What do creationists and climate change deniers have in common?
Both creationists and climate change deniers attack those who disagree with them. And according to Steve Newton, they misunderstand some key aspects of the way science works.
What do creationists and climate change deniers have in common?
.jpg)
This is not the first line of a joke, but the theme of this commentary piece appearing in Earth. The author is Steven Newton, who works for the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE has been focused on protecting the teaching of evolution in public schools, but a few months ago they branched out into climate change. Why?
I talked to Newton yesterday, and he said the organization has had a number of requests to step into the heated issue of global climate change. Some of the latest anti-evolution bills include climate change as well. These bills are pushed as “academic freedom” bills, and people at NSCE think they’re aimed at allowing teachers to push antiscientific propaganda.
Newton asked me what I did to bring on such a torrent of nasty press from the Discovery Institute – a creationist/intelligent design think tank. I could venture a couple of guesses as to why they’re not happy with me. I’d worry a lot if I got any praise from them. But I’ve gotten even worse from the more extreme climate denial websites.
So one thing creationist and climate deniers have in common is both have me on their bad lists. Creationists and climate deniers tend to use the same technique to bash journalists who disagree with them – they accuse us of being too stupid to understand the fine points of intelligent design or climate modeling. I’ve seen that with other pseudo scientists as well, accusing journalists who challenge them of being too dimwitted to truly comprehend homeopathy, astrology or whatever junk they’re peddling.
But are there any philosophical similarities? Here’s what Steve Newton wrote in is Earth piece:
What it boils down to is that creationists and climate change deniers both reject central principles of science on ideological, religious and political grounds. Moreover, they deny not just these principles, but also the idea of science itself as a way of knowing about the world.
Attacks on evolution and climate science are both based on the rejection of well-established scientific techniques. Geologists demonstrate the age of the Earth with the techniques of radiometric dating. “Bunk,” say young-Earth creationists: These techniques rely on unproven assumptions. Climate scientists develop complex computer models as a technique to understand what might happen to future climates. “Bunk,” say climate change deniers: Such models are just a convenient fiction.
Climate deniers often do well on tests of so-called science literacy. I think that’s an important piece of this story and one I hope to explore in an upcoming Inquirer column.
Clearly, everyone brings their own biases to questions about what to believe about the world, and scientists are no exception. But as Michael Shermer puts it, science is the best tool ever devised to reconcile our beliefs about the world with what's acutally true. As new data and theory are presented, we must strive to keep an open mind about where the data leads us. Should we believe what all scientists say about everything all of the time? Of course not. But when evidence is overwhelming, comes from many different sources, and leads to an inescapable conclusion with broad scientific consenses, as is the case with the theory of evolution and climate change, we should believe it.
-david3340— david3340- Paleo, And why is there no mention or rebuttal in the blog of the fact that the surface temperatures of the other nearby planets in our solar system are rising? Is that also the result of AGW? Doesn't that suggest that planets warm without human emissions?
The amount of temperature rise that man can cause is inconsequential to the effect of our sun. That is a direct effect. Show me that you can isolate the experiment on ONLY CO2 warming without the sun's effect or variation and you'll start relieving me of my skepticism.— hairball - Paleo, Wrong. If he does not conclude based on the agenda of the funding agency, his chance of grant renewal goes down. And we all know how liberal-biased academia and academia-related agencies are. It's not about rich or poor. Losing a grant means the professor has no new money for graduate students or postdocs; new computer hardware, software for models, etc. etc. That is as devastating to the scientist as personal riches.
Wow. A team of 17 whole scientists. And I'm sure they disagree on the conclusions constantly. Wake up and smell the coffee. Do you understand that an internet blog is not the same thing as a refereed paper, and that even refereed papers are often disputed? No matter how many glorious references they cite. Do you know that you can also cherry-pick references to make your point? That it's done all the time in science, even in the most "prestigious" journals like Nature and Science?
And every one of these "conclusive" studies on AGW is an indirect application of CO2 warming on Earth's temperatures. You accuse me of hyperbole yet you're the one using terms like "humans are the cause." There is no worldwide conspiracy - I never said that but understand your need to draw quick, inaccurate conclusions based on your posts. I prefer to maintain healthy skepticism until the proof is more direct. 98% of all doctors once thought bleeding was the way to cure people.— hairball - Hairball,
Pay attention to the evidence. That blog is a tean effort of 17 climate scientists. The one post I cited was a summary of the research of thousands of scientists worldwide over the past half century, including NOAA, NASA, the IFCC and many other major universities and scientific organizations, all of whom have come to the conclusion that the earth is warming and humans are causing it. Multiple surveys have shown that about 98% of all climate scientists worldwide have come to this same conclusion. That is overwhelming. Scientists do not receive grants by distorting or faking the science. Nor do grants make scientists rich. Grants support work and are strictly monitored by the grantors, who do not tolerate bad science. Science is peer-reviewed. All work has to pass the test of approval and acceptance by other scientists with comparable expertise. You seem to be asserting that there is a corrupt worldwide conspiracy by climate scientists everywhere who would risk their reputations and careers by engaging in a massive, decades-old scheme to obtain grants whose total sums could not support a fraction of them. You have no evidence and are engaging in baseless ad hominem arguments instead of dealing with the actual science.
Here are more sites, which contain reports and evidence from climate scientists worldwide:
National Center for Science Education: http://ncse.com/climate/climate-change-101
NASA: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/literacy.html
National Academy of Science: http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/understanding-climate-change.shtml
National Center for Atmospheric Research: http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html— Paleo Cello - Paleo
Deniers of AGW or any science aren't interested in facts or finding truth. That is why they have NO alternatives or mechanisms for why or how the physical world works. If AGW isn't happening, or evolution isn't at work, or quantum tunneling for that matter, then what mechanism is at work? Vague answers like "natural causes" or "cycles of earth" or my favorite "a designer" aren't mechanisms and really show no casualty. Telling us that the Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling doesn't explain how the Earth has heated up as much in ONLY 100 years. Yes cooling and warming have happened in the past but at what time scales? Sure wasn't less than 100 years.
As far as the "conspiracy" we are all in on (I say we because obviously all scientists would have to be in on it, otherwise some rouge peer would blow the whistle), this tactic only brightens the sheer ignorance of them as to how science really works. Denying basic physics, chemistry, and math is why this argument with them isn't even worth it.
Btw... not all scientist work from grant money. So that argument is debunked too.— Aquanerd09 - hairball,
If the author's conclusion of no AGW was well supported by evidence, then future grant money would go into investigating alternative causes of warming. Even if the author's conclusion of no AGW is not supported by evidence and instead results from the usual cherry picking, then he can expect to become the recipient of more lucrative Cato/Heartland funding.— anaxyrus - Paleo, amazing that you can cite an article from a blog published by a strong global warming advocate and claim, like the author, that it's "overwhelming evidence." I see but a few paragaphs and plots out of ALL THE STUDIES DONE TO DATE, but apparently that qualifies in your mind as overwhelming. The author cites less than 5 references yet you consider this overwhelming.
Did it ever occur to you that the author promotes global warming because he has grants in the area? Where would that grant money go if he concluded there was no man-made global warming?— hairball - kelprod2,
Please read this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html. It is a summary of the scientific evidence that not only is the earth warming, but humans are the cause. Overwhelming scientific evidence is what makes the difference between the Easter bunny and man made climate change.— Paleo Cello 
Translation - "Climate Denier" = Climate Realist— rudytbone- potus...hahaha...actaully, I DO own waterfront property down in the southeast portiomn of the country. And you know what??? I do not give a rats behind about climate change. The climate of the planet has been changing forever and humans have NOTHING to do with it. Nothing.
Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Man Made Climate Change, Santa Claus...— kelprod2 - it's funny how science has to prove itself beyond a shadow of a doubt yet belief in a god?— Dean Winchester
- Most people believe that climate change is occurring, that is evident. Climate is not a static state, it's constantly changing. The argument is about whether humans are the cause of climate change, or if it is something that is occurring with or without our assistance. Other questions include whether or not the computer models are adequate (weather is an extremely complex system that is impossibly hard to forecast, therefore how can climate change over time be accurately predicted); whether or not the climate change is significant or if it is part of the random fluctuations of the earth's climate over the millenia (it has been both extremely warmer and colder in the past than it is now, and this may just be part of that variability); and whether the research and belief about climate change is part of a political agenda. I don't think anyone can doubt the last part, any questioning of the climate change research is denounced by the left, just as people who oppose the idea of evolution generally lean to the right of the political spectrum. Science needs to be an open and up front field where scientists need to be able to challenge any theories and/or hypothesis to ensure that research is done properly and in the open. Just because something is accepted scientific dogma doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged in a way that utilzes proper scientific principles to further strengthen the theories and ideas that have come from properly conducted research.— mjc1
- bobby-d, how do you propose we stem this? Stop CO2 emissions? Doesn't that assume our activities created this climate change?
By the way, it's pretty much a given that the Earth went through a couple of Ice Ages. How did that ice ever melt?— hairball - Climate change is occurring. Even if you are among those who choose to believe that our activities had nothing to do with creating this climate change, should you not still be concerned about its impact?? Should we not try to stem the tide?
If an asteroid were headed toward Earth, would you just ignore it because we didn't create the asteroid in the first place?— bobby-d - As Stephen Colbert says, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."— Blanketman
- As Stephen Colbert says, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."— Blanketman
Comment removed.- here's hoping kelprod owns some nice water-front property somewhere.— potus
- Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Man Made Climate Change, Santa Claus....— kelprod2
In pursuit of her stories, writer Faye Flam has weathered storms in Greenland, gotten frost nip at the South Pole, and floated weightless aboard NASA’s zero-g plane. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and started her writing career with the Economist. She later took on the particle physics and cosmology beat at Science Magazine before coming to the Inquirer in 1995. Her previous science column, “Carnal Knowledge,” ran from 2005 to 2008. Her new column and blog, Planet of the Apes, explores the topic of evolution and runs here and in the Inquirer’s health section each Monday. Email Faye at fflam@phillynews.com.
Reach Planet of the at fflam@phillynews.com.
