[bpsdb] One of the more fascinating feeds I've found since plunging deeper into Twitters incessant deluge of information and increasing my own presence there, is that of the Pew Research Center. So far this month alone they've published several studies on beliefs that are worth reporting, but for now I'll just deal with one, on Religion and Climate Change
The results of the survey are below, and unless you're Matthew Nisbet - whose ability to read graphs is apparently inversely proportional to his ability to piss off science bloggers - then you'll notice a striking correlation between religious belief, and views on climate change.
Atheists then are the most likely to accept the current science on climate change, unsurprisingly as they are probably more likely to accept science in general. Belief falls slightly among white protestants, but remains strong. The two most remarkable groups are evangelicals, and black protestants.
Now, I'm not surprised by the Evangelicals. If somebody's belief system is predicated on the idea that God controls pretty much everything, then the idea that humans even could affect the planet is an alien anomaly. Sample quotes from fundies include gems such as: "The only climate I'm concerned about is Heaven. I hear they have perfect weather there," and: "Warming not part of God's plan." These are not people renowned for their consideration of scientific evidence.
The Black Protestants are a more puzzling group. Part of the problem is that the survey separates White mainstream Protestants from White evangelical Protestants, while Black protestants are just one large group. Even this doesn't explain the remarkably large number who accept that the Earth is warming, but believe that it is due to natural cycles. It suggests that this group is overly exposed to some source of misinformation that is less successful at targetting other demographics.
So it's hard to tell from this data whether Black Protestants really are more skeptical about climate change than their White equivalents, but the wider literature is equally confusing.
In a study on the psychology of conspiracy theorists that I blogged about last June, the authors noted that it seemed "that belief in conspiracies is associated with the feelings of alienation and disaffection from the system." Their research weakly suggested that Blacks may be more inclined to believe certain conspiracy theories, and that this may stem from their increased dissatisfaction with government and the authorities in general. This sort of finding would seem to be consistent with the same groups having a lower inclination to accept the findings of scientific authorities on climate.
On the other hand though, surveys such as those by the Hartman Group have found that Blacks are remarkable, er, Green, feeling more personally affected by climate change than Whites (61% vs 45%), and more certain that "humans have made the
environment worse today than it was 20 years ago" (83% vs 73%).
In short, I haven't got a clue, but the questions this survey throws out are intriguing, and I'd love to see somebody pursue the question of why different demographics adopt different beliefs in further research. I have a hunch that the answers could be very important for the way that we report on and frame scientific findings.
http://layscience.net/trackback/518
Or maybe it's as simple as poverty and education levels?
If I were asked these questions, I would have to answer "none of the above", because while I think thee is very strong evidence for man-made global warming, there is also considerable evidence that we have been pulling out of the Little Ice Age" that definitively ended (after an earlier false start) around the beginning of the nineteenth century.
So my position is the mainstream scientific one: that current global warming is part of a natural trend considerably exacerbated by man. Unfortunately, the scientific recognition of a lesser natural component to global warming gets lost in the shouting, as the issue has become increasingly politicized.
In light of this, then, the black protestant response is the one that most closely resembles the truth in a poorly designed poll--better even than the atheists, who have reflexively responded to what some the mainstream media (and some scientists) have told them is the "scientific consensus" that all global warming is man-made. While it would be fair to say that a large majority of scientists claim to believe in man-made (as well as natural) global warming, the lack of a true consensus has made all parties, including the equally conflicted media, increasingly shrill.
It is notable that of all the groups identified in the poll, Black Protestants have the smallest number of climate change skeptics (I refuse to use the politically loaded term "climate-change deniers"). Just why this should be is indeed an interesting question.
So you are saying that that the reason Black Protestants came closest to the viewpoint of most climate scientists within the limitations of a poorly worded poll is because of their poverty and education levels?
Correction: I stated, "...the black protestant response is the one that most closely resembles the truth in a poorly designed poll...". the truth should read the conclusion of the majority of climate scientists. Although I agree with them, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to call it the truth.
Here's a tentative hypothesis: Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans, killing and destroying the homes of an enormously disproportionate number of poor black people. Predictably, a few of the more extreme white Christian fundamentalists likened NO to Sodom and Gomorrah, that Katrina was God's punishment for the wages of sin, blah, blah. I can't imagine how this must have made the NO black community and the US black community at large feel, but I'm sure they rejected such a notion, and to this day Katrina is seared into the consciousness of the black community as a shocking and terribly unfair tragedy.
Nevertheless, to many God-fearing black Protestants, merely to give credence to the very idea that mankind was responsible for global warming, which the media and many scientists claimed was responsible for Katrina, was an admission that the storm was indeed God's punishment for mankind's destruction of "His" creation. On the other hand, it was a lot more palatable for them to accept scientists' contention that global warming was responsible for Katrina, rather than the direct hand of God.
Hence black Protestants' inclination to believe in global warming (responsible for Katrina) coupled with a reluctance to associate it with the negligence (a sin) of man, for which God might mete out punishment. I can imagine black preachers delivering just such assurances from the pulpit after Katrina. Just a thought.
Well I wouldn't say closest, but it's an interesting point why the "yes but not us" category is so much larger than other groups.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Indeed. And perhaps more interesting still is the related fact that the "No" category is smaller than any other group.
Mmmm so lots of social factors involved, but if you look through them you can find some artifacts to imply skeptics are so only because of their anti-science religion.
There's some similarities there with the environmentalist arguments for man-made CO2-based global warming.
Is 1% significantly lower in this case? I suppose it depends on the size of the sample.
OK, I've read the source and this is ringing my "correlation does not necessarily equal causation" bells. A number of factors are strongly associated with religiosity and could be complicating the results:
- Poverty. The less money you have, the more likely you are to affiliate with a religion.
- Location. Rural people more religious than urban people, inhabitants of the Bible Belt more religious than those of coastal cities, etc.
- Level of personal conformity. If you live in a religious society, then you are more likely to be religious if you conform to social norms (in less religious societies, non-conformers may be overrepresented among the religious).
Two other things:
- "Unaffiliated" does not necessarily equal "athiest". I've met a number of people who claim some vague belief in God but don't associate with a particular religion.
- Is there a reason why Hispanic and Black Catholics were omitted?
It's an interesting survey, but too little on which to draw strong conclusions.
Indeed, "unaffiliated" means just that.
According to this Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion. Of which, 1.6% explicitly describe themselves as atheist or agnostic, double the previous 2001 ARIS survey figure.
Clearly, then, one should not assume that those who identify themselves as "unaffiliated" are atheists.
Why 1%? 15% of Black Protestants answered "No" to the question, "Is there solid evidence the Earth is warming?" The next lowest group of climate skeptics was "Unaffilated", at 18%. You do the math.
I am an idiot. I read the "Yes, but Don't Know" column for the "No" column. Please disregard my previous comment. Will read diagrams more carefully in future!
I comment from the perspective of a liberal/left wing Christian. Not many of us but also more than you may think!
Where much of this lies is that evanglists will tend to have more conservative political beliefs and more conservatives political parties tend, for various non religious reasons, to be climate change skeptics.
In short, it's nothing to do with religion!