Belief? Based on Politics or Reality?

Climate change denial.

Based on Politics or Reality?

Christian climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe:

 

Recently in the comments section of my blog, a video was posted that made an extraordinary comparison.
While the video was primarily about the early space program, the interview guest, clearly wanting to defend the contribution of former Nazi rocket expert Werner von Braun, insisted the rocket scientist’s help of the Nazis was self-preserving pragmatism.
That is quite possibly the case.
However, the guest continued with a comparison: that von Braun’s pragmatism was the same as scientists today having to endorse climate change to avoid being ostracised by the wider scientific community.

How do we count the problems within that comparison?

The man making that comparison was William Federer, a professing Christian who I’ve seen described as “a nationally known speaker, best-selling author, and president of Amerisearch, Inc., a publishing company dedicated to researching America’s noble heritage”.

Putting aside the ignorant offensiveness of his comparison, the suggestion that climate change deniers are being pressured to conform, when denial is the expressed stance of the current White House administration, is at odds with examples like this:

 

I was a climate scientist in a climate-denying administration – and it cost me my job

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/25/trump-administration-climate-crisis-denying-scientist

The US President chooses not to believe in climate change while 97%+ of scientists are reported as recognizing its reality.

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.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Those denying that percentage tend to have links to the fossil fuel industries, or see political advantage (fossil fuel $$$) from climate change denial (refer to Donald Trump at the beginning of the video above)

I have to wonder why so many “evangelicals” choose to climb into bed with fossil fuel industry interests?

Why do Christians reject scientific evidence in favour of political, money focused dogma?

 

Man sees what he chooses to see.

I mentioned in an earlier post that Christian climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe has noted: “We are being told things by people who don’t like the solutions to climate change and have decided that it’s a lot better and a lot smarter to deny the reality of the problem than to acknowledge it exists but say you don’t want to do anything about it.”

Naomi Klein has pointed out something similar, that acceptance of climate change realities would demand actions that some find politically unpalatable – so they choose to reject evidence pointing to the reality of climate change.
Rather than accept the findings of the majority of climate scientists, they prefer to hunt out a few scientists (often not involved in climate science) who deny it.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4104925.htm

In other words, their stance is determined by what they PREFER to believe rather than by the validity of evidence.

I was talking to Gloria about this last night, and she very astutely pointed out that it’s the same situation when it comes to belief in God.
People choose to deny God, not because of lack of evidence, but because they don’t like the inevitable consequences of recognising Him. An acceptance of God requires a response; a consideration that He might require changes that will take us from the path we want to follow.

Some prefer to blind their eyes and block their ears than to see or hear a truth that requires a short-term price to be paid to gain a long term benefit.

Climate Change: Fact and Faith

An EXCELLENT interview – primarily on the issue of climate change, but also revealing the reality of political influence shaping the beliefs of Christians, as well as the motivation behind those influential political ideologies.

Caring about climate is entirely consistent with who we are as Christians, but over the last several decades we have increasingly begun to confound our politics with our faith to the point where instead of our faith dictating our attitudes on political and social issues we are instead allowing our political party to dictate our attitude on issues that are clearly consistent with who we are.

[Katharine Hayhoe]

We are being told things by people who don’t like the solutions to climate change and have decided that its a lot better and a lot smarter to deny the reality of the problem than to acknowledge it exists but say you don’t want to do anything about it.

[Katharine Hayhoe]