You probably know already that creationists are more likely to fall for other kooky ideas like denying that humans cause global climate change. Do they just have a fondness for stupid ideas or is there some kind of connection between creationism and disbelief in anthropomorphic climate change?
GilDodgen explains the "logic" at: Junk Science as Ersatz Religion.
Why are ID theorists skeptical of “man-caused carbon dioxide emissions leading to the destruction of the planet” theory? The reason is that we follow the evidence, and have a nose that smells out junk science in the name of an ideological (indeed, a religious) agenda.Turns out I was right the first time. They're just kooks.
At a recent men’s church retreat I chatted with our pastor about how it seemed obvious to me that the global-warming thing exhibited all the attributes of a religion.
Mother earth is a goddess. We have sinned against her with technology. If we do not repent and return to primitive living she will call down her wrath and fry us all with vengeance.
Little did I know that Michael Barone, in his essay Collapse of the global-warming cult came to the same conclusion.
The same thing applies to the cult of Darwinism, which is promoted in the name of science. Darwinian theory (in particular, the presumed creative power of random mutations, and attempts to explain away the fact that the fossil evidence consistently contradicts gradualism) exhibits all the attributes of an ersatz religion.
It is the creation story of the religion of materialism.
Climate change and evolution are religions. Creationism and intelligent design are not. Sure, that makes perfect sense.
ReplyDelete/snark
Their entire worldview seems to be that if you beleive in Jesus Christ as Personal Saviour, then you've got religion in the right place, and if you don't 'really' beleive that, then you're going to put the 'religion function' somewhere else, and things will go terribly wrong. Put it in another god and you get false religions, put it in nature and you get Darwinism, put it in politics and you get Communism, etc etc.
ReplyDeleteIts just a religious argument from them, again and again. They think they're right about religion and therefore everyone else is wrong about everything.
The connection is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://historiesofecology.blogspot.com/2011/10/demarcation-no-problem.html
The reason is that we follow the evidence, and have a nose that smells out junk science in the name of an ideological (indeed, a religious) agenda.
ReplyDeleteTheir nose is uncanny. It has led them to unearth such junk science as ID, Climate Change denial and AIDS denial, in the name of an ideological (nay, religious) agenda.
I think science is the problem here. Whatever scientists say, they're agin' it.
The theory of anthropogenic climate change does not have even 0.000001% of the rigor that the evolutionary theory has. One cannot be serious when pretending that they are comparable.
ReplyDeleteNo one is denying that climate can and does change over time. The debate is about 1) how much humans contribute to it and 2) what to do about it. The alarmist point of view is inherently very complex and, when experimental evidence is considered, rather tenuous.
There is a lot more to the theory of AGW than the obviously existing greenhouse effect and most people do not realize on what weak foundation the rest of the theory is built.
The irony is that this is a point where "what if you are wrong" would mean something. But creationists love using that live when referring to their god, but when referring to something that might destroy or planet, they can't think of it as meaningful. Despite here there is something very real at risk: our planet.
ReplyDeleteDK
ReplyDeleteThe alarmist point of view is inherently very complex and, when experimental evidence is considered, rather tenuous.
Both points of view are complex. It is entirely possible that the deniers are right, but I don't perceive that this is often based on an evaluation of the scientific position. The relation with evolutionary theory is that people outside the field seem to avow greater expertise than those within, and much of the debate is conducted outside the realms of peer review.
I'm prepared to put some trust in the people working on the problem, because - what's the worst that can happen? We slow down the rate at which we burn fossil fuels. We need to. While they may be very useful for stoking western economies, they will run out. Slowly or quickly, it is our choice. Why waste this resource, irrespective of AGW?
"The theory of anthropogenic climate change does not have even 0.000001% of the rigor that the evolutionary theory has."
ReplyDeleteVery interesting metric. Other that you squinting at your rectal thermometer, what is its source?
"DK said...
ReplyDeleteThe theory of anthropogenic climate change does not have even 0.000001% of the rigor that the evolutionary theory has. One cannot be serious when pretending that they are comparable. "
Evidently DK stands for Dunning-Kruger.
Very interesting metric. Other that you squinting at your rectal thermometer, what is its source?
ReplyDeleteMy source is multiparametric modeling. The kind that fits available data finely but in practice has virtually zero predictive power. In other words, my estimates are as good as the estimates coming from climate modeling.
"My source is multiparametric modeling. The kind that fits available data finely but in practice has virtually zero predictive power."
ReplyDeleteA perfect example of "sciencey" bafflegab, and a wonderful illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Show your work, DK, if you want to be taken seriously.
Meantime, you are merely a source of amusement.
I've seen the tendency for the same groups of people to share clusters of beliefs such as ID, climate change denialism, AIDS denialism, etc. (let's not leave out other favorites such as the anti-vaccine movement, 9/11 "truthers," "birthers," and Holocaust denial) as "crank magnetism," which I rather like as a descriptive term.
ReplyDeleteDK wrote My source is multiparametric modeling. The kind that fits available data finely but in practice has virtually zero predictive power.
ReplyDeleteYou should consider then publishing those results in a specialty refereed review: they would constitute the first climatic model fitting available data without anthropogenic contribution. Currently, climatologists have elaborated about a dozen of complex models of the combined system atmosphere/ocean, and none of them has managed to explain the observations on the exclusive basis of natural forcings, while agreeing quite well with data when anthropogenic forcings are taken into account.
The easiest way to spot cranks is to notice that they embrace, or at least let go unchallenged, contradictory hypotheses. For example, the global warming deniers claim both that there is no scientific consensus on AGW, AND that the consensus is the result of a conspiracy to get grant money. Likewise, they claim that there is no warming, AND that the warming is caused by nature rather than humans.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet when you go to find the debate on these issues, you find nothing but chirping crickets, something completely lacking on any scientific forum, where the slightest disagreement leads to a major war. That's because, like the OECs and YECs, they are more interested in toppling the established science than they are at finding the truth, or doing any science themselves.
Likewise, they claim that there is no warming, AND that the warming is caused by nature rather than humans.
ReplyDeleteStraw men make great targets...
Larry, I assume that you, like many readers of your blog, are familiar with Matt Ridley, Ph.D., based on his many excellent books popularizing aspects of evolutionary theory (and his biography of Crick is simply great!). Well, he is a "denier". Here is his lecture from two days ago:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf
I don't mean to imply that Matt has more authority than anyone else but his arguments are well laid out and worth reading by those who continue to build straw men about stupid kooks that are unable to understand scientific reasoning and willing to believe any anti-establishment crap.
Still waiting for you to show your work, DK.
ReplyDeleteAnd, still laughing at your ignorance and arrogance.
Like most creationists and science deniers, DK just changes the subject, never follows through with a thought, and never, ever, provides evidence for his claims.
Clowns are fun!
It's not a straw man if it actually happens, and all the time. Do you even know what the phrase means DK? Or do you just toss phrases around at random a la Palin and Cain and hope no one notices?
ReplyDeleteDK,
ReplyDeleteNot only is Matt Ridley a denier, but he also doesn't have any relevant background in climatology. The only thing he does have is a right-wing Glibertarian ideology that necessitates denying facts if they seem to contradict the notion that "free markets" can fix anything.
This is hardly material likely to convince us that climate change denialism isn't simply something ginned up by the corporations and adopted by various far-right ideologues.
ginned up by the corporations and adopted by various far-right ideologues.
ReplyDeleteI am fairly liberal. Not crazy liberal but definitely left of center as far as social issues are concerned. I'd give very good odds to the chance that Matt Ridley is pretty politically liberal, too. Stop ascribing "deniers" motives that they likely never had! I strongly suspect that Matt, like me, simply finds the pro arguments not convincing enough and the alarmists' behavior suspicious enough. That's all.
Re Science Avenger
ReplyDeleteFor example, the global warming deniers claim both that there is no scientific consensus on AGW, AND that the consensus is the result of a conspiracy to get grant money.
I really get a laugh out the the claim that climatologists are pushing global warming for the purpose of getting grant money. They could make a lot more money pimping for the Koch brothers.
I am fairly liberal. Not crazy liberal but definitely left of center as far as social issues are concerned.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as "left of center as far as social issues are concerned." The idea that there can be a "left" defined by various "social issues" (actually civil rights) is a myth perpetuated by a one-party system that wants to pretend as if it's two parties. Stalin banned divorce, and criminialized abortion and homosexuality in the Soviet Union. On this basis, is he right-wing or left-wing?
I'd give very good odds to the chance that Matt Ridley is pretty politically liberal, too. Stop ascribing "deniers" motives that they likely never had!
LMAO! Yes, let's not ascribe motivations to people except on the basis of what we "suspect" they would be. I'd recommend not laying odds until you've actually learned what Ridley believes and has had to say. He hardly made a secret of his politics while writing a regular column for the Daily Torygraph. Then when he went into business as chairman of Northern Rock bank, he took his Glibertarian principles with him and caused the bank to collapse after suffering the first run on its finances, the first British bank to have that happen since 1878.
I strongly suspect that Matt, like me, simply finds the pro arguments not convincing enough and the alarmists' behavior suspicious enough. That's all.
Oh, is that all? Well, sadly, nobody cares what you think. That's the root principle of science. It doesn't matter what you think, but what you know and what you can demonstrate. So far, you've demonstrated nothing, nor do we have any reason to consider you knowledgeable about climate change. When pressed for a counterargument, all you came up with was some technobabble that didn't even come close to making a counterpoint.
As M. Dionis said, you should consider publishing your results if you can model the data without an anthropogenic contribution, otherwise you're simply sniping without evidence from the sidelines.