Global Warming Beliefs by Religion

[lpetrich]

I don't know where this most properly belongs, since it straddles science, politics, and religion.

Jesse Galef, a guest contributor to Hemant Mehta's blog Friendly Atheist, has posted How Does Religion Contribute to Views on Global Warming? (http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/04/17/how-does-religion-contribute-to-views-on-global-warming/) drawing from this recent Pew Forum survey (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=238).

From the graph (http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/graphics/warming/warming.gif):

Who | Yes-HA | Yes-NP | Yes-DK | No -- | ??? -
Total US population | 47 | 18 | 06 | 21 | 08
Unaffiliated | 58 | 11 | 06 | 18 | 07
White mainline Protestants | 48 | 19 | 06 | 19 | 08
White non-Hispanic Catholics | 44 | 20 | 06 | 22 | 08
Black Protestants | 39 | 36 | 05 | 15 | 05
White evangelical Protestants | 34 | 17 | 07 | 31 | 11


Yes-HA | Yes, because of human activity
Yes-NP | Yes, because of natural patterns
Yes-DK | Yes, but don't know cause
No | No
??? | Mixed evidence / Some evidence / Don't know


The connection is likely in what other beliefs they are likely to have alongside their religious beliefs.

White evangelicals tend to be Religious Right, and global warming not happening is a big part of right-wing Political Correctness. Right-wingers regularly make "Algore" into some great villain, and they insinute that the idea was invented by left-wing enemies of the American people who want to deprive us of our precious SUV's and reduce us to a Third-World standard of living.

As to black Protestants, they tend to be poor, and they may thus find it difficult to believe that we are powerful enough to do something that can significantly warm our planet.

It's interesting that the Unaffiliated are the most likely to believe that human activities cause global warming. Since education and the more fundie forms of religion have a clear negative correlation, that may be a result of their greater education.

There is a nonreligious demographic that is likely to be skeptical about global warming: right-libertarians. But from that poll's results, there are not enough of them to make much of a difference.

[TheBear]

I'm looking at snow storms in the US today. Crazy weather is going on right now.

Its us against nature! We can win this thing! :yay:

[boneyard bill]

For some reason, Hispanics seem to have been left out of this survey. Also, Black Evangelical Protestants are not distinguished from other Black Protestants. It would be interesting to see how they break out. I would suggest that the discrepancy has to do with two basic factors. One, it depends on the media that these groups listen to, and two, it depends upon how much they trust the media that they listen to. How many Americans know the first thing about the actual science of global warming? I'll bet not one in a thousand. With the rarest of exceptions, the public believes what they believe on the basis of authority. This includes many scientists. So how much you trust that authority plays a very big part in what you believe. This probably applies to just about any scientific issue.

[lpetrich]

boneyard bill, what's your point? And what do you think is the real story about it, and why?

Historian Naomi Oreskes has researched this question, and she has discovered that some of the people behind global-warming denial were some of the people employed by the tobacco lobby to promote denial of the deleterious effects of tobacco smoking -- and that their tactics are very similar. To claim that there are respectable scientists to disagree with mainstream conclusions, thus causing confusion and doubt in the public and in decision makers. She has published The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) (Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686) and lectured on The American Denial of Global Warming (YouTube video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio).

[boneyard bill]

boneyard bill, what's your point? And what do you think is the real story about it, and why?

Historian Naomi Oreskes has researched this question, and she has discovered that some of the people behind global-warming denial were some of the people employed by the tobacco lobby to promote denial of the deleterious effects of tobacco smoking -- and that their tactics are very similar. To claim that there are respectable scientists to disagree with mainstream conclusions, thus causing confusion and doubt in the public and in decision makers. She has published The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) (Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686) and lectured on The American Denial of Global Warming (YouTube video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio).

My larger point is that we are largely captives of what the media tell us for better or worse. Some people tend to be more skeptical and others less so. At the same time, different people follow different media. Fortunately, there is more diversity in the media than there was 40 years ago, but I think the major networks still dominate. 40 years ago, television news came from the 3 major networks and they tended to follow the NY Times so information was very uniform. I think these networks and the Times still form the consensus, but there are many more alternatives. But the alternatives are fractured into various dissident elements so there's nothing that could be called a "counter-consensus."

On the specific issue of global warming, I would say that it is virtually complete political propaganda unsupported by the scientific evidence and the claim that a scientific consensus exists on this issue is part of that propaganda. I'm aware of Naomi Oreskes from a previous article she published claiming that no peer-reviewed articles against global had been written. The claim is utter nonsense. Her methodology was absurd from the outset, and her standards were totally subjective. Nonetheless, Al Gore has enjoyed citing her work. Of course, people citing evidence against one scientific claim will use the same methods as people citing evidence against a different claim. What does that prove? And people seeking the truth in one area may be the same people as those seeking the truth in another area. Given Oreskes penchant for subjective interpretation over fact, I would be suspicious of what she calls "funding" in any case.

The tobacco scare falls into the same category. Second-hand smoke has not been shown to cause cancer in any first-hand studies. The EPA's "mega-study" is statistical nonsense. Smoking is not good for you, but it is probably not nearly as bad as the anti-smoking lobby is claiming. It probably increases your chances of dying from lung cancer, but it probably doesn't shorten life-span. It seems to influence how you die more than when. Life insurance companies never charged a premium for smokers until political pressure forced them to. Their actuarial studies found no reason to. Smoking almost surely causes emphysema and that's no fun. But it isn't fatal either.

[lpetrich]

My larger point is that we are largely captives of what the media tell us for better or worse. ...
As if "the media" is some gigantic left-wing conspiracy. The media is capitalist, and if global-warming concern is all the fault of the media, then I marvel at their willingness to risk oil-company-commercial earnings.

On the specific issue of global warming, I would say that it is virtually complete political propaganda unsupported by the scientific evidence and the claim that a scientific consensus exists on this issue is part of that propaganda.
How is it "political propaganda"? Naomi Oreskes has chronicled concern over CO2 emissions that goes back to the 1930's -- before Al Gore was born.

I've found more: The denial industry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2), an excerpt from a book by George Monbiot:
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story
Climate change denial has other references to exposés of connections between tobacco-effects and global-warming deniers, though that article has a warning: "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality".

[alien billie]

Smoking is not good for you, but it is probably not nearly as bad as the anti-smoking lobby is claiming. It probably increases your chances of dying from lung cancer, but it probably doesn't shorten life-span. It seems to influence how you die more than when. Life insurance companies never charged a premium for smokers until political pressure forced them to. Their actuarial studies found no reason to. Smoking almost surely causes emphysema and that's no fun. But it isn't fatal either.
Well, I’m an actuary and I can guarantee you that this is utter nonsense. Where to start? “It probably increases your chances of dying from lung cancer, but it probably doesn't shorten life-span” is quite a good place, as in order to be true it requires there to be a positive health benefit of smoking to offset the dangers of lung cancer! Care to share what that may be? Plus I notice you don’t even mention heart disease. :rolleyes:

Life insurance companies never charged a premium for smokers until political pressure forced them to.
Life insurance companies never used to differentiate between smokers and non-smokers because they didn’t need to as long as their competitors didn’t either. Smokers got a good rate, non-smokers a bad rate, but for the life company it all evened out. But as soon as one company innovated smokers' rates, all companies had to. Otherwise, all the non-smokers would gravitate to the new company with the nice cheap rates for them, and the old company would be left with only non-smokers to sell to – and the business they would be selling would be unprofitable. In actuarial parlance, they would be selected against.

I know nothing about this political pressure you talk about, but I assume it was some American ruling? In which case perhaps you could enlighten me as to how this could lead to insurance companies the world over voluntarily adopting unprofitable mortality rates?

Their actuarial studies found no reason to.
OK, five minutes of looking at my profession’s website brings up this article (http://www.actuaries.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/20368/cmir13_part5.pdf) from 1989:

For both males and females, in almost every group and at each duration, the mortality of smokers is heavier than that of non-smokers, in most cases substantially so.

The lack of respect you have for my profession is breathtaking. Life insurance is sold almost entirely on the competitiveness of the rates (well, it’s actually also sold through inertia, but that’s another story). Any company using less than optimum rates will lose money hand over fist. Those rates are constantly reviewed against experience, and if what you said was true then the market rates would revert to a non-differentiated basis in a heartbeat. However, last I looked (when I was still a smoker), the rates I could get were nearly twice that of an equivalent non-smoker.



Smoking almost surely causes emphysema and that's no fun. But it isn't fatal either.

Emphysema is a major disability, and it obviously has a huge effect on mortality. Your credibility isn’t exactly helped by equivocating between whether or not a disease is directly fatal :mad:


The level of misinformation you spout about tobacco doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence about your wider accusations of global warming conspiracy :tin:

[nygreenguy]

I find it ironic that the weekend that Dr. Tyson does his lecture on science literacy, SU also hosts a global warming contrarian....

[Troglodyte]

I prefer algor to algore. I love double entendres and puns.

But, dangit , no one ever uses it. All they ever use is algore. How freshman.

[boneyard bill]

My larger point is that we are largely captives of what the media tell us for better or worse. ...
As if "the media" is some gigantic left-wing conspiracy. The media is capitalist, and if global-warming concern is all the fault of the media, then I marvel at their willingness to risk oil-company-commercial earnings.

On the specific issue of global warming, I would say that it is virtually complete political propaganda unsupported by the scientific evidence and the claim that a scientific consensus exists on this issue is part of that propaganda.
How is it "political propaganda"? Naomi Oreskes has chronicled concern over CO2 emissions that goes back to the 1930's -- before Al Gore was born.

I've found more: The denial industry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2), an excerpt from a book by George Monbiot:
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story
Climate change denial has other references to exposés of connections between tobacco-effects and global-warming deniers, though that article has a warning: "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality".

I didn't say the media was a conspiracy. What I said was that the network news outlets tended to follow the NY Times in making their judgments of what was, and was not, news.

I also said that most people believe what they believe on the basis of authority. Most people do not investigate the issues themselves. Therefore, people who are better at manipulating the news media and giving the appearance of authority behind their pronouncements are able to influence public opinion greatly.

George Monbiot and Naomi Oreskes are two of the leading pro-global warming zealots around. Citing them amounts to little more than citing Al Gore.

If you want to know the truth about global warming you will have to investigate the issues yourself. This is a politics site and I'm not going to enter into a scientific debate on this issue. I will simply make a few pertinent observations:

1. The IPCC report does not project the level of catastrophe that Al Gore outlines in his movie and frequently brings up in his public appearances.

2. The scientists who participate in the IPCC report are never, at any point, asked to endorse the report itself. At most, they can be considered to have endorsed the section that they contributed to.

3. None of the IPCC report is subject to the normal peer-review process.

4. There is no agreement among scientists on the issue of "climate sensitivity" (How much would a doubling of CO2 contribute to an increase in global mean temperature?)

[lpetrich]

George Monbiot and Naomi Oreskes are two of the leading pro-global warming zealots around. Citing them amounts to little more than citing Al Gore.
What gives you the idea that those two are "pro-global warming zealots"?

And why is Al Gore supposed to be the Great Villain of Global Warming?

[boneyard bill]

Smoking is not good for you, but it is probably not nearly as bad as the anti-smoking lobby is claiming. It probably increases your chances of dying from lung cancer, but it probably doesn't shorten life-span. It seems to influence how you die more than when. Life insurance companies never charged a premium for smokers until political pressure forced them to. Their actuarial studies found no reason to. Smoking almost surely causes emphysema and that's no fun. But it isn't fatal either.
Well, I’m an actuary and I can guarantee you that this is utter nonsense. Where to start? “It probably increases your chances of dying from lung cancer, but it probably doesn't shorten life-span” is quite a good place, as in order to be true it requires there to be a positive health benefit of smoking to offset the dangers of lung cancer! Care to share what that may be? Plus I notice you don’t even mention heart disease. :rolleyes:

Life insurance companies never charged a premium for smokers until political pressure forced them to.
Life insurance companies never used to differentiate between smokers and non-smokers because they didn’t need to as long as their competitors didn’t either. Smokers got a good rate, non-smokers a bad rate, but for the life company it all evened out. But as soon as one company innovated smokers' rates, all companies had to. Otherwise, all the non-smokers would gravitate to the new company with the nice cheap rates for them, and the old company would be left with only non-smokers to sell to – and the business they would be selling would be unprofitable. In actuarial parlance, they would be selected against.

I know nothing about this political pressure you talk about, but I assume it was some American ruling? In which case perhaps you could enlighten me as to how this could lead to insurance companies the world over voluntarily adopting unprofitable mortality rates?

OK, five minutes of looking at my profession’s website brings up this article (http://www.actuaries.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/20368/cmir13_part5.pdf) from 1989:

For both males and females, in almost every group and at each duration, the mortality of smokers is heavier than that of non-smokers, in most cases substantially so.

The lack of respect you have for my profession is breathtaking. Life insurance is sold almost entirely on the competitiveness of the rates (well, it’s actually also sold through inertia, but that’s another story). Any company using less than optimum rates will lose money hand over fist. Those rates are constantly reviewed against experience, and if what you said was true then the market rates would revert to a non-differentiated basis in a heartbeat. However, last I looked (when I was still a smoker), the rates I could get were nearly twice that of an equivalent non-smoker.



Smoking almost surely causes emphysema and that's no fun. But it isn't fatal either.

Emphysema is a major disability, and it obviously has a huge effect on mortality. Your credibility isn’t exactly helped by equivocating between whether or not a disease is directly fatal :mad:


The level of misinformation you spout about tobacco doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence about your wider accusations of global warming conspiracy :tin:

Regarding your first paragraph, there are studies that do, indeed, show that smokers are less likely to contract certain diseases. Breast cancer was one of them, but I don't remember the others. I had the link to an article that cited these studies bookmarked on my old computer, but I don't have it on this one. I have been unable to find it in a search.

I may have been incorrect in referring to "actuarial" studies. The study you cite is not a controlled study. It does not attempt to factor out possible common behavior patterns that might affect the results.

I intend no disrespect for your profession, which I assume is insurance. However, your claim that less than optimum rates would damage the insurance company is contradicted by your claim that insurance companies did not charge higher rates to smokers if that was, as you also claim, less than optimum given the death rates.

Moreover, it is YOU, not me, who is claiming that insurance companies collaborated in not charging smokers higher rates when it was statistically justified.

I never claimed that smoking was good for you, quite the reverse, and I never claimed that it didn't cause emphysema. I said the dire effects of smoking were exaggerated. And I said that many of the studies of second-hand smoke were statistically flawed.

As far as I know the only benefits from smoking are psychological. It aids concentration and has some anti-anxiety effects.

[boneyard bill]

George Monbiot and Naomi Oreskes are two of the leading pro-global warming zealots around. Citing them amounts to little more than citing Al Gore.
What gives you the idea that those two are "pro-global warming zealots"?

And why is Al Gore supposed to be the Great Villain of Global Warming?

I classify them as "pro-global warming zealots" because of their reputation for giving our misinformation on the subject. I didn't label Al Gore the "Great Villain," but now that you bring it up, the title has some merit.

Gore is the most famous of the pro-global warming spokesmen, and he has used that fame to advance the most alarming claims of the movement. He cites the IPCC report as if it supported his claims when, in fact, his claims go well beyond anything it projects and even its projections are exaggerated.

In fact, many of the left-wing critics of global warming cite the IPCC claims as good news. The IPCC bases its projections on the assumption that most of the developing world will achieve US-style living standards and energy consumption. But, as these critics point out, the current humanitarian crises stemming from poverty, disease, and malnutrition are far worse than the difficulties the IPCC projects as a result of increased carbon usage. So let's get on with the development. That is what is most needed at this point if you care about poverty, homelessness, and disease.

But if you listen to Al Gore, you'd think the world is about to end. The time-frame for the kind of thing he is talking about, such as a 20-foot rise in sea level, is so far into the future, even assuming that the IPCC's wild-ass guess about climate sensitivity is correct, that it is quite pointless to speculate about it at the this stage. So you see, Al Gore isn't the Great Villain, he's the Great Scaremonger who will sacrifice the needs of the undernourished and the diseased people of this earth for the advancement of his own political career.

Unfortunately, the Swedish Academy is so obtuse on this issue that the gave the Nobel Prize to two winners: Gore AND the IPCC in spite of the fact that they are actually making very different claims about global warming.

[alien billie]

I called your first post on this topic nonsense, and I have no trouble in calling your second post nonsense too. And I understand the motive behind your claims. You responded to claims that professional global warming deniers were the same people who made up lies about the dangers of smoking. You know that it is indeed the same people, so you resort to defending their views on smoking. Otherwise, you are forced to admit that you are taking your lead from proven liars.

And you are taking your lead from proven liars. Smoking is extremely bad for you, and just about everything you said about it has been wrong. For instance:

Regarding your first paragraph, there are studies that do, indeed, show that smokers are less likely to contract certain diseases. Breast cancer was one of them, but I don't remember the others. I had the link to an article that cited these studies bookmarked on my old computer, but I don't have it on this one. I have been unable to find it in a search.

Can’t remember, huh? But you’re pretty sure that smoking is a sure-fire cure for breast cancer, at least enough to counteract the dangers of lung cancer? Can’t say I’m all that reassured, personally. Can men get breast cancer? I’ve got more than enough to fill an A-cup these days, but still. Anyway, let me jog that pesky memory of yours, the effect of smoking on breast cancer rates is marginal. There is not a study anywhere that suggests anything else. Same with any other ‘benefit’ you care to mention. And I find it very hard to believe you do not know this yourself.

I may have been incorrect in referring to "actuarial" studies. The study you cite is not a controlled study. It does not attempt to factor out possible common behavior patterns that might affect the results.

What? Common behaviour patterns? The only common behaviour is that everyone concerned bought life insurance! Does that cure you of cancer?

The actuarial profession was born out of the insurance industry’s desire to accurately measure mortality. It is what we do. And we do it in precisely this way, by measuring the experience of policyholders. And in doing so, we noticed that the mortality of smokers is considerably heavier than non-smokers. There can be no doubt about this. And we are doing this for no other reason than to contribute to the financial success of our employers. Or do you somehow imagine that all the insurance companies of the world are run by pinko-hippy-enviro-fascists?

I intend no disrespect for your profession, which I assume is insurance.

I am a member of the actuarial profession. I am employed by the insurance industry. You may intend no disrespect, but since your arguments imply that we are morons, disrespect is generated regardless.

However, your claim that less than optimum rates would damage the insurance company is contradicted by your claim that insurance companies did not charge higher rates to smokers if that was, as you also claim, less than optimum given the death rates.

No, you simply failed to understand my explanation. Not differentiating between non-smokers and smokers is the optimum strategy if all companies follow suit. However, once one company realised that they could gain a temporary economic advantage from adopting differentiated rates, then all the others had to follow or else risk losing all their profitable business and selling only loss-making business to smokers. It’s a version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. I note also that you failed to return to your own theory that differentiated rates were a consequence of US government intervention, once I challenged you to explain how this could cause insurance companies the world over to adopt the same strategy.

Moreover, it is YOU, not me, who is claiming that insurance companies collaborated in not charging smokers higher rates when it was statistically justified.

Uh, smokers were undercharged, not overcharged. And it wasn’t ‘collaboration’ - once smoker-specific investigations were performed, industry behaviour inevitably followed suit.

I never claimed that smoking was good for you, quite the reverse, and I never claimed that it didn't cause emphysema. I said the dire effects of smoking were exaggerated. And I said that many of the studies of second-hand smoke were statistically flawed.

Christ-on-a-bike. I never claimed you said smoking was good for you, I never claimed you said smoking didn’t cause emphysema. I have demonstrated to you that the dire effects of smoking are NOT exaggerated, and your only defence requires some kind of bizarre conspiracy theory whereby insurance companies are… well I haven’t got a clue what they could possibly be doing actually. And I couldn’t give a fuck about second-hand smoking studies. You brought all this up because lpetrich mentioned that professional global warming deniers used to be employed by the tobacco industry to deny the deleterious effects of smoking. Well, tough. They were lying when they were working for the tobacco companies, and so we have every right to suspect them of lying now.