Christopher Hitchens is right: The churches have some 'splaining to do

This is the begin of the end, isn't it?

Doesnât this really make the point about the downside of belief in a supernatural being that controls the world? If everything is part of a godâs plan, and this god can perform miracles (i.e. cause things to happen that defy natural laws), then one need not understand how the world works or try to influence the outcome. The god will solve it for us, especially if we wish hard enough.

When you sow the seeds of distrust of science and its conclusions on one topic, how can it not spill over onto all scientific findings? And if you start thinking science knows something on one topic, it might lead to some dangerous thinking on others. No surprise in these results.

I blogged about this yesterday, and it was interesting to note that Matthew Nisbet has seen the same graph, and spotted no significant correlation between belief in climate change and religion. I kid you not. http://layscience.net/node/518

Wow. The Black Protestants seem to be the smartest folks polled.

Roll your pants. It's going to be a very high tide.

What is cause, and what is effect? Perhaps people who believe that they can wish their own version of reality into being are drawn towards evangelical Protestantism.

First off, since when is it wise to walk down the street, of dial some phone numbers and ask if the Earth is heating or cooling?

Not scientific in the sense that you have no idea if the people answering have some real training in the field of something like geology, climatology, etc, etc, you know, relevant understanding, beyond what the weather guessers said on the every ten minute loop.

Scientists are those who go out, observe, then report, have it peer reviewed, then present the facts. A good scientist, if their hypothesis comes up wrong, will admit the data showed they had it wrong. A bad scientist will "fix" the data, or spend their academic capital, just telling us what it is, unsupported by a through investigation.

How about, when you are on the table before for open heart surgery, we poll these same 1502 people and ask them to tell the surgeon how to do the operation?

Maybe a study, done like this can help us know the average size of vehicle tires in NYC. If you see a few SUVs go by your house, you say 17", I see a few Priuses and I say 14". Who's correct? Don't know? Then let's pull the DMV data an run some analysis based on registered vehicles in the NYC metro area, based on actual manufacturer's data. We can't account for modifications, but I suspect the second method will give us a much more accurate number.

We need to not ignore the voice of the people in matters of true opinion, but when something can be observed and measured, we need to measure it and present the results, the facts, just the facts. We may not like the answer, but....it's the truth.

Science by consensus isn't science, it's politics.

On top of that, just because Christopher Hitchens doesn't believe in God, it doesn't mean it's the Church's fault. Besides, where do the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc stand? Not reported, so they may skew this post's outcome, if you had a more complete data set from which to draw your conclusions, if you feel using the man on the street a valid methods for determining things of such gravity. If you're going to measure, measure it all...not just the part that supports your going in thesis. See note above regarding bad scientists.

I disagree with the previous comment. A poll like this is very useful in getting the response of the people; this is a type of investigation: and that is science. Your arguments about surgery-by-committee are superfluous, because we're not asking these people to do anything but represent their own views: and they are uniquely qualified to represent that point of view in the same way a surgeon is qualified to perform surgery. I would suspect the previous comments were made my someone who also wants to wish reality into being something she wants, rather than reality - and information that reveals the bias in her type of people would probably upset me too.

Thanks for this post, very interesting.

Once again, people who really want to help the cause of saving the world are charged to cease giving any legitamcy whatever to policies or policy-setters who actually believe that the "Talking snake" is real but evolution is not. These people--whether a head of state or a member of the Board of Education--are not competent to set policy and they should not be allowed to do so for anyone, by anyone. Their policies have led to a quagmire of poverty, wasted resources and squandered potential. These are the policies that our children are educated by, militaries are armed by, soil, water and land are managed by. I am weary of treating religious believers as if their delusions could be real. I think we should begin to address religious believers as we would the developmentally delayed. Indeed, they are morally and spiritually immature so I'm not suggesting we should behave un-lovingly toward them. But loving behavior does not require that we enable delusional ideas to have the same legitimacy in the public discourse as those based in science, the rule of law and the values of whole Earth community.

Nisbett is in damage control mode over this graph.

He rounds the difference between evangelicals and unaffiliated who say "yes, because of human activity" down from 24% to 20%, then says it's not a significant amount.

Evangelical's represent the greatest amount of a) cognitive dissonance/ignorance and b) flat rejection of global warming along sectarian lines. In fact, if you add those two colors, gray and orange (42%), which either reject or are ignorant about the issue, that's a 12% increase from the Catholics' 30%. And both those groups have a conservative/republican majority.

Dominic;

Yes, polls are useful...when it's opinion, not when it's science. I'd suggest the person on the street isn't reasonably qualified to state, with certainty, if the warming is caused by the core of the earth, the sunspot activity, or man made, or a combination of same. Much like you defend the use of the analogy of the surgeons and the 1502. I have the opinion, whether they want to save the planet or not, aren't the ones to determine how science should go forward. Isn't that a fair statement?

I, too, have a biology degree (I do not have one in journalism, so I maybe way out of my league), yet I think I'm not schooled enough to make a definitive, scientific judgment on this matter. I'd like more data, please, but that's how I am. I lean towards the physics I had to take, and the discussions of heat sources and sinks that the professor wanted us to learn about. I also factor in some personal interest in astronomy and the big hot ball, lacking in sunspots in a rough 15 year cycle (and they are AWOL now), is hot and it's wind impinges on our atmosphere....toss is those boring parts of thermodynamics I was forced to learn then and later use in my engineering work in a real environment full of hot and cold things. Those may be a factor, too, so I'm not settled. By comparison to the Sun, we are cooler and therefore a heat sink. Maybe a clue there.

I'd have to have voted "undecided" as a rational way to not screw up those "in control" who are waiting with baited breath to make their next big move to save the planet, because those randomly selected 1502 carrying the collective wisdom of the ages and Galen and da Vinci and Darwin, etc.

It's not about people wishing for anything. No one will know when the end will come, but if you find someone who knows...consider how many already have told groups of people they knew the time and date...and were wrong. Try reading up on how many times the great wars predicted by Nostradamus have been going to happen any time now, in the last 50 years, let alone across much more of history. As part of your investigation, read Relevalation. Compare it to your body of knowledge. It could make for a more faceted discussion.

And, once again, it seems the discussion is everybody else against the Christians of a few stripes. How does that make the analysis through any more is we ran it out with "the other religion that can't be named without raising eyebrows" in this day and age? What if, and I'm being rhetorical here, that breakout showed they were markedly skewed to not thinking man was the culprit? Would you then manage to have the same discussion as above and discuss how those of that belief system were somehow blinded to reality, or stupid, or wishing for Gaia to die a horrible death at the hands of the arrogant peoples or something equally denigrating?

Actually, isn't it kind of ludicrous to go hunting demons in this population sample of 1502 people, when the only people who will be ignorant enough to use this as a decision making tool is a bunch of politicians (which, really has little or nothing to do with science, unless you consider 'blowing in the political winds' as part of that discipline)?

You did not mention if you believed I had a reasonable connection using the tire size study. Did I miss the mark?

So: If this is a matter of science, just why does it matter what belief system the respondents came from? I prefer to look for ways to solve problems, and I think it would have been better to spend the time looking at the educational backgrounds and the correlations, assuming this was some definitive method for determining the course of action, then to break it out like this, unless, you're not really interested in saving the planet, but more concerned with "picking a fight" with Christians. If this survey isn't going to be exploited for such a worthy cause, then I'd suggest the energy used for the taking and publishing of the results are just doing more harm to the environment, let alone just being wasteful.

If you can explain how the energy into that is directly related to stopping global warming, I'm willing to listen and consider it. If you don't have a good answer, I'd suggest you spend some time figuring out how you might help, by reducing your carbon footprint, one parasitic cell phone charger at a time. If we all looked at it that way, there may be some productive effort to the end game I perceive the commenters here are hoping for.

Oh, and isn't your computer and broadband modem and router and monitor part of the damage being done? Dude, shut them off and keep them off! It will help the Earth....I know that's what you're really trying to do. And...before you do, send and email out to your friends and family and business associates, pleading for them to follow your lead (that's a great way to be a leader...do it first), so we can life a longer and cooler life.

Actually, this poll is revealing. In any poll that includes the religious indoctrinated as part of it's polling segment, you will find:

a) ignorance;
b) denial;
c) disbelief;
d) arrogance;
e) indifference;

In addition to this, you will find:

1) endorsement of myths already proven false by science;
2) aversion to fact;
3) aversion to logic;
4) aversion to evidence;
5) uninformed opinion (which we can infer to mean based upon belief rather then factual information).

The religious contingent of the world (not just dumb Americans) is basically the same everywhere; ignorant, uniformed, uninterested, intolerant, and even arrogant (what we rightfully call "stupid"), with a strong aversion (refusal to examine) evidence, logic, fact, research, but one of the most ill-informed but highly "opinionated" group of people on the planet.

Science and reason (the rest of the world) should stop pretending that religion and religious indoctrination is not harmful, it is one of the worst forms of human behavior and is causing great harm by large masses of people who are ill-informed and quite frankly, behaving quite badly as a result. Their actions, like the actions of everyone else, has consequences. Teaching ignorance cannot be ignored anymore. Living in ignorance is just as bad.

J Frost;

One poll does not a serious conclusion make.

You really need to come up with some real facts to support your sweeping assertions. Are there others, or, like the nature of this post, just your opinions? Opinions are fine, it's more realistic to present them as such, and not toss some commentary like your out, with no supporting reports/books/articles, etc.

If you do believe in pure science, then I'd invite you to use the principles more effectively to support your hypothesis.

When you really get down to it, science came about because of the unknown. It is all about figuring out what is the reality of the situation before us. Religion is about believing in the unseen. They each have their place in culture, and not all of it has been positive, based on reading history. Much of it has been. It was religion, not the capitalism of the modern Western world, that ended slavery, the rationale being every one was a precious human being in God's sight. It was the belief in that same belief that gave the words for the Declaration of Independence. That was the very religion you rail against here. In the case of another "major" religion, it has developed, supported and still encourages slavery, most visibly for women, around the world and right in our very midst, yet there doesn't seen to be any significant voices rising to object to such behavior, because we must be "tolerant."

It was Christianity, with the help of the first Martin Luther of note, that turned itself inside out, and recycled themselves, actually back to the image of God's Son, for the leadership had been hiding the message of the New Testament from the people, and then using the lack of knowledge to control the populations. Martin Luther, and Gutenberg (the printing press was built to mass produce the Bible - have the urge to destroy all modern printing systems right about now?) were two key figures in changing that, for the better. They made the Word and the personal access to it easy, so that leadership could be checked, often, against the tenants of the faith.

I'll agree some of those inside religious organizations make sweeping declarations about what science is, and I'll say they are out of the ball park. I'll also lay out this opinion: It is actually a very small part of what religious groups involved in and are doing on a daily basis. Just about all the people I know spend their time and energy helping others, and not on trying to yell down those who adhere to an absolute belief in evolution, for instance. I'll also say those I know are actually embarrassed if you highlight their service to others. They are just doing as the philosophy of their belief system asks of them, part of which is "it's not about you, it's about your fellow humans in need."

So, actually the message to help save the environment is about helping your fellow human being, isn't it?

Now, if the data shows the planet it warming, and the projections, using hard information and valid simulation models (which, is a very difficult issue - they can't model cloud cover in the models of the earth yet), then it's about solving problems. How it got here isn't the issue, it's that it's here, correct? You can decide now, to run about, pointing fingers at "UNBELIEVERS!" (scary....starting to sound like "religion," huh?) or you can take measures to tackle the issue, be it your own decision to not to drive your car as much as you have, or to turn off your lights, or, as suggested above, turn off your computer (or Xbox/PS3/Wii), and begin now in saving the planet.

On the other hand, if the "modeling and sim" output shows us the majority of the impact on the temperature is the interaction of the Sun with our atmosphere, I'd suggest you get out the pencil and paper and a stack of physics books, as you'll need them to figure out how to properly regulate the Sun from 93M miles away, using a 16 minute data cycle (hint: When you turn the knob for temp control, be careful! - You won't want to be the one saying "Oh! CRAP!" as that wave of too much heat destroys Mercury, then Venus and is heading our way, knowing you have to wait another 16 minutes before you can turn down the "burner" and it will take effect where we are).

I have some experience in this field: I spent two full days listening to some very bright scientists from John Hopkins telling us how they tested their model of simulating the Sun's rays reflecting off the surface of the ocean in the early morning and late afternoon time periods (low angles of elevation). It was a few years of work, just to get to the point where we could say their work was close enough to be used for testing systems in the lab, rather than in the open air space.

How long will it take real, smart scientists to re-create the Earth's conditions?

I know, that's a lot to think about, but this is a very, very complex problem and the answers will be developed by those with far more than a high school science education...meaning, not the person walking down the street on any given random sampling day.

So, what ignorance are you addressing that we should no longer tolerate?

Actually, to me, this says that many people of religion hold onto their particular self-chosen world-view despite science or religious doctrine, and that such is probably more swayed by politics and political punditry than any other factor. As I am a devote Catholic, and in every church I have been to in the last 5 years I have heard preached, in accord with papal statements, the dangers of man-caused global warming and the duty and responsibility of Catholics to act as good stewards of the Earth and do what we can to restore and preserve the natural world.

This may not be popular among those who would rather bash and attack religions as the source of all the world's problems, but its hard to blame religion for this poll's findings when several of the religions mentioned specifically preach and teach contrary to what the poll indicates is their followers' beliefs.

Trakar;

There are some Evangelical Christians that are very outspoken about AGW, too.

Hey, I just found a Pew Research Poll that indicates Republicans have greater knowledge of current events.

Think we should benchmark this and start the name calling and calling for people to not be Democrats anymore? Same methods as are quoted in this post...

That would be pretty stupid, don't you agree?