Jump to content
Green Blog

Evangelical Christians in USA help spread climate denial and confusion


A survey released this week by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows that only 47% of people in the USA believes there is evidence of man-made climate change. Although a majority "believes" in climate change, over 20% doesn't think there is any evidence of the earth warming. And among white evangelical Protestants in USA only 34% believes the earth is warming due to human activity, while over 30% don’t believe in it at all.

"The poll canvassed views on climate change among the "major religious traditions" in the US. Surprise, surprise, it shows that "white evangelical Protestants" were the group with the lowest level – 34% of those surveyed – of acceptance that there is solid evidence that global warming is real and that it is attributable to humans. This compares with 47% of the total US population (still startlingly low), and 58% of those surveyed who "had faith" but who were unaffiliated to any particular religious tradition."

Maybe those 31% evangelical Protestants believes God decides when the earth will end? But I guess it makes more sense for these people to believe in a fairy-tale God that in his name promotes slavery, rape and murder instead of common sense and modern-day science?

But sure. You must give credit where credit is due, I suppose. Some of these evangelical Christians have started highlighting environmental concerns and adopt a more environmentalistic approach. Something they call "creation care". Although it has already sparked controversy among evangelicals.

Last year, there was even an attempt by some leaders to talk up the need for "creation care", but to dampen concern for global warming. The "We Get It!" campaign's declaration is something to behold:

"God created everything. He made us in His own image, and commanded us to be fruitful and multiply and watch over His creation. Although separated from God by our sin, we are lovingly restored through Jesus Christ, and take responsibility for being good stewards. Our stewardship of creation must be based on Biblical principles and factual evidence. We face important environmental challenges, but must be cautious of claims that our planet is in peril from speculative dangers like man-made global warming. With billions suffering in poverty, environmental policies must not further oppress the world's poor by denying them basic needs. Instead, we must help people fulfill their God-given potential as producers and stewards. We will follow our Lord Jesus Christ and honor God as we use and share the principles of His Word to care for the poor and tend His creation."

This would just be a silly side note if it weren’t for the fact that while the media in the USA ignores the latest warnings from climate scientists an increasing number of people in the US believe global warming is exaggerated.

"Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject."

So unfortunately it seems that these climate and science denying religious fundamentalists is, mainly due to their effective propaganda machine, playing a large part in spreading climate denialism and confusion in USA.

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

As a Christian myself, I'm really ashamed at how much evangelical leaders have fanned the flame of denialism on GW. Too me, it's no different than the flat earthers in the church hundreds of years ago. This science doesn't contradict our faith, so why deny the overwhelming evidence? It's more of a cultural clash than a clash with faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Significant increases in "climate denial" (as the AGW INDUSTRY loves to call it) come as the AGW INDUSTRY is found to play fast and loose with supposed facts. Just one example:  The INDUSTRY claims "peer review" on all its scientists' postulations, presuming that such solidarity will intimidate non-believers.  How does the INDUSTRY hope to convince a scientist of its integrity when, for example, 5,587 of 18,531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible are found to NOT peer reviewed? So when the AGW INDUSTRY actually LOSES converts, why is it surprising?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With "climate bible" I guess you mean the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report from 2007? And these non-peer reviewed sources you are talking about are called "gray literature":  "The IPCC cites 18,000 references in the AR4; the vast majority of these are peer-reviewed scientific journal papers. The IPCC maintains a clear guideline on the responsible use of so-called “gray†literature, which are typically reports by other organizations or governments. Especially for Working Groups 2 and 3 (but in some cases also for 1) it is indispensable to use gray sources, since many valuable data are published in them: reports by government statistics offices, the International Energy Agency, World Bank, UNEP and so on. This is particularly true when it comes to regional impacts in the least developed countries, where knowledgeable local experts exist who have little chance, or impetus, to publish in international science journals. Reports by non-governmental organizations like the WWF can be used [...] but any information from them needs to be carefully checked [...] (Source)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from. To find out more, please read our Privacy Policy. By choosing I Accept, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.