# Atheists and climate change **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843 "2012-01-08T20:15:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/41 "2012-01-10T01:52:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > A ‘pack of lies’?? Is THAT the origin of dogs that has been hidden from us??? :eek: Well, I think one should leave a pack of sleeping dogs lie… 😛 > [@xtisme](#): > > No, I don’t think that the skepticism about climate change has to do with a supposed view of the scientific community as atheists. If that were the case then it would go for just about everything in science, not just climate studies. I THINK the reason the general public (in the US) distrusts the whole Global Warming thingy is due to several factors. One, let’s be honest here…it’s hard to understand for most people (myself included), and the proofs are not all that intuitive. A lot of it relies on climate models, something again that aren’t well understood by the public at large. Not even close, models are a tool used, but scientists do not depend on them to arrive to the conclusion that we are headed for trouble. [http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2010\_fall/climate\_change\_debate.htm](http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2010_fall/climate_change_debate.htm) > [@](#): > > “Why are scientists so confident that the earth is warming?” Dessler asked. “It’s because we have lots of data.” He cited findings from surface thermometers, satellites, glacier and ice melt, ocean temperatures and rising sea levels. > > He said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls that evidence unequivocal, and that there is irrefutable evidence that CO2 warms the earth. > > “It’s a question of magnitude,” he said. > > The combination of CO2 with other warming factors such as humidity and the resulting cloud formation provide a recipe for global warming, according to Dessler. He also dismissed the idea that evidence for anthropogenic climate change is based on hypothetical models rather than existing data. That links to a very long video of the presentations, but one can check just the first 10 minutes or so to see that climate models are not the main reason why the experts have a concern. > [@xtisme](#): > > I think most proponents as well as detractors come to their positions more from faith than through a really solid grasp of how it all works. The main reason I’ve converted to the ‘it’s happening, humans are causing it’ is, frankly, because I’ve been convinced by 'dopers on this board who DO seem to understand it…and I’m just going with that to fill in the gaps. Not bad, but it is hard to me to be convinced that there is more faith involved now when actually there was more faith before among scientists until around the 50s. Faith? The true faith, and we can say now by hindsight, was among the early researchers, when one checks the history of how we got here, the faith part was coming from many researchers that had the belief that humans were not going to let CO2 emissions reach dangerous levels and that nature was going to deal with it anyhow, finding with experimentation and research that this idea that nature would deal with our emissions with almost no repercussions was indeed a position based on faith, the reality and data have shown otherwise and most scientists began to be convinced by the data and experiments starting from the 70’s. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > [@xtisme](#): > > Another reason is that in the US we are constantly bombarded with Global Warming scare shows…and I think skepticism stems in part from the Crying Wolf Syndrome(aar)…especially when you couple the fact that we’ve been bombarded for literally decades with dire gloom and doomy scenarios from the environmental community on everything from acid rain to nuclear power, and after a while there is going to be a natural reaction against what some see as just another attempt by the environmentalists to get us to go back to living in caves and gathering for our snacks (note: not HUNTING, which would be BAD). I think it’s just an instances of an actual, real crisis hitting us at a time when a large percentage of the public was just saturated with disasters, and was in the mood to be skeptical about anything like this. Couple that with the fact that to ‘fix’ this crisis we’d all have to make real sacrifices, that there are no quick and easy fixes (so it’s painful to admit to it when fixing it would be painful…VERY painful) and that certain groups have latched onto this for political gains (and, again, it’s easier for the public to grasp the denial positions if they are already somewhat in denial about the whole subject, and in no mood for more gloom and doom) and you have a perfect storm, in the US at least, for the general public being split over climate science and global climate change. No atheism needed. The other point the tale of the boy who cried wold teaches us is that in the end there was a wolf. 🙂 In any case, after several discussions and looking at the technology at hand I think that those certain groups have also an interest on hyping the levels of how hard the fix will be. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/42 "2012-01-10T03:47:29Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > Maybe I spend too much time on dog forums. About 10 years ago the National Geographic, which I once respected as an objective authority, published a cover article on the dog stating DNA proved they all descended from the East Asian Wolf. It was presented as settled, proven science. Either the author of the _National Geographic_ article — or the people posting about it in the forums you were reading — don’t really understand what scientific knowledge is. > [@](#): > > Perhaps part of the problem is modern egotism. In the more distant past chemists gave the now politically incorrect name noble to helium and other gases with full electron shells and said they were not known to form compounds. My chemistry text book used the term inert gases and flatly stated they didn’t form compounds. That was disproved before I got out of school. It’s not “modern egotism.” (“Modern”? How is that different from ancient egotism?) It’s a failure to understand (sometimes intentionally) the language of science. In science, all knowledge is provisional. And that’s really the most reliable kind of knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/43 "2012-01-10T04:12:47Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > n science, all knowledge is provisional. And that’s really the most reliable kind of knowledge. Well to an extent. I don’t expect to see challanges to the ideal gas law. I think the public trusts science less and less because so much that represents our best idea based on current data is presented as hard fact. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/44 "2012-01-10T04:30:30Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > Well to an extent. I don’t expect to see challanges to the ideal gas law. I think the public trusts science less and less because so much that represents our best idea based on current data is presented as hard fact. If it is presented as hard fact, it is done so by the media or by writers of popular magazines like National Geographic. Science writing for newspapers or magazines is not generally done by scientists, and is frequently written by people who have a relatively poor grasp of what science actually is about. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/45 "2012-01-10T15:20:26Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Not even close, models are a tool used, but scientists do not depend on them to arrive to the conclusion that we are headed for trouble. [/QUOTE] Yes, I agree there is a lot more to it than just models. My point was that little of it is understood by the general public, regardless of which side of the debate they are on. YOU might understand a lot of this stuff, but I don’t think I’m alone in the majority of it being over my head. > [@](#): > > That links to a very long video of the presentations, but one can check just the first 10 minutes or so to see that climate models are not the main reason why the experts have a concern. You seem to be speaking to something else. My broader point was simply that a lot of the science, whether it’s based on models or whether it’s based on other data is over the general public’s head. > [@](#): > > Not bad, but it is hard to me to be convinced that there is more faith involved now when actually there was more faith before among scientists until around the 50s. No, probably not. General and Special Relativity, for instance, is STILL beyond the ken of most people, even in the broadest terms. Hell, I took 4 years of physics in college and I doubt I have a real grasp of the subject. All the same, it’s generally accepted by the public as fact, and it’s incorporated into a lot of the faux-science type shows on Discovery, TLC, Science, etc. That is the direction (I believe) that climate science will move into, as more and more evidence comes out and the detractors are more and more marginalized, and the general public is able to grasp the Science Channel-esque points and have at least enough understanding of the subject to understand what’s happening. > [@](#): > > The other point the tale of the boy who cried wold teaches us is that in the end there was a wolf. Sure…but what color was the wolf? And how did it factor into the origins of Canis familiaris, and how did the star Sirius factor in?? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/46 "2012-01-10T15:37:25Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > Well to an extent. I don’t expect to see challanges to the ideal gas law. I think the public trusts science less and less because so much that represents our best idea based on current data is presented as hard fact. … by whom? I have never heard a scientist use the term “hard fact.” Usually, I hear the term “hard fact” being used by people who are trying to discredit scientists using strawman arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/47 "2012-01-10T15:50:01Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Another reason is that in the US we are constantly bombarded with Global Warming scare shows…and I think skepticism stems in part from the Crying Wolf Syndrome(aar)…especially when you couple the fact that we’ve been bombarded for literally decades with dire gloom and doomy scenarios from the environmental community on everything from acid rain to nuclear power Those environmentalists who are against nuclear power are indeed crying wolf, but acid rain is partially an example of the “Y2K paradox”, a problem that **seems** to have been overblown until you see that the problem was (partially) mitigated in the first place. There was and is actual damage done by acid rain. It would have been worse if we had taken a China-style approach to pollution. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/48 "2012-01-10T19:15:51Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > Well to an extent. I don’t expect to see challanges to the ideal gas law. I think the public trusts science less and less because so much that represents our best idea based on current data is presented as hard fact. Except the ideal gas law is wrong. It has always been wrong. It is just pretty close to right most of the time. Just like Newton’s laws of gravity, it is a close enough approximation for many uses. Bad science reporting is a real issue, but searched for your National Geographic article and all the articles that I could find that referred to the origin of domesticated dogs used a lot of speculative words, not one claimed that anything was proven. And that is the way it should be when something new is discovered. You should hear things like, “This goes against the previous theory and will require further study and research” instead of “Everything you thought was wrong! Here is the new Truth!” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/49 "2012-01-10T19:23:59Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] Those environmentalists who are against nuclear power are indeed crying wolf, but acid rain is partially an example of the “Y2K paradox”, a problem that seems to have been overblown until you see that the problem was (partially) mitigated in the first place. There was and is actual damage done by acid rain. It would have been worse if we had taken a China-style approach to pollution. [/QUOTE] I agree. Just because they were crying wolf doesn’t mean, as GIGO said, there isn’t a wolf out there. The point though is that the public became saturated with gloom and doom environmental predictions, and at least for most of them the acid rain crisis never materialized. They aren’t sophisticated or knowledgeable enough to realize that it was a crisis partially averted. Just that we had all sorts of environmental gloom and doom predications that didn’t happen. I think that eventually the US public will come around on global climate change…it’s just going to take some time. I’m not sure if we HAVE the time, but the reality is it’s going to take that time for the average American to get on board and to completely marginalize the anti-GW positions. IMHO anyway. After they DO get on board, however, we would still need to figure out what can be done about it, realistically. My fear is that the answer is going to be essentially ‘not much’ at that point, because I think that India and especially China are going to far overtake the US in CO2 emissions…and they are going to be singularly unenthusiastic about doing serious cuts on that if it’s going to effect their economies. Much as the US, even with the citizens on board, are going to be reluctant to take the hit to their economy, or to spend the capital outlay to replace CO2 spewing cars and power plants with cleaner replacements in anything but a long, gradual time table. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/50 "2012-01-10T19:43:25Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > all the articles that I could find that referred to the origin of domesticated dogs used a lot of speculative words, not one claimed that anything was proven. Yeah, it sure sounds like someone has done some spin-doctoring along the way. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/51 "2012-01-10T22:58:46Z")
I doubt most people make the connection between scientists and atheism. I would wager it is because of the stereotype that atheists are atheist because they are bitter, disappointed in and resentful about life. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/52 "2012-01-10T23:34:08Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > This seems to be particularly true when it comes to climate change science. These scientists are "not to be trusted’, are “fudging the data” and “are only in it for the money” Sounds reasonable. Why should they give a shit about Earth if they don’t have to fear the hereafter? Wish I could expand on this, but I must be off to the alternative medicine boards to shill for Big Pharma, in order to qualify for my first quarter bonus. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > the boy who cried wold Wow, I never knew Harry Chapin was an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/53 "2012-01-10T23:45:35Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Yes, I agree there is a lot more to it than just models. My point was that little of it is understood by the general public, regardless of which side of the debate they are on. YOU might understand a lot of this stuff, but I don’t think I’m alone in the majority of it being over my head. > You seem to be speaking to something else. My broader point was simply that a lot of the science, whether it’s based on models or whether it’s based on other data is over the general public’s head. > -XT The interesting thing is that the over the head problem only seems to matter when the conclusions are politically expedient. Most of what is in computers is over the head of most people, but when Bill Gates used to make predictions the average Joe didn’t poo-poo them. Hell, I listen to John Madden every morning, and when he gets into details I realize that football coaching is way over my head - but I don’t start questioning the honesty of coaches. Over my head only means I don’t believe you when I don’t want to believe you. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/54 "2012-01-11T00:49:04Z")
Interesting. It’s over my head and I DO believe in AGW. How do you account for that? [QUOTE=Voyager] The interesting thing is that the over the head problem only seems to matter when the conclusions are politically expedient. Most of what is in computers is over the head of most people, but when Bill Gates used to make predictions the average Joe didn’t poo-poo them. Hell, I listen to John Madden every morning, and when he gets into details I realize that football coaching is way over my head - but I don’t start questioning the honesty of coaches. [/QUOTE] What predictions did Bill Gates make that were on par with the parade of gloom and doom predictions by the various environmental groups for, oh, say the last 4 decades or so? I must have missed them…could you enumerate a few to refresh my memory? As to Madden, you are seriously equating predictions about a football game with the public’s lack of understanding about climate science? 😛 No, seriously…you aren’t saying that, are you? And you believe that a large percentage of the American public dis-believe in climate science and AGW because of political expediency? Really? I’m sorry, but my own Occam’s Razor seems to indicate that it’s simple ignorance in the vast majority…ignorance stemming from the fact that it’s a rather complex and complicated subject that only experts really understand the details about, and that it’s easy to be fooled by detractors, especially when they use ‘common sense’ type rebuttals that SEEM right if you don’t really understand the minutia. To put this in perspective, Evolutionary Theory has been out for over a hundred years and has been pretty widely accepted for a large percentage of those years, yet there are STILL a large percentage of Americans who don’t understand it and a large percentage who, through basic ignorance, don’t ‘believe’ in it. And you really think that it’s simple political expedience that is causing them to not ‘believe’ or understand AGW/Global Climate Change?? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/55 "2012-01-11T01:12:11Z")
I think that much of the disbelief in climate science stems from a) it is a difficult and complex topic, which the vast majority of people do not understand. Combined with: b) political and commercial groups have combined to introduce doubt in the minds of these people, and have convinced them that climate science is somehow corrupt or inaccurate. It’s not “Political expediency” that has turned people into disbelievers. It is a deliberate campaign of sowing doubt and disinformation. Why has b) happened for climate science and not for other type of science? Why don’t people doubt high energy physics or computer science or chemistry? Pretty simple really. Follow the money. How much money is currently being made by burning fossil fuels? Who is funding climate science disinformation campaigns? Which political party is usually the party that is most sympathetic to large business, especially the energy industry? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/56 "2012-01-11T01:12:54Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Interesting. It’s over my head and I DO believe in AGW. How do you account for that? It isn’t politically expedient for you to not believe in it, and you don’t have a blind belief in business being right no matter what. Plus, I rather suspect it is not nearly as much over your head as it is for most people. I don’t understand climate science, but I do understand modeling myself. > [@](#): > > What predictions did Bill Gates make that were on par with the parade of gloom and doom predictions by the various environmental groups for, oh, say the last 4 decades or so? I must have missed them…could you enumerate a few to refresh my memory? Why should the prediction being of doom and gloom matter when someone considers whether to buy it? Do you think people should only accept predictions that make them feel good? I never read Mr. Bills’ book, but my recollection of articles about it makes me think it got thinks about as right as you can expect from someone who missed the Internet. But I don’t remember much naysaying from the masses. > [@](#): > > As to Madden, you are seriously equating predictions about a football game with the public’s lack of understanding about climate science? 😛 No, seriously…you aren’t saying that, are you? What struck me was the level of technical depth involved in that stuff, likely as far above people’s heads as climate science is. But they ask Madden for predictions about games all the time. He gives them, usually under some duress. Why do they credit him more than a climate scientist? > [@](#): > > And you believe that a large percentage of the American public dis-believe in climate science and AGW because of political expediency? Really? I’m sorry, but my own Occam’s Razor seems to indicate that it’s simple ignorance in the vast majority…ignorance stemming from the fact that it’s a rather complex and complicated subject that only experts really understand the details about, and that it’s easy to be fooled by detractors, especially when they use ‘common sense’ type rebuttals that SEEM right if you don’t really understand the minutia. Yes, because many other things could be as easily doubted, but aren’t. Truthers and Birthers believe the truther and birther nitwits in the media because they want to, not because of their believability or expertise. > [@](#): > > To put this in perspective, Evolutionary Theory has been out for over a hundred years and has been pretty widely accepted for a large percentage of those years, yet there are STILL a large percentage of Americans who don’t understand it and a large percentage who, through basic ignorance, don’t ‘believe’ in it. And you really think that it’s simple political expedience that is causing them to not ‘believe’ or understand AGW/Global Climate Change?? > > -XT A perfect example. The basics of evolution are not hard to understand at all. I think there are very few Americans too stupid to get it - if they wanted to. They don’t because of religious expediency. Accepting evolution is seen as their particular brand of religion, so they are convinced those evil atheist scientists are lying, and believe the few deniers out there. Notice how the occasional creationist who drops by can’t defend themselves, or won’t respond to posts about what evolution really says? If that is ignorance, it is willful ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/57 "2012-01-11T01:15:17Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Pretty simple really. Follow the money. How much money is currently being made by burning fossil fuels? Who is funding climate science disinformation campaigns? Which political party is usually the party that is most sympathetic to large business, especially the energy industry? For the average person it is all about “free enterprise” and believing the lies about how the government must hate business when it tells them not to pollute. For evolution, though, it is more about following the bouncing Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/58 "2012-01-11T01:28:37Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > And you believe that a large percentage of the American public dis-believe in climate science and AGW because of political expediency? Really? I’m sorry, but my own Occam’s Razor seems to indicate that it’s simple ignorance in the vast majority… > -XT Mmm, the reality is that politics do influence what a good number of conservatives get from Climate Science. [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-usa-poll-ipsos-idUSTRE78D5B220110915](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-usa-poll-ipsos-idUSTRE78D5B220110915) > [@](#): > > Some 71 percent of the Americans who believe warming is happening think that it is caused either partly or mostly by humans, while 27 percent believe its is the result of natural causes, the poll found. > > While more Americans believe in global warming, the skeptics are becoming more entrenched in their belief that it is not happening. In 2010 the certainty of skeptics was 35 percent, while it was 53 percent in 2011. Again, the Republican climate skeptics are influencing that, Krosnick said. So the good news is that most Americans do believe that this is happening, the bad news is that most of the ones that are being elected from the Republican side are being taken for a ride or are taking us for a ride. I’m afraid we do have to blame outfits like FOX for the entrenched “skepticism” that in reality is denialism coming from powerful groups. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/59 "2012-01-11T01:41:37Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] It isn’t politically expedient for you to not believe in it, and you don’t have a blind belief in business being right no matter what. Plus, I rather suspect it is not nearly as much over your head as it is for most people. I don’t understand climate science, but I do understand modeling myself. [/QUOTE] Sure, I understand computer modeling…I wouldn’t be much of a network engineer if I didn’t understand it at all. As to my understanding, it’s a very Science Channel/Discovery oriented understanding combined with reading through dozens of threads on this subject on this board, which might or might not be all that accurate (I’m fairly sure the debates were pretty good reference). But the average American doesn’t watch the same stuff I do (I pretty much ONLY watch History/Science/TLC and Discovery on TV, leaving aside the porn), nor do they ‘waste their time’ on message boards like this one. I know talking to cow-orkers and family some of the attitudes towards science and especially this topic…and it’s not just the Republican fanatics like my dad who think this stuff. > [@](#): > > Why should the prediction being of doom and gloom matter when someone considers whether to buy it? Do you think people should only accept predictions that make them feel good? I never read Mr. Bills’ book, but my recollection of articles about it makes me think it got thinks about as right as you can expect from someone who missed the Internet. But I don’t remember much naysaying from the masses. Because my theory is it’s the constant low grade bombardment of gloom and doom that has turned the general public against this whole Climate Sciences thingy. I know that a lot of complaints I hear is how the environmentalists have been trying for years and years to make us go back to hunting and gathering (I’m exaggerating here, of course, since most of the folks telling me this wouldn’t say ‘hunting and gathering’), and that this is just the latest and best effort they have had to get us to do it. Hell, I used to think this, somewhat, since I remember very well the constant screed from environmentalists about a huge laundry list of things that were surely going to doom us if we didn’t get back to nature and start hugging trees. It took me quite a while to throw off this preconceived prejudice and really LOOK at the science and the evidence and data and make a (somewhat) informed viewpoint on where I really stood on all of this. I don’t think that anything Bill Gates predicted even comes close to the same radar reply, to be honest. > [@](#): > > What struck me was the level of technical depth involved in that stuff, likely as far above people’s heads as climate science is. But they ask Madden for predictions about games all the time. He gives them, usually under some duress. Why do they credit him more than a climate scientist? Sure, but it’s a game, and people aren’t threatened by such predictions…at least, not until Madden starts to have high probabilities of predictive results anyway. 😉 I don’t think it really equates to climate science, mainly because the real predictions of the climate scientists ARE threatening…and require real, significant changes in peoples real, actual lives. THAT is the crux, IMHO. DeNile…it’s not just a river in Egypt anymore. And the fact that this is a complex issue, and that without specific and detailed understandings of the underlying science it’s easy to be deceived…AND, that being deceived is actually the easier course for people, since that means we don’t really have to change…means that we have the balance we currently have, with most proponents AND detractors having basically a faith based stance on AGW. I have what is essentially a faith based stance on this, since I also don’t really understand all of the science. Oh, I read the papers and try and follow along, and I have a fairly decent scientific background, but a lot of this stuff rapidly heads into deep waters for me, so I have to accept that the experts just know what they are talking about. At any rate, whether you think my theory is bullshit or not, I don’t see atheism as the main culprit for why so many disbelieve AGW. > [@](#): > > Yes, because many other things could be as easily doubted, but aren’t. Truthers and Birthers believe the truther and birther nitwits in the media because they want to, not because of their believability or expertise. Right…yet so many people DO believe that horseshit. Those are excellent examples. It’s easier to believe…and in some cases it’s actually less burdensom if they believe that WE did it, instead of just some random schlubs who got lucky (in the case of 9/11 CTs). They believe supposed ‘experts’ and disbelieve The Government because, well, The Government is an authority figure, and they have been bombarded with government coverups and CTs for years. Similar to the saturation of environmentalist gloom and doom…hell, even more so. It’s no surprise that so many believe in 9/11 CTs…and that similar numbers of folks dis-believe in AGW (actually, I have no idea of the percentages here, just a WAG on my part that they are similar). > [@](#): > > A perfect example. The basics of evolution are not hard to understand at all. I think there are very few Americans too stupid to get it - if they wanted to. They don’t because of religious expediency. Accepting evolution is seen as their particular brand of religion, so they are convinced those evil atheist scientists are lying, and believe the few deniers out there. I don’t think, nor did I say that Americans are stupid. It’s the old ‘stupid’ verse ‘ignorant’ thingy, IMHO. Americans (to speak in wildly broad brush generalizations) are narrowly focused. They focus on their jobs, on their families, on their recreations and entertainments…and that’s about it. They don’t really care all that much about science, except in very narrow ways, and don’t care that much about politics or even stuff like geography. I don’t think that dis-believe in Evolutionary Theory stems so much from deep religious fervor, as it does from the fact that they never bothered to learn the details and so it seems plausible to them that some form of Creationism or other is what happened…and all this assumes they even care enough to bother to think about it at all, which a lot of folks I know don’t bother with. Someone who DOES have a political agenda or deep religious believe can easily sway the uninformed using clever (or even not so clever) arguments that SEEM plausible to someone who just doesn’t have the background and who really doesn’t care enough to dig even a cursory amount to find out. Much like the 9/11 Truthers really. > [@](#): > > Notice how the occasional creationist who drops by can’t defend themselves, or won’t respond to posts about what evolution really says? If that is ignorance, it is willful ignorance. Yep…much like the occasional 9/11 Truther or even the anti-AGW denier, really. It all stems from similar things IMHO…apathy, media bombardment and simple ignorance. It doesn’t stem, IMHO, from a public perception of climate science being run by atheists and a knee jerk reaction against atheists. JMHO there. -XT ---
**Author:** ![robinson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/848f3c/32.png) [@robinson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robinson)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843/60 "2012-01-11T01:58:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > . . . > For evolution, though, it is more about following the bouncing Jesus. Sadly, I have to agree with you, although I would like to point out that it is difficult for an outsider to properly characterize what is going on in American Christianity. “Fundamentalist Christians” dealing with a social issue go straight to the Torah, and completely ignore the teachings of Jesus, which are summarized in the sermon on the mount. Southern Baptists, in particular, guaranteed perpetual ignorance of the meaning of the Bible when they fired their biblical scholars a few decades ago. Note that not all religious social conservatives are anti-evolution (Roman Catholics, for example). Basically, anti-evolution is based on lousy theology. But it pays. Euphonious Polemic had it right. When you bend your teachings to conform to power, you have lost your soul. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-climate-change/608843.md?page=4)