Katharine Hayhoe has the answer: “Admitting that we, as a nation, are addicted to fossil fuels…”
The International Business Times reports:
… A 2011 survey of 1,000 randomly selected pastors from the Christian research organization LifeWay concluded that few Protestant church leaders believe global warming is real and that humans are responsible for the phenomenon. According to the data, evangelical pastors were the most skeptical, with 68 percent of respondents disagreeing with the statement that global warming is real and manmade, compared with 45 percent of mainline pastors.
How is it possible that so many Christian conservatives deny even the possibility that human-made pollution is harming the planet? Is the idea that humanity could make such a major impact on Earth — one that some have described as rivaling the power of a god — responsible for the divide?…
What does pollution have to do with CO2?
I can only assume from reading her illogical, unreasonable liberal/progressive mental disorder quandary is the following: Since global warming is a faith based religion, she is baffled why other faith based religions do not all fall in line behind her.
I have a friend who is a PhD Chemist. It is his (somewhat biased) belief that someone who is religious makes a better scientist. He says that since a religious person already has a religion, they don’t have to create a religion from their science. They also have defined the boundary conditions of their religious beliefs, and their scientific beliefs, and thus approach problems based upon which boundary encircles the problem.
‘Christian conservatives’… did the poll ask if they were conservatives? No. Non-believers are not merely denialists, they are also conservatives, by implication alone.
Ms Katharine Hayhoe is mistaken.
Good Stewardship is not dependent on a belief of post-normal science practices.
Good Stewardship does not require a belief in an unproven hypothesis.
Good Stewardship demands accountability, transparency.
From one Christian – to another, Ms Katharine Hayhoe, I suggest – before you try preaching, you understand just,”What Do Christians Have Against Climate Science?”.
Leave the preaching of God to your husband – focus your efforts on cleaning up climate science [? ].
Christians have this hang up about “truth,” not necessarily exhaustive truth but certainly the particulars exposed when light shines. That just naturally makes obfuscation and other forms of darkness uncomfortable. It’s called “the judgement,” i.e., “that the light has come into the world and the darkness comprehends it not,” etc. There is also a prevailing misquote popular among those who presume to understand Christian doctrine better than others who study it over a lifetime. “The truth will set you free,” they say, but actual translation is subtle in its difference and “sharper than any two-edged sword.” To wit: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” regardless whether truth is particularly welcome or causes discomfort, and certainly heedless of whether freedom was really what the recipient sought in the first place.
There is so much selection bias in this report it is hard to know where to begin critiquing. Just because the sample polled was preselected for their religious leanings does not imply that the answers to the interview questions are a direct consequence of those religious ideas.
Instead allow me to point out (as my grandmother taught me) that “those who always tell the truth become very uncomfortable in the presence of lies.”
Whether you agree with them or not, Evangelicals are forthright, always telling you exactly what they think and feel. As such they are difficult to persuade with lies, misrepresentations, or mendacity.
‘Mainline pastors’ are more likely to be concerned with remaining inoffensive – i.e. ‘political correctness’ (a euphemism for ‘not completely correct,’ or in other words, *wrong*). This proximity to mendacity makes them more vulnerable to being taken in by lies.
Empiricists of all religious flavors demand hypotheses that are consistent with replicable data, according to the scientific method, and are not taken in by what passes for ‘climate science’ in the press.