• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Climate Change and the Rhetoric of Belief

    In April of this year, when a student in Turkey asked President Obama how he was different from President Bush, Obama said,

    “When it comes to climate change, George Bush didn’t believe in climate change. I do believe in climate change, I think it’s important.”

    In this response, Obama is pointing to a crucial facet in the rhetoric surrounding the climate change debate, which is the rift between those who believe that climate change is a crisis and those who believe that climate change is not a crisis; between those who believe that many of the problems of the world are due to climate change and those who believe that those same problems would not have been prevented by a few degrees of global cooling.

    In England, this belief in climate change is now of the same legal standing as a religious belief. Just this month, Tim Nicholson was told that he will be able to take his employer to tribunal on the grounds that he was unfairly dismissed from his job because of his belief on climate change. This decision comes under the UK’s Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations of 2003 which protects employees for “any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief.” After the verdict, Nicholson said

    “I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe. This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief. Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence.”

    Nicholson’s statement presents an interesting irony: on the one hand he says that the science is overwhelming, implying that it must be taken as “fact,” but on the other hand he emphasizes that man-made climate change should be regarded in the same light as a “faith-based religious belief”: such a comparison highlights that both climate change belief and religious belief require a certain amount of blind faith.

    The rhetoric of belief is appropriate because while climate change activists warn of impending catastrophe, people cannot see evidence of this catastrophe in their everyday lives so they must make a decision as to whether they believe the predictions. However the more the alarm of climate change catastrophe is sounded, the more the belief in climate change catastrophe has declined: MSNBC and USA Today report that “Americans’ Belief in Global Warming Cools” and when a recent Pew report and Gallup report are seen together it turns out that “More Americans believe in Haunted Houses than Man-Made Global Warming

    According to this declining belief among Americans, man-made climate change may not be the kind of “change we can believe in.”

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Climate Change and the Rhetoric of Belief

    1. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      The reason Bush did not "believe" in climate change is because there is no SIGNIFICANT climate change. It has been getting colder.

      The whistleblower emails verify what millions of us already knew. It is just a giant scam which has accumulated millions of zealots. Many of the "Scientists" couldn't name the types of clouds because they are not climatologists.

      The truth is coming out and even the President Obama was duped or was he?

    2. Roger S., Ma. says:

      Thanks, Katie, for ultimate PROOF: proof that the world has gone finally and irretrievably "bonkers"! Neither belief in "haunted houses", nor belief in AGW, exceed significantly the LACK of "belief" in evolution by natural selection. Each of these tallies at about 35pct of all Americans.

      In other words, fully one third of our population, and not necessarily the same third, "believes" in a significant admixture of "Magic" to life on earth. That IS shocking! — "Houston, we have a problem." Which part of "spaceship" don't we understand?

      No wonder the world is in such a mess, when laws, and in England even the courts, now support "magical thinking". The same court which stopped "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in classrooms because it contained too little proof of its contentions to be considered anything other than political drivel, now supports an employee's "right" to terrorize his employer with exactly the same drivel? Motto: one man's politics is another's philosophy. –The one is drivel, the other plain sense, both are the same?– Oh, open wide the "pearly gates" for that scourge of mankind, subjective law! Arise all ye dead jurists of "standpoint epistemology"! Pray tell: how long must we yet wait for the next "auto da fé"?

      The 16th century has been a long time coming. Who's selling tickets? Got any left? What, they were left on the Moon? In 1969? Don't bet on it!

    3. Bobbie Jay says:

      The only catastrophe is the brainwashing of the human mind! Resulting in the endless thieving of tax dollars and freedoms, for an endless, fictitious need.

      While Al Gore and GOVERNMENT get bigger paychecks, more programs and provide unproductive to reality, useless jobs…make-work, the people could employee themselves where they can actually use their intelligence. In the free market! Where innovation in a free country is rewarded by the people, and choice. NOT GOVERNMENT.

      Remove any man-made global warming mandates and let private business, mfg, commence and the people work for their right and duty to live independently! Is that asking too much? AND WHY?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.