I’ve been pondering the correlations between the climate change discussions and religious discussions.
1. Most people arrive at their position depending upon relationships with people they trust.
Climate change, as well as many religious issues, is so large and esoteric that the vast majority of people are not in a position to come to a conclusion based on empirical evidence. They can read the pro or con position into just about anything they see affirming whatever position they embrace. They simply operate out of an extended network of trust relationships. Because a group of people that they align with believes one way on the issue (along with complex web of other issues and positions on various fronts) they side with them or at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
2. Both discussions are considered by their adherents as being “ultimate”
Many consider ignoring climate change concern as “global suicide”. You won’t hear language dissimilar to that from many Christians regarding moral issues, adherence to Jesus as Lord, etc.
Is this a helpful observation? pvk
Leadingchurch.com 
Yeah absolutely! Almost all the discussion I have heard about global warming a.k.a. climate change has been phrased in terms of “believe in” or “don’t believe in”. I think it is an appropriate way to talk about the topic since it seems to me that it requires significant faith for anyone to try to tackle this topic one way or another.
I disagree with the “excluding climate scientists” bit in the Facebook blurb that says “most people (excluding climate scientists) arrive at their position depending upon rela…” – because I think that even they use faith, extrapolation, and plenty of presuppositions to process the information that they use.
After re-reading it I took out that parenthetical comment for exactly the same reason. Thanks for your comment Steve. pvk
There are some parallels, but by and large I see the two as very different issues. I agree that with climate change, people (and I would include the parenthetical “excluding climate scientists”) side with one side or another partly or mostly out of their network or people the trust. But in doing so, they are either not capable or unwilling to understand empirical evidence that strongly supports climate change generally, and anthropomorphic climate change specifically. Conversely, when someone decides to believe in Jesus (and I would exclude those who knew him directly, e.g., the 12 disciples), I would argue that in the majority of cases there is little to no empirical evidence to base the decision on one way or another, so we have little choice in the matter but to believe (or have faith) consistent with the worldview that we have that has been shaped by our relationships. I think the presence/absence of that empirical evidence has profound implications. “Belief” in or “disbelief” of climate change can either be via faith, or via science (the opposite of faith?), whereas belief or disbelief in Jesus is by faith.
I see the observation as helpful, but at least for me, the two are not really correlated.