With two children in public schools, I'm dismayed -- but not surprised -- to learn that the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, planned to pay $100,000 to a consultant to develop a school curriculum that would promote skepticism about the science of global warming.
In a karmic twist, this news came last week from leaked documents within the Heartland Institute, which spread false claims about climate scientists based on stolen e-mails in 2009. Then this week, Peter Gleick, environmental activist and president of the Pacific Institute, apologized for obtaining and disseminating the internal Heartland documents, in part due to his frustration with their efforts to debunk climate science.
The drama sounds like a fictional plotline from the bestselling novel "The Girl Who Plays with Fire." Unfortunately such polarizing stories play with our future by hijacking facts, creating confusion and delaying action on climate change.
Given the peer-reviewed research about global warming, why are we so confused as a national collective? And what can we do besides pray for a miracle to decrease our global carbon emissions?
This month, a study revealed that divisive political leaders drive our public confusion about climate change, an unfortunate finding given the overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming. The research showed that "elite cues" -- statements from political leaders and advocacy groups -- and the economy had the largest influence on public concern about climate change in the U.S. Extreme weather events and information campaigns barely registered an impact.
Published in the journal Climatic Change, the study used data from 74 surveys conducted from 2002-2010 to construct measures of public concern about the threat of climate change. The research examined five factors that could contribute to changes in public opinion: extreme weather, media coverage, access to scientific information, elite cues and advocacy efforts.
The authors found that the "elite partisan battle" about climate change was the most important factor in influencing public opinion about its threat. Specifically, when Congressional Democrats expressed their concern about human-generated global warming, support grew for initiatives to confront climate change. When Republicans cast anti-environmental votes, support decreased. In short, when political leaders were polarized about climate change, public opinion followed.
The media also played a role: "the greater the quantity of media coverage of climate change, the greater the level of public concern," the researchers wrote. So if the public saw climate change on the front pages of newspapers, such as when the New York Times covered the film "An Inconvenient Truth," readers assumed the issue was important. If climate change wasn't in the news, it didn't seem like much of a problem.
At first glance, these findings seem downright depressing given the lack of political consensus on climate change or almost any other issue during this election season. But despite this political polarization, there is one public arena with more agreement than discord, more action than argument about climate change. Surprisingly, that's among our religious leadership.
Religious voices have the power to influence both political leaders and public discourse. Think of the role of religious leaders in the civil rights movement or the earlier fight to abolish slavery. Unlike issues such as abortion and gay marriage that divide religious communities, climate change can be -- and is -- a unifying issue for many faith leaders.
Diverse religious groups -- from evangelicals to Episcopalians -- have issued public statements calling on congregations to address climate change as a moral issue.
"If we speak sincerely about our belief that climate change represents a real threat to our well-being and our planet's well-being, and that our faith compels us to respond, over time we can influence others," said the executive director of GreenFaith, the Rev. Fletcher Harper.
GreenFaith works with congregations on projects such as installing solar panels at the United Methodist Church in Red Bank, N.J., which now generate 30 percent of the congregation's energy and conducting an energy audit at Shiloh Baptist Church in Trenton, N.J., with $7,000 in annual savings. Economic savings provide a critical incentive, but the religious principle of loving your neighbor as yourself also drives these programs, given the disproportionate impact of global warming on the poor.
In the Bible Belt, Georgia Interfaith Power & Light leveraged $400,000 in federal stimulus money for matching grants to weatherize congregations, save 20 percent of their energy budgets and decrease carbon emissions. They completed 76 energy audits of religious facilities -- 11 were for Jewish schools and synagogues -- and there are 200 more congregations in the pipeline.
And on the frontlines of global warming, Alaska Interfaith Power & Light organized a panel discussion and call to climate action this month that featured climate scientists, Alaska native leaders and religious leaders from the Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths. More than 200 Alaskan towns risk having to relocate as the foundations of their buildings crumble due to the melting of frozen ground. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, moving just one town will cost between $150 million and $400 million.
Given such high stakes, religious leaders and their congregations shouldn't rely on politicians to shape opinions. As perhaps our most influential pastor, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus." If we act with vision, we can create dramatic headlines to change the way the world thinks.
You seem somewhat nieve about how modern day politics is conducted. Propaganda machines are created to introduce mind cantagians associated with idelology in order to influence voters.
So yes we all should be dismayed with the evil that Heartland Institute is up to. But more specifically, we should be outraged by what our political system has turned into and it's negative impact on our democracy.
I wish you hadn't put it that way.
When their arguments are demolished by real scientific analyses, the hard-core climate deniers' favorite taunt is that climate change is a 'relgion', that is, a belief not supported by empirical evidence. This is, of course, complete nonsense, and if anything is the exact opposite of the real situation -- there's a mountain of good evidence that rapid, anthropogenic global warming is occurring, yet they cling to their ideologically-motivated 'talking points' to claim it is not.
The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Richard Chartres who is chair of the Church of England’s national environmental campaign, “Shrinking the Footprint” joined other leaders to sign Operation Noah’s “Ash Wednesday Declaration.”
A short public service of prayer and dedication to launch the Declaration will be held at St Mary-Le-Bow, Cheapside (5pm Ash Wednesday 22 Feb), and at numerous churches around the country.
Source: “In England, ‘Shrug culture’ over climate change challenged”, Episcopal News Service, Feb 22, 2012
http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2012/02/22/in-england-shrug-culture-over-climate-change-challenged/
Beware The Green Dragon!
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/beware-green-dragon
" A who's who of Religious Right leaders have come together for a 12-part series called "Resisting the Green Dragon" which seeks to expose how the environmental movement is out to control the world and destroy Christianity ... "
"I wish to thank the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act for the opportunity to present my views on the issue of climate change – or as it was once referred to: global warming. Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100139297/lindzen-totally-pwns-the-alarmists/#disqus_thread
http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php
And here is a rebuttal of the Lindzen and Choi's claim of low sensitivity of the climate to CO2:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/11/205326/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/?mobile=nc
Nonsense. it's based on atomospheric physics. You should get out more.
It's a religion!
Posting here in the belief that your post will cause a reaction is also a religion.
What exactly is not a religion as you infer it only requires a 'belief' to be called a religion