Climate Communication: Talking Solutions with Evangelicals

“Climate change” can be a trigger term for some Christians and conflict-driven narratives about climate can be a turn-off. How can we reach them?

1 Like

It is difficult. I have a bible study group, and my culture and demographic peers are largely Fox news watching and strongly right leaning. Climate change honestly has little economic impact on them other than the price of gas and groceries, and they are bombarded with messages as to how it does not exist, or if it exists, there is nothing we can do the change it.

1 Like

I have appreciate very much this article « Climate Communication: Talking Solutions with Evangelicals ». It is a nice approach to consider. I am both christian and retired scientist living in a secular society up north (Canada). Last week I lost my temper with someone living next door related to climate change and didn’t believe in the science measurement and conclusion neither. I had to appologize for my reaction in order to maintain relationship. I felt I could not talk anymore about climate or science with that person in order to maintain a relationship. After reading this article; I find hope to approach our relations with solutions instead of climate news or « dry » scientific facts…


I grew up in the 70’s when the world was going to end any day. Jesus was going to return soon, for sure.

So my first recommendation would be stop with the doom and gloom and climate alarmism. It’s just too hard to take seriously. Stop with making “climate change” a moral crusade. Stop claiming that we can save the planet. Let’s have a rational conversation, not one driven by emotion and hysteria. And stop with the wacko behavior. It makes it seem like “climate change” the realm of lunatics.


Why not take a look and read down through some of the articles on Judith Curry’s web site.

The earth is warming as it has been since the end of the little ice age in the late 1700s, after cooling for about 800 years following the medieval warm period. Earth temperatures oscillated violently during the younger Dryas period…during which time both CO2 levels and sea level did not change.

Also, put John Clauser Climate into the browser and take a look at his comments. He has joined the Dutch CLINTEL group and has a statement there. He is the current holder of the Nobel Prize in Physics. The Climate Alarm Industrial Complex will shrug his comments off because he had not published Climate papers…yet. Renaissance geniuses like John Clauser can understand anything and usually spot fake things a few kilometers away. That brush-off CANNOT be said about Judith Curry. Her research has involved work on clouds which are the most difficult part of any model for predicting future temperature evolution.

As for Carbon Dioxide, it is the input for God’s miracle chemical, chlorophyll, that puts carbon into living things. I point to the creation days…first day…Heaven and Earth, second day land and sea. THEN, on the third day the plants and their chlorophyll were created. TWO full days before animals were introduced to run around and eat those plants…and to some extent, each other. Without those plants and chlorophyll there would be no mechanism for carbon to be involved in life. It is a minor gas in the atmosphere and does not deserve the demonization constantly stated by the Climate Alarm Industrial Complex. The actual current CO2 levels around 400 ppm are low by historical standards.

And, the fourth day, the moon. Is it a coincidence that human ovulation has a 28-day cycle as does the moon?

1 Like

We also have things like this:

The utter hypocrisy.

1 Like

If this represents hypocrisy, what does the video listed below represent?

Thank you!

1 Like

Dear Phil,

There is always more to the story. Kindly check this link:, and share with us what’s wrong with it?

Thank you!

1 Like

No idea. But first, who do you think I was accusing of being hypocritical? Because I have in mind the politicians, who probably get elected on big oil’s money. Why are the suing the oil companies rather than taxing oil and gas until no one in their state can afford it? Not to mention how the state itself has benefited from oil and gas over the years. Basically condoning all along what they are now condemning.

1 Like

Dear Paula,

First, there is a strong correlation between climate change and renewable energy. The correlation lies in the fact that renewable energy sources offer a solution to mitigate climate change. By transitioning away from fossil fuels and increasing the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease our dependence on finite and polluting resources, and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Essentially, it is imperative that we do not discuss climate change without considering the significance of renewable energy; and prior to embarking on efforts to mitigate the environmental crisis, it is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms and principles underlying renewable energy. I don’t find this trajectory to be unreasonable, but then again, acvording to Mark Twain, “we are all ignorant about something.”

Also, I have previous experience working for Wyeth, a company that was subsequently acquired by Pfizer, in the capacity of a regulatory pharmaceutical scientist/specialist. The regulatory team is responsible for compiling the “Dossier” that is submitted to the FDA or other regulatory agencies worldwide to seek approval for drug substances or drug products. There are three primary criteria for approval: safety, efficacy, and stability. Safety refers to the assessment of whether the drug substance or product is safe for use. Efficacy pertains to determining whether the drug substance or product effectively achieves its intended purpose. Stability involves evaluating how the drug substance or product behaves over a specified period of time. I have additional information to provide, but I believe it may not be relevant to the current discussion. I hold the belief in the efficacy of vaccines, however, I didn’t get vaccinated.

I live in a country where most people acknowledge that climate change is reality and we must do something to slow it down. Facts and the consequences of climate change have been reported sufficiently in the news. Only a small percentage claim that the national news are largely unreliable - the good side of having a system where the national news (comparable to BBC) are not tied to politics and report catastrophes and other news around the globe.

Yet, when trying to talk about these matters with fellow believers, the response is usually quietness and after some time a cautious sceptic comment about some detail of the climate change discussion. A large part of my fellow believers support some politician whom I would classify as pro-cultivation and practically hostile against sufficient acts to take care of the nature. Young people coming from cities have better awareness and some concern about the global trends in climate and nature but those coming from countryside are not so much interested.

One solution to this problem is to talk about details instead of the broad picture. Almost all can admit that the climate is warming and that causes problems around the globe. It is possible to talk about how the sea level is rising - a fact where the only uncertain detail is how long it will take before the sea level has risen more than two meters, is it decades or centuries (depends on the speed of climate change). Almost 800 million people live in areas that will be seriously affected by the rising sea level and need to either learn to live in flooded areas or emigrate from these areas. It is possible to talk about how the lack of water will cause hundreds of millions of people to emigrate from the areas where they cannot anymore live. This kind of details can help people to understand that climate change is a matter we just cannot skip. Even if we live in an area where the bad consequences of climate change are relatively small, the problems will knock on our door sooner or later.

An even better starting point is to talk about Genesis, how we were given the right to cultivate and the responsibility to care. Any believer taking the teachings of the biblical scriptures seriously is forced to think about how we have behaved and how to continue. After admitting that we have been good at the cultivation part but not at the care part, there is a possibility to think about what we should do to better follow the duty God gave us.

It is unrealistic to wait rapid changes in attitudes but a slow and step-wise opening to the need to act is possible. At least, these believers are less likely to oppose acts to slow down the climate change and protect the nature, even if they are not willing themselves to sacrifice anything for these goals.


“Climate change” can be a trigger term for some Christians and conflict-driven narratives about climate can be a turn-off. How can we reach them?

Thanks Ciara,

I do not have a quick or easy answer for your question. However, I do find it useful to be able to share my ideas and experiences with like-minded Christians. I understand that there are a number of Christian environmental groups in the US.

Here in the UK, I am a member of Green Christian .

For people younger than myself there is the Young Christian Climate Network

If you are not a member of a Christian environmental group could I, respectfully, suggest that you consider joining one?


I should add, Green Christian and the Young Christian Climate Network are both based in the UK. However, my understanding is that both would welcome people from the US, or elsewhere, if they want to join.


In the US we have Young Evangelicals for Climate Action.


Should we add climate-change to the list of forbidden political topics?

Thanks Christy,

A Rocha International works in a lot of different countries and is also worth considering.


Sorry folks, it’s me again.

I have just been made aware of this initiative from the The Oxford School of Climate Change at Oxford here in the UK.

The course runs two hours per week over eight weeks, taught by experts (16 hours in total). Either in-person or online. The cost is minimal.

Anyone can apply - you can join online from anywhere in the world.

No previous expertise required.

Applications for this term close on Saturday 7th October at midday.

The Oxford School of Climate Change


If we are using this thread to recommend resources on climate change and communication thereof, I would point to this excellent resource:, which I have found very valuable.

It is from climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe - Person - BioLogos

  • Gutsick Gibbon offers a lengthy and sobering look at: The DEADLIEST Pattern in Nature. My take on it is: “History tells us that extinction of living things seems to be the general rule.”

I expect to be in under two decades, probably under one. Over two would be a surprise. So yeah, there is definitely precedent confirming the rule, pretty much 100%. :wink: