Very interesting point Jodi. I do believe however that not all religions promote the idea that G-d controls everything. Many ‘believers’ would argue just as adamantly that free will plays a big part.

I think this is an important thing - that religious arguments is found on both sides of any issue. Religion as such can not tell us what to think, it only gives us the arguments we use to defend our thoughts…

To convince people who can read - I think it can be as simple as pointing out he changing environment around him or her. George Monbiot writes in the preface to Burn, that it is only people with university degrees who doubt global warming. This is polemical, of course, but ultimatley he is right. In order to doubt it you must read a lot of pseudo science, and forget the evidence in ront of your eyes.

@ Lara - you’re right of course, but a substantial number of people do submit to “god’s will” in situations which are overwhelming - like death, disaster, war… and climate change is something that feels bigger than us so I could see how if people were deeply religious then they might tell themselves it is God’s doing.

@ Daniel - I agree with your point about religion being used to support our views. I think that most people take a stance on climate change that fits their existing lifestyle/viewpoints.

I’m not sure how we convince people of climate change who can’t read or write - perhaps you’re right, it might be as easy as letting their eyes and ears guide them. But coming back to religion, it might easier for people to leave it in God’s hands. No easy answer that’s for sure.

Attention psychos:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/05/shades-of-fahrenheit-451-british-retirees-burning-books-to-stay-warm/

Having fun killing old people?

What a surprise that religous people are not willing to be converted to another religion, really.

@ Mike - this isn’t about alternative energy, this is about poverty. The majority of these people are actually entitled to a £25 cold weather allowance per week to help them buy fuel but many feel too proud to take benefits. Don’t confuse the issue.

Oh, I’m sure those frozen windmills are helping the poor too. How about those solar panels when they shatter from the ice?

Those poor people must be doing just dandy without any source of heating.

You know that 8 times as many people die from cold than from heat, right? Whatever.

Hi Jodi,

I think the problem you face, is AGW is not scientific law,….., it’s not even a theory,….., it is only a hypothesis.  If it was conclusive as you say, then most scientists would accept it and move on to something else.  It is stunning that you discuss AGW in the matter-of-fact tones like the rest of science discusses the Law of Gravity.

It’s also quite arrogant of you to separate those in the scientific community from those in the religious community as if they are distinct separate groups.  Your implication is that people of religion are ignorant, and cannot think for themselves.  This is a slippery slope you are on, as before you even start the debate, you insult other peoples intelligence and sensibility.  Did you ever consider that some of the best scientists in the world are also quite religious?  Did you ever consider that some religions require that man take care of the planet?

To imply that you are more objective and have the scientific community behind you is also quite brash and is equivalent to a preacher in the Bible belt screaming that you are going to burn in hell unless you acknowledge that Christ is your savior. 

AGW may be a fact, but, it is far from being proven.  In fact it is going in the other direction.  There are more scientists, especially atmospheric chemists, physicists and engineers, who think AGW is only a hypothesis.  Unfortunately, climatologists, geologists, and meteorologists, work in a climate of fear and journalistic bullying.  The hacked East Anglian emails are just one example of the fear they have to live under when they dissent with the career AGW scientists.  Clearly the debate is not over.  Actually this is healthy for science, as the process in science is you continually challenge your hypothesis and try to prove it wrong.  To approach this any other way is unscientific.

You cannot intimidate, shout down, patronize, and condescend legitimate scientists that have clear hypotheses that counter your own.  If you do this, you lose total credibility.

People of religion, who also understand the scientific method, immediately recognize AGW (as theory) for what it is:  religion.

People of religion are also much more pragmatic than you give them credit for.  They know that if you follow the money, you usually get the answer.  Ask yourself who is going to profit from the acceptance of AGW?  You should be very uncomfortable when you start seeing that those that stand to profit the most from global warming, are those that are its strongest advocates.

In science, we call this a conflict of interest.  It eliminates you from the debate.  The Gores, the Strongs, the UN, most liberal governments, and quite literally the southern hemisphere, all fall into this bucket.

Brian

@ Brian… you’ve taken a rather hardline reading of my blog. I was merely raising a point for consideration. Nowhere did I imply that everyone who believes in God is non-scientific, anti-environment or ignorant. I simply said that certain individuals who take a fundamentalist view of creation and God’s role in dictating events would find it unthinkable to suggest that man could in someway influence the climate or the weather. (as the quote I used showed). I found it interesting, and thought it would add to the debate…

In terms of the discussion around anthropogenic global warming, yes you’re right it isn’t an open and shut case. But there is general consensus that global warming is occurring, and the best explanation that we have at the moment (and the one the wider international scientific community is pursuing) is that human made emissions of CO2 have caused it to occur. Personally I feel there is sufficient evidence to consider it a major concern and to do something about it.

I’m not sure where i tried to “intimidate, shout down, patronize, and condescend legitimate scientists” - either in this blog or elsewhere. I simply have adopted the stance which is convincing to me. You’re free to follow your own convictions.

As for AGW being a religion - well we’ve had this debate a number of time on this forum and it’s not one I really feel like engaging in again. Take a look at some of the other posts on the topic.

I would also point out that those who stand to profit from AGW not being true are its strongest detractors - that should make you feel uncomfortable and I’d be careful about throwing around terms like “conflict of interest”.

Anyhow, we do agree on one thing… voicing scepticism and maintaining debate is essential to scientific progress. Ignoring or suppressing information cannot benefit anyone. So thanks for your comments…

Admittedly I went off track a couple of times.  If you’re interested in a segue, I’m your man.

Your tone however, is patronizing towards people who rely on their faith…..as if this puts them in a special bucket.  I’ve seen it in other posts of yours.  e.g. your amazement that x percent of the people in the US don’t believe in evolution.

And…....., do you realize that you have stepped into the centuries old debate of free-will vs. God’s grace?  This is really the central tenant of your post, so I won’t veer off and respond to other comments, e.g. “follow the money”.

You may be questioning your own beliefs?  You do have at least two other posts that hit on the same topic.

I wasn’t intending to be patronizing. I have nothing against faith - I was simply raising a different angle to the debate. And undeniably an unwavering belief that God controls everything has to impact the way certain individuals view climate change. It wasn’t something I’d really considered before, and found in interesting. It doesn’t in any way suggest I think that religious people are ignorant.