Why conservative Christians don't believe in climate change

[Major Nikon]

Abstract
American Christians have become increasingly polarized on issues of climate change and environmental regulation. In recent years, mainline Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church have made explicit declarations of support for global climate action. Prominent Southern Baptists and other evangelical Protestants, on the other hand, have issued statements that are strikingly similar to the talking points of secular climate skeptics, and have attempted to stamp out Green efforts within their own ranks. An analysis of resolutions and campaigns by evangelicals over the past 40 years shows that anti-environmentalism within conservative Christianity stems from fears that stewardship of Gods creation is drifting toward neo-pagan nature worship, and from apocalyptic beliefs about end times that make it pointless to worry about global warming. As the climate crisis deepens, the moral authority of Christian leaders and organizations may play a decisive role in swaying public policy toward (or away from) action to mitigate global warming.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0096340215599789

[walkingman]

1. What a sad statement to humanity. They seem eager to support their "end times".

[Atticus]

2. Nope. They're just old-fashioned whores. The glitzy mega-pastors get attention, power, private

planes and mansions and, in return, they screw the bleating ignoramuses who tithe to finance the fight for "family values".

[hurl]

3. Yep

Having grown up in a SB family, I can also say part of this stems from their deep anti-intellectual bias. This feeds off of a persecution complex that tells them anything that isn't agreement inevitably must be from the devii's agenda to destroy them.

[Igel]

4. "An analysis" seldom beats "we asked."

Which is the problem. Analyses tend to be informed by how the assumptions and biases of the analyst interact with data. They also often suffer from the selection of data--which reflects the assumptions and biases of the analyst. A double-whammy.

Too many engage in the diverse version of mansplaining or whitesplaining, and do so with no awareness that what leads to mansplaining and whitemansplaining being so (a) offensive and (b) wrong is the simple fact that if you don't share the values system and background you simply are imposing some kind of "skin" on the other person.

(I'd note that "offensive" and "wrong" are categorically distinct, and increasing "it's wrong because it's offensive" is unsupported by actual data: Very often what's offensive is dead-on accurate, while "wrong" is in no way offensive. More often it's becoming "it's offensive because I perceive it to be wrong" or, worse yet, "It's wrong because I perceive it to be offensive.&quot