Climate Scepticism and Creationism

C3PM

Has anyone noticed that people who dispute the theory of man-made global warming also tend to dispute the theory of evolution? This seems to be particularly clear in America but I've also come across it in Ireland too. I was talking to someone today who came out with the usual "hilarious" line about "where's global warming when you need it" (because it was a tiny bit cold today), and it turned out that this person not only thought global warming was a "hoax" but also believed in "intelligent design" (ie Creationism). I had thought Irish people were immune to that sort of nonsense (given that even the Catholic Church accepted the theory of evolution about 30 years ago) but it seems not. But my point is that it seems to go hand-in-hand with the idea that mankind has no impact on the environment. (Perhaps that too is solely under God's control?)

Anyway, has anyone else noticed a tendency for people to believe both these things?

Fathom

C3PM wrote: »

Has anyone noticed that people who dispute the theory of man-made global warming also tend to dispute the theory of evolution? This seems to be particularly clear in America but I've also come across it in Ireland too.

Scientific theories and religious beliefs are different. To exercise caution when reviewing theories has been part of the scientific method. This includes both evolutionary and global warming theories. Theories only suggest, do not prove. Evolutionary theory has received a preponderance of empirical support. Comparatively, global warming theory has received both data support, along with some contrary evidence. So long as support exceeds contrary, theories tend to be more accepted than rejected generally. Currently evolutionary theory tends to be strongly accepted, while global warming has been often debated. Creationism is theological belief. It's not based upon the scientific method. It lacks rigorous empirical support. Cannot speak for Ireland. I've anecdotally discussed evolutionary and global warming theories in both university classroom settings and coffee houses during recent years in California. Sometimes, but rarely, Creationism has been also been introduced. To the best of my recollection, evolutionary theory has only been challenged by Creationists, not those who accept the scientific method. Those accepting the latter method will often debate global warming, along with its proposed anthropological contribution. To debate scientific evidence is expected, as it should be by that method. Karl Popper discussed empirical falsification. "A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments."

Black Swan

You've been doing your research methods homework Fathom. Good show!

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

You've been doing your research methods homework Fathom. Good show!

Glad you think so.

C3PM

Fathom wrote: »

To exercise caution when reviewing theories has been part of the scientific method. This includes both evolutionary and global warming theories. Theories only suggest, do not prove. Evolutionary theory has received a preponderance of empirical support. Comparatively, global warming theory has received both data support, along with some contrary evidence. So long as support exceeds contrary, theories tend to be more accepted than rejected generally. Currently evolutionary theory tends to be strongly accepted, while global warming has been often debated.

Thanks, I agree with what you say, as far as it goes, but perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough. (My fault.) I'm aware of the distinction between religious beliefs and scientific theories, and have long been a fan of Karl Popper. I suppose what I was trying to say (but should have said more explicitly) is that both the theory of evolution and the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are disputed by the same groups of people and for the same basic reasons, namely that such people are POLITICALLY opposed to them. For example, it is an article of faith (literally of faith) among all US Republican Party candidates for the presidency to dispute both the theory of evolution and the theory of AGW. None of them has any scientific basis for doing so.

In fact, as far as I'm aware, there is no scientist of any repute who disputes that mankind's activities are having at least SOME impact on earth's climate. Eg a lot of so-called "sceptics" refer to Richard Lindzen, who is indeed a reputable scientist and who has indeed questioned many of the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But he merely questions the extent of the warming. He has said that it is "idiotic" to question the basic physics underlying climate change, namely that an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases will have at least some warming effect. What he and a tiny minority of other scientists believe is that the impact will be small and not worth worrying about. And that's a legitimate opinion, albeit one that I personally think is outweighed by both the precautionary principle and also the mounting evidence that we see year-on-year.

But that very legitimate debate is not what I was referring to. I'm referring to the much larger group of people who don't have even the flimsiest grasp of the science but who nonetheless dismiss it out of hand. People like, say, the President of the United States. My point is that such people tend to dismiss both evolution and AGW in the same way. Exactly why these two scientific theories are the target of their (deliberately and unashamedly) unscientific opposition is something I don't quite understand. But that both these theories are in their sights is something that seems obvious to me. And, sadly, it's no longer confined to the US. Eg there's a newspaper columnist in the UK (Christopher Brooker) who disputes both theories and has written at length on both.

And now it seems to be happening in Ireland, a place I'd thought was relatively immune to the disease of using political beliefs as a basis for assessing the validity of scientific theory.

Fathom

You present interesting points C3PM.

jaxxx

I can but simultaneously laugh and cry at climate sceptics: laugh that they're that deluded, and cry that they're that deluded. Forget most of the science about the ozone layer and pretty much everything else. Let's go back to basics. Without what form of life, would we cease to exist? Correct, plants. Now let's narrow that down to trees only. Trees essentially absorb CO2 and produce O2 (a gross simplification there I admit). So we can all agree that trees play a crucial, perhaps the most crucial role on the planet as far as life is concerned. Since the dawn of modern man, it's estimated that the global population of trees has been more than halved. So that means that the amount of CO2 being absorbed has essentially been halved as well (again a gross simplification). This just covers the natural CO2 in the air.

Now we can begin to include the CO2 and everything else that is produced by our activities - transport, industry, etc etc etc. How any half intelligent person can deny that we have not directly impacted our planet's climate actually frightens me. It's almost an insult every other form of life to call ourselves an intelligent species when there are so many that refuse to take accountability as a species for the negative impact we've had on the planet.

I ain't a scientist btw, nor have I any interest in science. I hated it in school. But I do feel responsible for doing my small part to try and reduce waste/pollution as much as I can.

Fathom

jaxxx wrote: »

Now we can begin to include the CO2 and everything else that is produced by our activities - transport, industry, etc etc etc. How any half intelligent person can deny that we have not directly impacted our planet's climate actually frightens me. It's almost an insult every other form of life to call ourselves an intelligent species when there are so many that refuse to take accountability as a species for the negative impact we've had on the planet.

Human evolution goes back 2 million years? How long has the scientific method existed? Of the 7 billion humans today, how many understand this method?

Black Swan

Al-Haitham of al Basra 965-1040 was first to approximate the scientific method to examine optics. He also practiced parsimony (centuries later known as Occam's Razor). But methinks that it was not until 20th Century Karl Popper codified the method to how it exists today. And of importance, science only "suggests" and does not prove.

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

Al-Haitham of al Basra 965-1040 was first to approximate the scientific method to examine optics. He also practiced parsimony (centuries later known as Occam's Razor). But methinks that it was not until 20th Century Karl Popper codified the method to how it exists today. And of importance, science only "suggests" and does not prove.

Notes Al-Haitham. Need to read up!

DickSwiveller

There are a number of climate scientists who dispute global warming/climate change. Richard Lindzen (Retired MIT) is one that comes to mind.

Fathom

DickSwiveller wrote: »

There are a number of climate scientists who dispute global warming/climate change. Richard Lindzen (Retired MIT) is one that comes to mind.

There are so many variables occurring overtime that affect climate change. Makes me wonder if there's an explained and unexplained variance for the human contribution?

DickSwiveller

Fathom wrote: »

There are so many variables occurring overtime that affect climate change. Makes me wonder if there's an explained and unexplained variance for the human contribution?

I'm sure you know much more about this than I do. I just don't understand how some people (The OP perhaps) can be so certain that they are right and anyone who doubts claims is a raving lunatic. It's a very complicated field.

Black Swan

"It's a very complicated field" indeed. So is Nature.

Fathom

Problem how scientific method empirical results are reported. They "suggest" and not prove.

C3PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm sure you know much more about this than I do. I just don't understand how some people (The OP perhaps) can be so certain that they are right and anyone who doubts claims is a raving lunatic. It's a very complicated field.

DickSwiveller, belated thanks for your post, sorry for the slow reply (I don't check this site as often as I should). You're wrong to suggest that I think anyone who doubts global warming is a "raving lunatic". I mentioned that such people often subscribe to other beliefs that strike me as fanatical, eg creationism, but doubting that mankind's activities have changed the climate is not in itself any sign of madness. It is, however, a sign of a poor grasp of basic science. Anyone who doesn't understand that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to a rise in average temperatures simply doesn't understand the fundamental laws of physics. It's like thinking you'll be equally warm whether you're wearing a sweater or a t-shirt. There is a legitimate debate about the extent to which man's activities have warmed the planet, and whether it will become a serious problem or a relatively minor inconvenience. But there is no debate among climate scientists that increasing greenhouse gases will have at least some warming effect. None.

You mention Richard Lindzen. I suggest you take a moment to Google what he has actually said on this subject. He does not, as you suggest, "dispute global warming". He absolutely accepts the basic physics underlying man-made climate change, namely that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that increasing its concentration in the atmosphere warms the planet. It's true that he doesn't think this is a big problem, believing that the earth has "low susceptibility" to greenhouse gases and that global warming will to some extent be offset by other factors, eg what he calls the "iris effect". (It's also true that he has been well-paid by lobby groups such as the Heartland Institute to publicise that opinion.) But it's absolutely not the case that he "disputes global warming", he just thinks it's not a big deal. In fact, far from disputing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that increasing it will warm the planet to at least some degree, he describes people who deny that as "nutty".

In other words, it's your friend Lindzen who's questioning the mental health of climate sceptics, not me. I merely think they're not very well-informed.

Lastly, you said that there were "a number" of climate scientists who "dispute global warming". Now that we've established that Richard Lindzen isn't one of them, could you please say who the others are?

Fathom

C3PM wrote: »

It's like thinking you'll be equally warm whether you're wearing a sweater or a t-shirt.

Good analogy.

C3PM wrote: »

There is a legitimate debate about the extent to which man's activities have warmed the planet, and whether it will become a serious problem

Debate continues.