Creationists and Climate "Skeptics" - Separate Species or Just Different Breeds?
Creationists may answer to God, but climate change deniers are fueled by entities richer than God.
Creationists and Climate “Skeptics” – Separate Species or Just Different Breeds?
Below is a slightly expanded version of the column that will run in Monday's Health and Science section of the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Several of the regular readers of this column have told me that since I’ve been brave enough to tell the truth about evolution, I should do the same for climate change and expose it as a hoax. In one case I replied that in my stories I always strive to reflect the truth to the best of my abilities. He wrote that he was “disappointed.” These evolution-accepting climate change “skeptics” are an interesting breed, revealing some key differences in the ways they and creationists approach science.
Self-described climate skeptics are much more scattered in their views than are creationists, but they are better organized and together speak with a louder, and angrier voice.
There are some similarities between the two, as Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education pointed out in an opinion piece for Earth Magazine titled Defending Science: the link between creationism and climate change. “It’s phenomenal,” Newton said in an interview. “They use the same tactics and same misunderstandings of the way science works.” Both sometimes assume scientists are in a conspiracy to hide the truth. And both groups tend to see themselves as pioneers, he said, often invoking Galileo or the long-doubted theory of continental drift as examples of minority views eventually prevailing.
In my experience, those similarities are strongest among the most extreme biblical creationists and global warming conspiracy theorists. But one key difference across the board is that creationists by definition reject scientific thinking in favor of supernatural explanations. Whether they are biblical literalists or subscribers to “intelligent design,” they find places to insert God into the natural world.
There is no equivalent supernatural force invoked by global warming skeptics/deniers. And while creationists are united in disbelieving that natural processes alone could produce humanity, climate deniers are disjointed in their targets. Some doubt the planet is warming, others disbelieve that human-generated CO2 plays a significant role, and still others accept both those premises but argue that curbing emissions will cause more harm than good.
There is some very basic science connecting CO2 to climate — science that some “skeptics” reject, others accept, and still others are unaware of. The idea goes back to the 1800s, when scientists realized that the earth was much warmer that it should be given the amount of energy it receives 93 million miles from the sun.
Nineteenth century chemists knew that the Earth absorbs sunlight and radiates infrared. With laboratory experiments they showed that carbon dioxide and water vapor absorb infrared, while oxygen and nitrogen let it pass through and escape. They realized that without our CO2, the Earth would freeze into a big snowball. Today, there are detailed explanations for the way greenhouse gases absorb infrared, then emit some upwards and some back down. College-level science students can work out the calculations showing how CO2 ultimately raises the atmosphere’s temperature.
It’s also well-established that human activity has dramatically increased the amount of CO2 in our planet’s atmosphere. That alone seems like sufficient reason for concern. Climatologists have added additional lines of evidence connecting the rise to climate change — climate models, melting of the Arctic ice sheet and sea ice, and studies that use tree rings, ice cores and other proxies to estimate past climates and show the 20th century was unusually warm. Scientists now also have actual world-wide measurements of temperature and CO2 levels going back over a century. Those overlap and supplement information from ice cores.
There is uncertainty in exactly how increasing CO2 will play out in the future. Some climatologists say we may nudge the atmosphere past some tipping point after which the climate will swing wildly around in a way that humanity hasn’t experienced for 10,000 years.
Worrisome as that sounds, some climate “skeptics” see any uncertainty as a reason not to act. Maybe, they say, it won’t be that bad. Maybe curbing emissions will cause worse trouble. That view is not science denial. Those are value judgments and opinions on policy that have no equivalent among creationists.
The other major difference between creationists and climate change critics is public behavior. My columns get relatively few reactions from creationists and of those, most are reasonably polite. Climate change stories bring on a torrent of vehement, toxic email, which has become much bolder and more self-assured in the last three years.
These email barrages are deceptive barometers of public sentiment, said Stanford psychologist and political scientist Jon Krosnick. He found that when polled with straightforward questions, about three quarters of Americans have said they believe the globe has been getting warmer and even more say that if warming has been occurring, human activity is partly to blame. Only about 10 percent were confidently skeptical, but they can sound very loud.
Recently, he said, the skeptics have been rallied by people such as such as Mark Morano, who runs a blog called ClimateDepot, though he apparently has no science background. A New York Times profile said he’d been a reporter for the Rush Limbaugh show and a spokesman for Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Krosnick sees evidence of the climate skeptics’ organization in the fallout from a New York Times op-ed he wrote in 2010. In it, he explained why he thought his polls disagreed with others that purported to show that a majority of Americans doubted climate change. His questions were simple and straightforward, he wrote. Other polls used complicated, multi-part questions that would have been interpreted differently.
As a result, he got an influx of hate mail, including death threats, he said. He saw that as an opportunity to study political activism. He found the level of emotion “fascinating.”
What’s driving it? Normally, Krosnick said, three major motivating factors get people politically involved — self-interest, values and social identification. I could see how that applied to creationists, since there’s a religious motivation that could create a powerful sense of identity, and possibly self-interest for those who think loyalty to the Bible will affect their experience in the afterlife.
Climate skeptics may get some sense of identity from their views, but Krosnick believes another factor may come to the fore — ego. “Some people may think that if 80 per cent of other people believe something, it must be wrong,” he said. “It may create a sense of self-esteem for them to think they’re smarter than most other people.”
Krosnick re-examined a University of Texas survey whose authors claimed to show that the more people knew about climate change, the less they cared about it. “The implication was that if people were fully informed, nobody would care,” he said.
What he found was that among Democrats and independents, those who were more informed who were most concerned. Among Republicans, being more informed on climate change made no difference in level of concern. But the “skeptics” will surely find grounds to deny that.
Additional notes: For a much more complete treatment of the physics behind greenhouse gases, see Paul S. Braterman’s excellent book, “From Stars to Stalagmites: How Everything Connects.” If you’re looking for an in-depth but concise treatment of the science of climate change, his chapter on that topic is perfect. It also offers a list of all the common “skeptic” arguments and a tidy scientific rebuttal.
For a well-documented treatment of the political operatives and big money interests fueling the climate skeptics' movement, see “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.
For an insider’s perspective on the science and politics of climate change, try “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines” Michael Mann. It will remind biologists who have ever felt annoyed or beleaguered by creationists that things could be worse. Sure, you may be accused of offending God, but Mann has offended people who are richer than God.
Contact Faye Flam at 215-854-4977, fflam@phillynews.com, or @fayeflam on Twitter. Read her blog at philly.com/evolution.
-Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.
-Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.
-Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.
-Canada killed Kyoto with a newly elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, even the millions of scientists.
Get up to speed brothers and sisters. We left the CO2 mistake behind and further fear mongering of the voters and their families just pushes votes away from us. Pres. Romney? Would you vote for a party that condemns your kids and grandchildren?
— mememine69- Michael Mann and Keith Briffa are scientific frauds:
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
— URANIUM235 - 1.) 1,000 published articles and studies in reputable scientific journals that refute "Man-Made" global warming:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
2.) http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/30/surprise-no-warming-in-last-11-years/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
3.) A graph of the oldest thermometer on Earth (located in Central England) shows that warming trends (i.e. mean slope) are nothing new:
http://i35.tinypic.com/2db1d89.jpg
4.) A documentary that shows the majority of scientific research debunks the MAIN EVIDENCE, COMPUTER MODELS, and THEORY used by the global warming camp (IPCC) to claim that CO2 emissions are a threat to the world are, in fact, theories based on junk science and cherry-picked data that amounts to scientific fraud:
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
5.) According to the global warming camp's OWN DATA SOURCE compiled from the U.S. Department of Energy, man-made greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. CO2) are responsible for only 2.9% of total atmospheric greenhouse gases:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
6.) Global Warming is based on 1 tree in Siberia:
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/yad061.html
7.) Penn Professor Bob Giegengack:
http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0507/gaz01.html— URANIUM235 - Your list is laughable and just to show an example for casual readers, let's take a look at the discussion on your first point:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/
Note that there are responses from populartechnology admins there, so you could say that discussion is balanced. Read it and make up your mind.— Bojan - Here's a great little video on the frauds at the IPCC and the games they play with data that Faye doesn't talk about:
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2— URANIUM235 - That post is over two years old, has been refuted ad nauseum and does not apply to the current version of the list. It is pure fantasy that it is "balanced" as many of my comments were censored and I am banned from posting there. These detailed rebuttals to nonsense like this are included on the list,
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3650
"Greenfyre's rambling blog post of lies is something alarmists find when they desperately Google for anything to discredit the list. They ignorantly believe that because a criticism is posted online it must be true. As demonstrated below, absolutely nothing in his post is factually accurate. Many of these corrections to his nonsense were made in the comment section to his blog post but Greenfyre dishonestly refused to make any corrections. Instead he hopes people will reject the list based on his propaganda."
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html
"Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage."
Yes please read it and make up your own mind.
— Poptech - Your comments there just expose your scientific illiteracy. Even alleged censorship does not help your case and I find your accusation very amusing since my own post on your PT site was not published. What you failed to understand was that comments don't get published right away (hm, aren't you software developer?) and you probably confused that as censorship. Why else should there be duplicated or triplicated posts of yours there if not for your paranoia? — Bojan
- They expose no such thing. There is no "alleged" censorship - I am censored as I will reply to every such negative comment made towards me, the only reason they did not appear was because I was censored. My comments were from two years ago!
What duplicate or triplicate posts are you talking about?
Regardless, that post is so old and completely outdated. Various clarifications have been made to make it much more clear and robust. Unlike Greenfyre I actually make corrections to what I publish. I was also proven right on many issues such as, Scopus corrected it's listing of E&E and E&E is now listed in the ISI.
He still dishonestly includes the comment that corrections and replies are not counted. Anyone with an elementary ability to count could see this was never true,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Counting— Poptech - =They expose no such thing.=
Hm, let's agree to disagree, then. That was my subjective opinion, anyway, and anyone can read the discussion at Greenfyre's site and make her own opinion. To search for a great example, search: "E&E paper is SOLAR ACTIVITY" and read a post made by user s2 and read PT's reply (note the absence of sarcasm). :D
=There is no "alleged" censorship=
Interesting that there are comments with you claiming that. How could you post them if you were censored? I'm not claiming you were not banned at the end, but you had a say there, a lot of it.
BTW, have you checked why my own comment at http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html was not published yet?
=What duplicate or triplicate posts are you talking about?=
Not that I have a lot of time, but I searched for one example. I was not sure about triplicated so I was ready to retract this statement, but found it. Search Poptech's post on June 24, 2010 on 5:38 pm and then Andrew's at June 25, 2010 at 6:35 am. And then again Poptech on June 25, 2010 at 6:35 am. Just after this last one, check the old tired Poptech's whining about censorship above. Even after being told that post are read by a moderator first, he still makes duplicated entry, see Poptech's post on June 27, 2010 at 3:27 pm and June 29, 2010 at 6:33 am
=Anyone with an elementary ability to count could see this was never true=
Are you holding audit trail for your past lists so that anyone with elementary ability to count can check it? Not that this matters, of course, since you made only quantitative changes. 400+ and 1000+, et ceteris paribus, doesn't really make a difference to me.
— Bojan - The discussion at Greenfyre's site is a half-truth as not all of my comments made it through. The paper, "Solar Activity and Climate Change – A Summary" is not on the list because it was determined it was not peer-reviewed. This is the problem with referencing two year old discussions that I was censored in.
Initially my comments went straight through, then they were held up in moderation and began to be censored. I experimented and tried different names and some went through that way until that name was also censored.
Greenfyre then decides to be cute and post all of them he initially censored. This is the reason those say what they do and appear multiple times.
Anyone can count the list then or now. Greenfyre is a the most dishonest liar I have ever met.
All of the comments made against the list there were either strawman arguments or lies. Any legitimate criticisms (none appeared there) have since been corrected.
Please get your facts straight before you embarrass yourself more here. None of your dishonest comments will ever be posted at my site so get over it.— Poptech - =None of your dishonest comments will ever be posted at my site so get over it.=
Hm, this really sounds funny coming from a guy whining about being censored. Do you actually know the content of my comment there? It was to the point and respectful.
=Initially my comments went straight through, then they were held up in moderation and began to be censored.=
Actually this happened to me at quite a lot of sites and I never shouted "censorship".
=The paper ... is not on the list because it was determined it was not peer-reviewed=
Nobody claimed it was on the list. I just found it illuminating how trigger happy you were in thinking about including it. I would at least exercise a great amount of suspicion given the garbage about the alignment etc.
=All of the comments made against the list there were either strawman arguments or lies.=
I came to completely different conclusion quite independently. As I combed through your list I had a good inkling of what was wrong with it and only then found Greenfyre's site. Your comments have done it, so maybe it would be a better thing for you to be censored right away.
What next? When can we expect your assessment to be published in respected journal? Any answer that doesn't contain word 'conspiracy'?— Bojan - Your comment was subjective nonsense and thus was not published.
I only claim censorship when I am being censored, like am at Greenfyre's site.
Why would I not be interested in potentially adding more papers to my list? Pointing to a comment about me showing interest but ultimately not listing the paper because I researched it and found out it was not peer-reviewed is pathetic.
Name one valid criticism from his nonsense that has not been corrected on the list or addressed in my detailed rebuttal.
I am not publishing anything in a journal.— Poptech - There you have it. When I made a comment earlier in the day, went straight through, but previous one is held for moderation. (crying)CENSORSHIP(crying)!! — Bojan
- Why are you dishonestly referring people to a conversation that does not include all the comments I posted and later censored and banned from commenting further in? Why are you interested in half-truths? Are you not intellectually honest? — Poptech
- I found the comment I made at your site on my disk. Now I don't claim it was censored, since I might have made a mistake in posting it, but please review it whether it is too dishonest or disrespectful to be published.
The comment was posted for this article:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html
========
This article suffers badly from false dichotomy fallacy. Indeed, I ran across much less distinguished journals than E&E who boast about having reviewers, so technically speaking this is not a question of E&E being peer-reviewed or not; it is a question about the quality of reviewers and peer review process. Casual meaning of “no peer-review” is therefore more nuanced.
The lack of good quality reviewers was obviously illustrated with quote by Daniel C. Goodwin that you ironically included in order to bear you out. Since I was not impressed by the reviewers, I tracked the source where it was obvious that Goodwin was mocking this “impressive” board of reviewers.
Why on Earth should I care if retired research director comes from the country deeply involved in climate research? I would be much more impressed had s(he) personally been deeply involved. Why even mention this non sequitur if not for inflating the authority of a reviewer in the eyes of casual readers?
========— Bojan
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.
