Climate Scepticism and Creationism

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.