Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Hard-hitting video explains the origins of climate change 'polarization'

Posted on 29 March 2021 by Bud Ward

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections

A story “about today. That started yesterday. And impacts tomorrow.”

That’s how the University of Virginia’s Religion, Race & Democracy Lab introduces its new “God $ Green: An Unholy Alliance” 19-minute publicly available “eye-popping” video.

The video addresses decades of what it calls “religious polarization, political propaganda, corporate deal-making, and environmental injustice based on systemic racism.”

They’re talking climate change here, “the biggest crisis facing us today.” And they don’t pull punches, as in addressing the joining of “potent forces [that] came together to mount an army of climate change skeptics in the name of God, country, and capitalism.”

The “unholy alliance” terminology comes from the mouth of former conservative Republican U.S. Representative Bob Inglis, who from 1993 to 1998, and then again from 2005 to 2011, represented a conservative South Carolina district. Inglis says his support for taking action on climate change was the principal reason he lost his seat in a June 2010 Republican primary. He now heads the Energy & Enterprise Institute at George Mason University, where he champions free-market approaches to addressing climate change.

Watch the trailer (below) or view the full-length video here(Article continues below)

 

God $ Green trailer from University of Virginia Religion, Race & Democracy Lab.

In what’s become part of the video’s title, Inglis points to an “unholy alliance that formed between the leaders of what passed as the Moral Majority, let’s say, and some people with some very specific economic interests when it comes to climate change.

“When you allow your faith to be used by people with economic interests, wow, does it get corrupted pretty quickly,” Inglis says in the video.

Also featuring Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, and others dealing with religion, culture, and the environment, the well-produced and visually stunning video tracks early “big oil” money through four generations of the Rockefellers to the riches of Standard Oil, Union Oil, and the J. Howard Pugh oil riches of the 1970s and 1980s and their support for what are referred to as “religious right causes.”

Religious and Africana studies Associate Professor Anthea Butler of the University of Pennsylvania sums things up as follows: “Evangelicals are very effective in changing the dial politically because they were very media-savvy. They knew how to grab a headline. They had networks. There was also oil money being put into some of these organizations.”

She calls environmentalism “part of God’s creation” but adds “for evangelicals, there was a sense in which this whole push for environmentalism was about liberalism.”

Inglis agrees, saying “it just became a tribally marked thing that, you know, liberals are for action on climate. We conservatives, we don’t talk about that.” Inglis says that early in his career in the House of Representatives, “I didn’t know anything about it except that Al Gore was for it. … that was the end of the inquiry for me.” But  then, prodded by his son, he traveled to Antarctica and to the Great Barrier Reef and found climate denial “no longer an option,” as the narrator puts it. His awakening to climate change concerns led to his primary defeat: “a rather spectacular face-plant in politics,” he calls that shellacking.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 4:

  1. Would love to hear from folks who did a screening in the US south ... scary thought

    0 0
  2. [Deleted]

     

    1 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Despite repeated warnings, you continue to fail to find proper places to discuss items.

    Final Warning

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  3. This message is very confusing to me.  Does it means I should erarse this site and just go away?  In the message the moderator uses the word "you" as continuing to do whatever. Does this mean "me?"  

    I don't recall making any comments on this site?  I don't mind leaving it if you want that, or your moderator whats that?  Never saw such a threatening message with mo content to me? 

    My book on climate change sells well in Europe and Asia. I guess I'll post this comment on chat sites there to see if they should abvoid this site as well?  Hope this helps  you get rid of readers.

     

    "Moderator Response:

    [BL] Despite repeated warnings, you continue to fail to find proper places to discuss items."

    0 0
  4. David:

    The moderator comment you are looking at (which was entered by me) is in response to deleted contents for comment #2, from jamesh.

    That particular user has been making a habit of posting off-topic responses that are not connected to the topic at hand.

    Anyone is welcome to participate here, according to the Comments Policy that is linked to in the line just below "Post a Comment" when you are logged in.

    Moderator comments appear in green boxes, to distinguish them from general comments from any normal users. They apply specifically to that one comment.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2021 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us