Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
True scientists have nothing to fear from a competing or alternative theory. If their theory or model is more correct then the data/tests will prove it out.

Agree 100%

We only would like to avoid misinformation concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue on the media given for economical and/or political interests considering the big power to bias people that the media have.

But the scientific debate on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue must always continue. In other words we want science to win over politics for the Climate Change/Global Warming issue.
 
Regarding Climate Change specifically, like most things in science it is really hard to define truth/false.

Hmmm.... you're half right... 'Truth' may be difficult to define but 'False' is not. In science 'Truth' is what is falsifiable but has not been falsified.

Here is a short selection of 'talking points' still making the rounds in denier circles that are patently FALSE.

- Fossil Fuel emissions aren't high enough to be responsible
- CO2 levels aren't rising
- Volcanoes emit more CO2 than burning fossil fuels
- CO2 has never driven climate change
- CO2 doesn't cause warming
 
Climate change? I don't know much about it. I'm not a scientist and I have other things that take up my free time (as opposed to researching climate change). What I know is that any time you start getting into regulation, there's always a big component of crony capitalism that plays into it, so fears get whipped up, dire consequences are threatened and control is taken.

That's not to say that I deny climate change or even question it. I don't think about it. Nature is a lot more powerful than any of us and it's always found its own equilibrium, and I'm sure that it will do so again if man is having a substantive effect on the planet's climate.

I'm definitely a believer in unintended consequences, so I am concerned any time people give a black and white set of choices.

With all that said, I'm 100% for the transition to clean, renewable energy. It is smart without regard to climate change.

We bought a P85 last year and are about to receive the P85D (green, in fact, for both). We bought the P85 because it's a great car and it makes like a lot easier. Had it not had any green attributes but still provided the benefits*, we'd have still bought it. Had it not provided the benefits, we'd not have bought it, no matter how green it was.

I know we're in the minority, but for some people Tesla simply is a superior product and it's worth the premium price. I caution those who want to turn the purchase of a Tesla into a political issue, as you will offend people as you seek to attract others. As a person who is invested in this company's products, I would prefer to see it have as wide a market as possible.

* benefits: cheaper fuel, no wasted time going to gas stations, access to HOV lanes, having a "full tank" every morning, amazing performance.
 
Climate change? I don't know much about it. I'm not a scientist and I have other things that take up my free time (as opposed to researching climate change).

The fact that many people buy Tesla without emissions as a primary motivating factor is certainly a testament to the fact that EVs are simply superior to ICE and Elon succeeded in not simply making the best EV but the best car.

Can you spare 80 seconds? Climate Change is really not complicated...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
@James:

Clearly you missed the point of the thread. We're discussing climate change, climate change skeptics, and what we can do to level the playing field against lobbyists and corporate self-interest. Nice cheap shot against the POTUS and the ACA. Some day you'll be thankful that it passed, if you aren't already.
 
Eclectic, I don't think you are in the minority. Perhaps a year ago you may have been.

However, this thread is not about the Tesla, it is about the difference between free speech, and valid alternative theories to AGW. In none of the two dozen Tesla club meeting that I have been to has there ever been a group discussion on global warming.
I don't think anyone is taking the route of turning the purchase of a Tesla solely into a GW issue.

It is one of the benefits, and some people discuss it as such.
Likewise, the presence of a Frunk is an advantage and is talked about but nobody is suggesting that is the only reason for buying it.
 
The fact that many people buy Tesla without emissions as a primary motivating factor is certainly a testament to the fact that EVs are simply superior to ICE and Elon succeeded in not simply making the best EV but the best car.

Can you spare 80 seconds? Climate Change is really not complicated...


Thank you for taking the time to share that video. I didn't mean to imply that I had never been exposed to the theories...I have.

I tend to not form strong opinions on things unless I know what I'm talking about. It would take a lot more than an 80 second video to give me that kind of knowledge...that's why I say I don't know much about it. I would have to undertake a course of study similar to that which accompanies a degree in science to be able to say that I know enough about climate change to speak pro or con as to the theories. I'm definitely not going to do that, so I keep to the sidelines on the subject.

My point in posting was just to point out that there are people who don't consider climate change when buying a Tesla and as the brand becomes more established, it is likely that there will be more people like me. To a certain extent I think I may have made a mistake in posting, as I assumed something that isn't necessarily logical. My assumption was that the climate change discussion here is in the context of why people buy Teslas. I realize that it could be a more wide ranging discussion, and I don't want to get that discussion off track with my asides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eclectic, I don't think you are in the minority. Perhaps a year ago you may have been.

However, this thread is not about the Tesla, it is about the difference between free speech, and valid alternative theories to AGW. In none of the two dozen Tesla club meeting that I have been to has there ever been a group discussion on global warming.
I don't think anyone is taking the route of turning the purchase of a Tesla solely into a GW issue.

It is one of the benefits, and some people discuss it as such.
Likewise, the presence of a Frunk is an advantage and is talked about but nobody is suggesting that is the only reason for buying it.

From my perspective, since denialism is a wholly artificial phenomena, which has been foisted on the public by slick marketing tactics and the expenditure of billions of dollars, solely to advance the commercial interests of a small (but highly profitable) industry at the expense of innocent members of the public (and most particularly future generations), references to "free speech" are nothing more than a smokescreen. The artificially fostered impression of "doubt" allows the industry (aided and abetted by their well-paid PR flacks, lobbyists and politicians) to continue to impose harm on present and future generations in the complete absence of rational public interest regulation.

To be clear, apart from said PR flacks, lobbyists and politicians (and various uninformed members of the public who have taken in by their disinformation campaigns) there is no debate about the reality and the seriousness of the man-made global warming problem).

  • Practicing, publishing climate scientists overwhelmingly accept the scientific consensus (latest estimates range from 97% to 99%)
  • Science academies and recognized science associations of all types universally, and without exception, accept and do not dispute the scientific consensus.
  • National governments all accept the scientific consensus about the problem and the need to keep the resulting temperature increase below 2 degrees C.
  • Even the major oil companies (who have the most to lose) acknowledge the reality of the scientific consensus.

I have been actively involved in discussions with hundreds of individuals and have yet to hear any plausible argument or theory which casts any significant doubt on the compelling scientific theory and evidence.

As previously discussed, there is no such thing as a "free speech" defense to the charges and claims which may and should result from knowingly misleading the public to advance commercial interests.

I find the prospect of bringing charges (under existing laws) against the individuals and organizations who are knowing engaged in such conduct to be an interesting one. As much for the fact that the individuals involved in such misconduct need to clearly understand that they are acting illegally and are doing wrong, as for the charges themselves. There needs to be a massive sea change in public opinion if we are turn this problem around. The enforcement of existing laws against the miscreants who are stealing our children's futures by knowingly disseminating falsehoods about climate change to advance business interests could be a step in the right direction. As has been seen in other contexts, the public naming and shaming of a few high profile individuals could have some salutary effects.
 
From my perspective, since denialism is a wholly artificial phenomena, which has been foisted on the public by slick marketing tactics and the expenditure of billions of dollars, solely to advance the commercial interests of a small (but highly profitable) industry at the expense of innocent members of the public (and most particularly future generations), references to "free speech" are nothing more than a smokescreen. The artificially fostered impression of "doubt" allows the industry (aided and abetted by their well-paid PR flacks, lobbyists and politicians) to continue to impose harm on present and future generations in the complete absence of rational public interest regulation.

To be clear, apart from said PR flacks, lobbyists and politicians (and various uninformed members of the public who have taken in by their disinformation campaigns) there is no debate about the reality and the seriousness of the man-made global warming problem).

  • Practicing, publishing climate scientists overwhelmingly accept the scientific consensus (latest estimates range from 97% to 99%)
  • Science academies and recognized science associations of all types universally, and without exception, accept and do not dispute the scientific consensus.
  • National governments all accept the scientific consensus about the problem and the need to keep the resulting temperature increase below 2 degrees C.
  • Even the major oil companies (who have the most to lose) acknowledge the reality of the scientific consensus.

I have been actively involved in discussions with hundreds of individuals and have yet to hear any plausible argument or theory which casts any significant doubt on the compelling scientific theory and evidence.

As previously discussed, there is no such thing as a "free speech" defense to the charges and claims which may and should result from knowingly misleading the public to advance commercial interests.

I find the prospect of bringing charges (under existing laws) against the individuals and organizations who are knowing engaged in such conduct to be an interesting one. As much for the fact that the individuals involved in such misconduct need to clearly understand that they are acting illegally and are doing wrong, as for the charges themselves. There needs to be a massive sea change in public opinion if we are turn this problem around. The enforcement of existing laws against the miscreants who are stealing our children's futures by knowingly disseminating falsehoods about climate change to advance business interests could be a step in the right direction. As has been seen in other contexts, the public naming and shaming of a few high profile individuals could have some salutary effects.

Couldn't agree more, very well said.

- - - Updated - - -

...
I tend to not form strong opinions on things unless I know what I'm talking about. It would take a lot more than an 80 second video to give me that kind of knowledge...that's why I say I don't know much about it. I would have to undertake a course of study similar to that which accompanies a degree in science to be able to say that I know enough about climate change to speak pro or con as to the theories. I'm definitely not going to do that, so I keep to the sidelines on the subject.
...

I can understand that position.
However, one doesn't have to be a specialist in quantum mechanics to have an opinion on the intelligence of someone jumping off a bridge.

There really isn't much to the basics. That web site with the video has a number of videos of varying detail/length so you can get more info if wanted.
The basic idea has been around 150 years, it is just when you get into minute detail that requires a college class.
 
From my perspective, since denialism is a wholly artificial phenomena, which has been foisted on the public by slick marketing tactics and the expenditure of billions of dollars, solely to advance the commercial interests of a small (but highly profitable) industry at the expense of innocent members of the public (and most particularly future generations), references to "free speech" are nothing more than a smokescreen. The artificially fostered impression of "doubt" allows the industry (aided and abetted by their well-paid PR flacks, lobbyists and politicians) to continue to impose harm on present and future generations in the complete absence of rational public interest regulation.

To be clear, apart from said PR flacks, lobbyists and politicians (and various uninformed members of the public who have taken in by their disinformation campaigns) there is no debate about the reality and the seriousness of the man-made global warming problem).

  • Practicing, publishing climate scientists overwhelmingly accept the scientific consensus (latest estimates range from 97% to 99%)
  • Science academies and recognized science associations of all types universally, and without exception, accept and do not dispute the scientific consensus.
  • National governments all accept the scientific consensus about the problem and the need to keep the resulting temperature increase below 2 degrees C.
  • Even the major oil companies (who have the most to lose) acknowledge the reality of the scientific consensus.

I have been actively involved in discussions with hundreds of individuals and have yet to hear any plausible argument or theory which casts any significant doubt on the compelling scientific theory and evidence.

As previously discussed, there is no such thing as a "free speech" defense to the charges and claims which may and should result from knowingly misleading the public to advance commercial interests.

I find the prospect of bringing charges (under existing laws) against the individuals and organizations who are knowing engaged in such conduct to be an interesting one. As much for the fact that the individuals involved in such misconduct need to clearly understand that they are acting illegally and are doing wrong, as for the charges themselves. There needs to be a massive sea change in public opinion if we are turn this problem around. The enforcement of existing laws against the miscreants who are stealing our children's futures by knowingly disseminating falsehoods about climate change to advance business interests could be a step in the right direction. As has been seen in other contexts, the public naming and shaming of a few high profile individuals could have some salutary effects.

I have to say, the acertion that the only people who deny or argue against climate change is totally off base (noting that assumption is prevalent amongst comments made in this thread). The conservative base is made up of a strong Christian contengent. And most of that contengent doesn't believe in Climate change...

"The fact remains, though, that most evangelical Christians in the United States do not think as Hayhoe does. Recent data from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication suggests that while 64 percent of Americans think global warming is real and caused by human beings, only 44 percent of evangelicals do. Evangelicals in general, explains Hayhoe, tend to be more politically conservative, and can be quite distrusting of scientists (believing, incorrectly, that they're all a bunch of atheists). Plus, some evangelicals really do go in for that whole "the world is ending" thing—not an outlook likely to inspire much care for the environment. " http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/inquiring-minds-katharine-hayhoe-faith-climate

But a new survey by The Associated Press found that religious identity — particularly evangelical Protestant — was one of the sharpest indicators of skepticism toward key issues in science.
The survey presented a series of statements that several prize-winning scientist say are facts. However, the research shows that confidence in their correctness varies sharply among U.S. adults. It found:


  • 51 percent of U.S. adults overall (including 77 percent of people who say they are born-again or evangelical) have little or no confidence that “the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang.”
  • 42 percent overall (76 percent of evangelicals) doubt that “life on Earth, including human beings, evolved through a process of natural selection.”
  • 37 percent overall (58 percent of evangelicals) doubt that the Earth’s temperature is rising “mostly because of man-made heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”
  • 36 percent overall (56 percent of evangelicals) doubt “the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.”
On the flip side, most people are pretty sure the “universe is so complex, there must be a supreme being guiding its creation” — 54 percent of all Americans, and 87 percent of evangelicals.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/05/01/evangelical-science-religion-big-bang-evolution/

Then, of course, there's these guys... http://www.cornwallalliance.org/category/climate-and-energy/global-warming-science/ .

Another potential road block to evangelical engagement on global warming might be that climate scientists use models based on the fact that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old, whereas many fundamentalists believe, based on the Bible, that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Asked how he reconciled the two conceptions of geological history, Brown demurred. “I believe God creates through evolution,”

My point is - this is more a Religious debate then it's a Scientific one - and counter to Richard's thoughts, it's not just Oil companies out to make a buck who actively disagree. This also makes it very hard to prevent people saying things against Climate Change as it could be interpreted as an expression of thier religious rights.
 
I discuss climate issues with evangelicals in terms of stewardship. Genesis tells us that God gave dominion over the earth to mankind. With great power comes great responsibility. Is squandering natural resources good stewardship? Is dumping pollution into our skies, waters, and land? There are several evangelical environmental groups built on exactly this reading of the Bible, e.g. Evangelical Environmental Network

One of my favorite bumper stickers in the south is "what would Jesus drive?" Leaving aside the obvious answer (he'd walk, bicycle, or take public transit), it forces people to think about whether their personal consumption decisions are actually in line with the examples in the Gospels.
 
I discuss climate issues with evangelicals in terms of stewardship.

As with anything, when you advocate from within someone's current point of view (vs. standing on a platform and dictating 'how it must be'), you're likely to be much more successful. And if not successful, they'll still walk away feeling respect from you & may think about the points made. :)
 
That's not to say that I deny climate change or even question it. I don't think about it. Nature is a lot more powerful than any of us and it's always found its own equilibrium, and I'm sure that it will do so again if man is having a substantive effect on the planet's climate.

Yes, but the implied assumption in your statement is that equilibrium will be conducive to supporting a modern human population. If you acknowledge that human activity can alter our environment in ways we can't foresee then I'd assume you'd agree it would be in our best interests to curtail our influence. My argument has always been that we don't really know the end result of the experiment we are conducting on our atmosphere so we probably need to limit our impact. The fact that we end up with a more sustainable and healthier lifestyle is an added bonus and motivation.
 
I have to say, the acertion that the only people who deny or argue against climate change is totally off base (noting that assumption is prevalent amongst comments made in this thread). The conservative base is made up of a strong Christian contengent. And most of that contengent doesn't believe in Climate change...

"The fact remains, though, that most evangelical Christians in the United States do not think as Hayhoe does. Recent data from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication suggests that while 64 percent of Americans think global warming is real and caused by human beings, only 44 percent of evangelicals do. Evangelicals in general, explains Hayhoe, tend to be more politically conservative, and can be quite distrusting of scientists (believing, incorrectly, that they're all a bunch of atheists). Plus, some evangelicals really do go in for that whole "the world is ending" thing—not an outlook likely to inspire much care for the environment. " http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/inquiring-minds-katharine-hayhoe-faith-climate

But a new survey by The Associated Press found that religious identity — particularly evangelical Protestant — was one of the sharpest indicators of skepticism toward key issues in science.
The survey presented a series of statements that several prize-winning scientist say are facts. However, the research shows that confidence in their correctness varies sharply among U.S. adults. It found:


  • 51 percent of U.S. adults overall (including 77 percent of people who say they are born-again or evangelical) have little or no confidence that “the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang.”
  • 42 percent overall (76 percent of evangelicals) doubt that “life on Earth, including human beings, evolved through a process of natural selection.”
  • 37 percent overall (58 percent of evangelicals) doubt that the Earth’s temperature is rising “mostly because of man-made heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”
  • 36 percent overall (56 percent of evangelicals) doubt “the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.”
On the flip side, most people are pretty sure the “universe is so complex, there must be a supreme being guiding its creation” — 54 percent of all Americans, and 87 percent of evangelicals.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/05/01/evangelical-science-religion-big-bang-evolution/

Then, of course, there's these guys... http://www.cornwallalliance.org/category/climate-and-energy/global-warming-science/ .

Another potential road block to evangelical engagement on global warming might be that climate scientists use models based on the fact that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old, whereas many fundamentalists believe, based on the Bible, that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Asked how he reconciled the two conceptions of geological history, Brown demurred. “I believe God creates through evolution,”

My point is - this is more a Religious debate then it's a Scientific one - and counter to Richard's thoughts, it's not just Oil companies out to make a buck who actively disagree. This also makes it very hard to prevent people saying things against Climate Change as it could be interpreted as an expression of thier religious rights.

I don't disagree with the data that you present, but would suggest that it is principally a reflection of the effectiveness of the engagement of industry /astroturf groups with such religious groups (as has also been seen with neo-con / libertarian factions). It is my strong suspicion, for which there is some documented support, that if you look behind the scene you will find the fingerprints of monied industry interests pulling the strings (as has also been clearly documented with respect to the connections between the Kochs through Americans for Prosperity and the Tea Party). For example with respect to the Cornwall Alliance:

See: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...disinformation-front-group-cornwall-alliance/

Thus far, Cornwall has been able to masquerade as a legitimate, independent group of pastors and religious leaders opposed to addressing climate change. However, ThinkProgress investigated the group and found deep ties to the oil industry, as well as with longtime right-wing operatives orchestrating the climate science denial machine.
The Cornwall Alliance appears to be a creation of a group called the James Partnership, a nonprofit run by Chris Rogers and Peter Stein, according to documents filed with the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Rogers, who heads a media and public relations firm called CDR Communications, collaborates with longtime oil front group operative David Rothbard, the founder and President of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and Jacques Villarreal, a lower level staffer at CFACT, for his James Partnership group. In the past, Rogers’ firm has worked for the Bush administration and for the secretive conservative planning group, the Council for National Policy.
According to public records, the following entities are all registered to the same address, 9302-C Old Keene Mill Road Burke, VA 22015, an office park in suburban Virginia:
- Rogers’ consulting firm, CDR Communications
– Rogers’ nonprofit hub, the James Partnership
– The Cornwall Alliance
– The new “Resisting the Green Dragon” website
In late 2005, evangelical leaders like Rick Warren joined a drive to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.” To counter this historic shift in the evangelical community, a group called the “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance” (ISA) was launched to oppose action on carbon emissions and to deny the existence of climate chance. One of the men guiding this group was Paul Driessen, a consultant for ExxonMobil, the mining industry, and for CFACT.

For “stream lining” reasons, ISA relaunched as the Cornwall Alliance in 2006. With the new name came a redesigned website, highly produced web videos, and an organized network of churches to distribute climate change denying propaganda to hundreds of pastors around the country. The branding for the Cornwall Alliance is derived from the “Cornwall Declaration,” a 1999 document pushing back against the creation-care movement in the evangelical community. The Declaration “stressed a free-market environmental stewardship and emphasized that individuals and private organizations should be trusted to care for their own property without government intervention.” CFACT President Rothbard has been hailed as the “driving force” behind the Cornwall Declaration public relations effort.

CFACT is a gimmicky right-wing organization that does everything it can to try to discredit the science underpinning climate change. For instance, staffers from the group traveled to the Copenhagen conference on climate change to stage silly press conferences with Rush Limbaugh’s former producer and stunts aimed at mocking Greenpeace.

But who is the “driving force” behind CFACT? According to disclosures, CFACT is funded by at least $542,000 from ExxonMobil, $60,500 from Chevron, and $1,280,000 from Scaife family foundations, which are rooted in wealth from Gulf Oil and steel interests.
CFACT and the Cornwall Alliance, according to disclosures filed with the Washington State Secretary of State’s office, share a common fundraising firm, ClearWord Communications Group. ClearWord has helped raise millions of dollars not only for CFACT and Cornwall, but also for infamous polluter front groups like FreedomWorks, the Institute for Energy Research, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Last year, Cornwall produced a video with former Sen. George Allen (R-VA) attacking clean energy legislation as part of a campaign by the ExxonMobil-funded “American Energy Freedom Center.”

In a call to the Cornwall Alliance’s media office Monday afternoon, spokesman Quena Gonzalez said Cornwall has no relationship to CFACT and said CFACT President Rothbard has no official capacity with his group. Gonzalez said that in “several years of working” at Cornwall, he has never heard any questions about working with CFACT, and instructed ThinkProgress to contact Calvin Beisner, the national representative for Cornwall. Incidentally, Beisner is a board member of CFACT.
Rothbard had a central role in sparking the founding of Cornwall and is currently a partner with Chris Rogers, the man who runs Cornwall and CDR Communications. Nevertheless, under his capacity as CFACT President, Rothbard’s anti-Greenpeace publicity stunts are reported regularly on the Cornwall blog as breaking news, without any acknowledgement of Rothbard’s relationship with Cornwall.

Gonzalez also said he had never heard of CDR Communications. But according to his own LinkedIn profile, Gonzalez works for CDR Communications as the “Director for Religion and the Environment” at the firm. ThinkProgress contacted Chris Rogers on Monday, who contradicted Gonzalez and said his firm CDR Communications provides “support” for Cornwall but did not clarify.

It appears that Cornwall attempts to carefully hide its backers. Not only did Gonzalez refuse to provide much information, but Cornwall’s website is registered with a special service to hide the identity of the person or group who purchased the domain address.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...unded-study-confirming-climate-change-science
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/th...-right-and-the-corporate-right-are-joining-fo
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...--Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/04/america-theologians-climate-science-denial
http://www.skepticink.com/gps/2013/11/20/christian-evangelicalism-and-climate-change-denial/http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity
http://news.yahoo.com/david-koch-seeded-major-tea-party-group-private-115102732--politics.html
http://www.nationaljournal.com/poli...rty-group-private-donor-list-reveals-20130924
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/americans-for-prosperity-3/
http://zfacts.com/tea-party-republicans
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/03/koch-backed-afp-busing-tea-party-protesters-to-florida-capitol/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
http://www.desmogblog.com/new-yorke...s-behind-tea-party-and-climate-denial-machine
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131220154511.htm
http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/dark-money-fuels-election-wins-climate-deniers/

More scientifically literate and enlightened religious groups are actually on the forefront of climate change action, including, fossil fuel divestment initiatives. For example see:

http://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/resources/religious-statements-on-climate-change/
http://ecowatch.com/2014/09/12/evangelical-christian-climate-change/
http://www.nae.net/lovingtheleastofthese
http://www.dw.de/top-stories/religion-and-climate-change/s-100334
http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/about-us/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/religious-groups-peoples-climate-march_n_5823266.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-church-global-warming-evangelical/12515665/
http://campaigns.gofossilfree.org/efforts/fossil-fuel-divestment-religious-institutions-1
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...cil-of-churches-pulls-fossil-fuel-investments

- - - Updated - - -

Climate change? I don't know much about it. I'm not a scientist and I have other things that take up my free time (as opposed to researching climate change). What I know is that any time you start getting into regulation, there's always a big component of crony capitalism that plays into it, so fears get whipped up, dire consequences are threatened and control is taken.

That's not to say that I deny climate change or even question it. I don't think about it. Nature is a lot more powerful than any of us and it's always found its own equilibrium, and I'm sure that it will do so again if man is having a substantive effect on the planet's climate. ...

Eclectic, the preceding sentences are inconsistent and contradictory. The first admits to ignorance with respect to scientific matters, and yet the second expresses an incorrect scientific view, which seems to deny climate change, as though it were a fact.
 
I agree that there are some that deny climate change for religious reasons but for many, perhaps a majority it's political. Evangelicals tend to be conservative. People tend to adopt the positions of people they relate to. Climate Change denial is simply part of the political package they vote for.
 
Political, meaning subject to financial influence.

Yes for the politicians... not so much for the constituents. For example; someone that voted for Romney is much more likely to adopt other views that Romney held. If Romney starts to accept AGW his constituents are more likely to start accepting AGW. Of course this isn't always enough as Bob Inglis discovered.

Most people vote based on their core values then just kind of adopt other ancillary values that their candidates hold. There is a minority for whom AGW denial has sadly become a core value... but the majority of people simply adopt that position. Candidate XYZ is pro-life and also denies AGW. Their constituents may not have previously held a position on AGW but since they chose candidate XYZ based on their core value of being pro-life cognitive dissonance drives them to accept other ancillary values candidate XYZ supports.

This is why people like Bob Inglis are such critical ambassadors for accepting the reality of climate change.
 
Eclectic, the preceding sentences are inconsistent and contradictory. The first admits to ignorance with respect to scientific matters, and yet the second expresses an incorrect scientific view, which seems to deny climate change, as though it were a fact.

I'm afraid you're misreading, or misinterpreting, what I wrote. There is nothing inconsistent in saying that you don't know much about one subject (climate change) but that you have a belief that something happens as a general rule with another subject (nature). I don't know how you can read a denial of climate change into a sentence that begins with an affirmation that I don't deny it. Again, though, I didn't mean to get into a discussion about things that I don't have expertise in. As I said in my earlier post, I incorrectly assumed that this was a discussion of the interaction between a belief in climate change and support for the Tesla product.