papers regarding the topic of anthropogenic global warming by searching Web of Science for scientific papers published from 1991 to 2012. He identified 13,950 papers, but only 24 which argued that humans were not the primary cause of global warming. He updated his survey in 2014 to include 2,258 studies published from November 12, 2012, to December 21, 2013, and identified only one study published during this time that argued that global warming was not caused by human activity.

    This is consensus statistics, not science, which would involve creating testable hypotheses and then testing them. Consensi are untested hypotheses.

    The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has itself had some questionable practices.

    French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975 the founders of CSICOP, of which the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is part – astronomer Dennis Rawlins, along with Paul Kurtz, George Abell and Marvin Zelen – began investigating the claim. Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science, and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. He wrote: “I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism.” CSICOP’s Philip J. Klass responded by circulating an article to CSICOP members critical of Rawlins’ arguments and motives; Klass’s unpublished response itself became the target for further criticism.

  126. There have been many testable hypotheses and testing supported the hypotheses of AGW.
    Instead of the ridiculous denying of this hypotheses. deniers need to either do a peer reviewed falsification of this hypothesis, or an evidence supported contradiction.

  127. She says 97% of 2000 published papers. These papers were obviously based on evidence. One paper with evidence that AGW were a false hypotheses and was peer reviewed by scientists respected by climate scientists would make the author fabulously famous. That in all this time that hasn’t happened, makes this hypothesis look like a theory.

    If you want to support the deniers, and spread alternative facts, you would be better off just saying your president claims it’s a Chinese trick.

  128. The statement “(t)hese papers were obviously based on evidence” puts its finger directly on the error.

    From the standpoint of science what we’re interested in is the evidence, not the opinion.

    Prescinding for a moment from the simple fact that she is providing an opinion of an opinion, it is the evidence itself that needs to be examined and weighed.

    A survey of opinions doesn’t speak to that requirement.

    Nor does it provide any information as to the quality of these opiners.

    I provided Spuddie with additional references which cut directly into the methodology used.

    The approach described can tell us which cliff the lemmings are running towards, but essentially nothing about whether jumping off the cliff will make any sense.

  129. Or provide equally testable hypotheses which fit the same data points.

    That’s been done.

    We’re really not interested in a poll of opinions. What we’re after is which hypothesis – if any – is the right one.

    Polls don’t answer that question.

  130. Now you are just making crap up to cover your own ignorance of how the peer review process works. Papers are reviewed by people who specifically have contrary views or research to ensure methodologies are sound. It is also done to prevent the appearance of bias in research. To vet the credibility of the research and provide a measure of flexibility to findings which pass muster.

    You don’t know what you are talking about here.

    “similar to the stone silence on the Holocaust.”

    You are a holocaust denier too? Oh brother. I will discuss that later. If correct, it opens up a whole new example of your ignorance or dishonesty.

    No citation to your source here. All you have indicated here is CSICOP rebutted junk with their own findings.

    “This is consensus statistics, not science”
    No, its science. Consensus built by the weight of accumulated research. Research you really have no clue how its conducted or evaluated. Hence ridiculous allegations of conspiracy here.

  131. Consensus created by the weight of the evidence. Both. Your ignorance as to how scientific theories are adopted is duly noted.

  132. LOL, an entire field of scientists accumulate research and publish their findings, which you ignore for compliance theory and paid clearly biased, unattributed nonsense and you claim I am the ignorant one. Too funny.

  133. You don’t know how scientific consensus is formed. You made that clear with your nonsense accusations and rambling. You don’t have the expertise to challenge it either. Your argument is kept afloat by a combination of ego and ignorance. You made that obvious.

    Are there other scientific ideas you oppose, despite the weight of evidence? Evolution? Vaccinations? A spherical planet?

    We entrust science to scientists and the structure they created to ensure credibility. You want to challenge expert opinion, become an expert first.

  134. The actual data – “findings” – is de minimus.

    Nor, as I have already cited, is “the entire field” in agreement with you.

    Too pathetic.

  135. Since these polls (consensus) don’t provide the evidence itself, “(c)onsensus created by the weight of the evidence” seems to indicate you’re a self-appointed pundit, not a scientist.

  136. Peer review:

    “Some scholars even complain that peer review itself has not been scientifically validated. The main reason behind the lack of empirical studies on peer review is the difficulty in accessing data.”…/Deborah_Poff_PRESENTATION_final_ENGLISH.pdf

    Speaking, of course, of “you really have no clue how its conducted or evaluated”.

    Question: if a majority of “scientists” jumped off the cliff, would Spuddie jump off the cliff?

    Answer: The answer is obvious.

    Give it a break.

  137. That certainly sounds like the underpinnings of a dictatorship, in this case led by “scientists”.

  138. A dictatorship of qualified experts!

    A Meritocracy where research is put through the ringer to make sure it can withstand criticism and to ensure it is inherently credible. Only that work which has proved its merit through the rigorous peer review process gets taken at face value.

    A Competentocracy where only those with the sufficient education and expertise in the field can effectively discuss and interpret the evidence gathered effectively in a credible expert manner.

  139. You still have no clue how scientific consensus is formed. You haven’t drawn the conclusion you are seeking here, that it was an inherently political process. None of which points to where the peer review process has allegedly failed to work in the case of global warming

    I doubt you even read the articles you cited. Because they point to esoteric issues with peer review and seek to improve the process. They do not point to the total attack on peer review that you expected.
    “Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific
    communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the
    scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed
    work to meet certain standards of scientific quality. Since scientific
    knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly
    important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone
    else’s unreliable study! Peer-reviewed work isn’t necessarily correct
    or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that
    means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer
    review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by
    incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge,
    building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results.”
    “Here is the bottom line – peer-review is a necessary component of
    quality control in science, but is no guarantee of quality, and you have to know the details of the journal that is providing the peer-review.”

    It is pretty obvious you will follow any amount of quackery and bullsh1t under the assumption of being “dissent”. Do you do your own dentistry or take homeopathic “medicine”? We have experts in a field because they have expertise. Knowledge and skills in the field not easily picked up by the public. If you want to challenge experts in a field, you need expertise of your own.

    So what was that holocaust reference about? Are you some kind of denier?

  140. “That’s been done.”

    Please cite to it from a peer reviewed scientific journal. Amateurs need not apply.

    “We’re really not interested in a poll of opinions.”

    Luckily it isn’t. Its the synthesis and summary of accumulated research and evidence gathered.

  141. I am not a scientist and neither are you. I am honest enough to rely on the evidence presented by experts in a credible scientific manner. You are not.

  142. “The actual data – “findings” – is de minimus.”

    Only to you. Because you have demonstrated on several occasions that you are not concerned with evidence. You just don’t want to concede a point even when evidence is piled on you.

    “is “the entire field” in agreement with you.”

    The accumulated vetted research in the field says otherwise. You have not cited to a single credible source on the subject.

  143. “Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication.”

    Actually, no. They support what we use for official scientific communication.

    As your own citation states “peer-review is a necessary component of quality control in science, but is no guarantee of quality”.

    In other words, complete rubbish gets peer-reviewed and published.

    Perhaps you have forgotten the question?

    “Is the climate changing, if it is changing do we know how it is changing, and if that change is unwanted and deleterious, is there anything we can do about?”

    You seem to working on the question “how many ‘scientists’ agree with my view?”.

    Nothing that you’ve posted addresses the first question, which is the only important one.

    And, yes, a consensus can develop supporting utter hogwash.

  144. Summary: Spuddie know what he agrees with.

    I don’t the world is ready to hand itself over to a meritocracy, especially given the track record we get from politically compliant science.

  145. Experts giving expert opinions being credible! OMG!

    Even our entire legal system does what I am doing. Leaving scientific expertise to scientific experts based on the acceptance in the field created by the weight of accumulated research. (See Daubert and Frye Standards)

  146. Your expertise in the field of scientific research comes from where?

    Pulled out of your sphincter.

    So far you have not cited anything which even approaches the level of credibility of the semi-flawed peer review process. You have just been bloviating and referencing wingnuts and non-scientific critics.

    “In other words, complete rubbish gets peer-reviewed and published.”

    More often than not, it also gets retracted. Even more pure rubbish can’t meet even the most basic standards of being methodologically sound.

    I am working on the premise that you have no knowledge or qualification to even present a credible challenge to existing scientific knowledge on the subject. You have supported my premise well.

  147. I wouldn’t get into the “legal system”. You’ve already embarrassed yourself enough with your ignorance of that area.

    We’re looking for an answer to a question, not acceptance, not a poll.

  148. To this point, in this discussion, you have not provided ANY evidence.

    What you’ve provided is head counts.

  149. Yes, it is fairly plain that you are not a scientist.

    In fact you disputed the standard definition of science.

    You honest enough to have an opinion and express it.

    You are not honest enough to admit it is just your opinion.

  150. I am not the one disputing the established scientific theory in the field. The burden is on you to challenge their expertise. I don’t have to prove it to you.

  151. Still trying to pretend you are an expert or need to be taken seriously in the field. Get your doctorate in climate science and then get back to us. 🙂

  152. The burden is on the one challenging the established scientific theory. I am simply deferring to the experts in the field, as I can. You have to prove your point. Mine already has been proven.

  153. LOL. Being pwned by several direct citations to a case which was dishonestly referenced wasn’t enough for you? Funny.

    A week of posts from you because you were too dishonest to accept overwhelming evidence. I see a pattern here.

  154. No, the burden is on proving the hypothesis to be correct.

    THAT is the scientific burden.

    Yes, whether we call it “deferring” or “bootlicking”, you’re simply parroting some heretofore unproven hypotheses.

  155. Use the correct definition of “science” and get back to us.

  156. The phrase “established scientific theory” touches on one your basic errors.

    Until it is proven a hypothesis is a “scientific theory”.

    Once it has been proven, it is established.

    Calling unproven hypotheses “established scientific theory” is plain silliness.

  157. Scientific consensus = the overwhelming weight of research on the subject = established scientific theory. 🙂

  158. When you get your degree in climate science, then you can show you know what you are talking about when challenging the research and efforts of those who already have them. 🙂

  159. LOL! I will leave the expert opinions to the experts.

  160. Learn to read, Lare. Where exactly did I suggest that I “want to challenge expert opinion?”

    If you libs weren’t so busy telling everybody what they think/want/believe/what-have-you, you might be able to listen and learn something.

    Your question to me was why does it matter if the science is wrong if it supports the policies you like.

    My posts were in response to that— namely, that anyone who can see farther down the line than the end of their nose understands that truth matters in and of itself. And that trying to shut down (or shout down) inquiry on this or any other subject, as libs are perennially guilty of doing, is just going to make it that much harder to sell your policies to the people.

    All the Dems’ rigged polling and reporting and analysis in the world didn’t manage to spirit your candidate into the White House, did it? Wouldn’t it have been better in the long run to have actually looked at and dealt with all the good/bad/ugly of the issues openly and honestly so that a winning strategy could have been crafted?

    Truth matters, pal. It will only cease to matter once you get to be dictator, so good luck with that.

  161. The part where you are claiming the experts in the field and the conclusion they have come to is somehow propaganda. Whatever. Goalpost movement is expected with such conversations. 🙂

    So tell me again why the views of a few crackpots with delusion of scientific training, a few shills for fossil fuel companies, and religious nuts who just don’t like any position taken by liberals need to be taken seriously on a subject of scientific consensus?

    “Your question to me was why does it matter if the science is wrong if it supports the policies you like.”

    I am saying it makes no difference about the science if it supports policies WE like. There is a difference here. Also that the critics involved here don’t know one thing or another about the science involved.

    “All the Dems’ rigged polling and reporting and analysis in the world
    didn’t manage to spirit your candidate into the White House, did it?”

    Changing the subject and going straight into Gish Gallop territory. Not biting here.

    “Truth matters, pal.”

    But you don’t ever seem interested in it. Go figure.

  162. “The part where you are claiming the experts in the field and the conclusion they have come to is somehow propaganda“. I have made no such claim whatsoever. But where dissent is shut down through political means, THAT smacks of propaganda regardless. After all, why should you be afraid of a few”crackpot shills?”

    “I am saying it makes no difference about the science if it supports policies WE like“. That is what makes your position morally reprehensible. Truth matters. If it doesn’t actually support the policies you, we, or anyone else likes, find another basis to sell those policies on.

    “Changing the subject and going straight into Gish Gallop territory. Not biting here.” No doubt you’re not. For it’s a matter of the same indifference to truth that inspired your original comment. No “change of subject“ whatsoever. Liberal zealots are slow learners, no? You probably were at a loss in high school when asked to identify parallels among multiple narratives, weren’t you?

    “But you don’t ever seem interested in it. Go figure.“. In light of your preceding statements, the irony is delicious. Thank you.

Leave a Comment