Is it mere coincidence that just about all 'skeptics' of both evolution and human-induced global warming are politically and religiously conservative? I doubt it -- though I'm not sure what the common factor is. Perhaps once having been introduced to anti-scientific ideology and/or the idea of preferring ideology over science, it's easier to do the same to a new subject. Perhaps the very rejection of evolution inclines one to disbelieve global warming, though I'm not sure how that would work.
Chris Mooney writes in the Nov-Dec, 2004 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer:
[F]ew ... "skeptics" have been publishing very much lately in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Despite efforts to derail it, a global consensus on climate change has formed and has been embraced by both the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science," Kennedy has noted.
Why does this matter? Well, the scientists whose views I detailed above fit firmly into the mainstream and were presenting consensus positions, not controversial ones. It would be a stretch to say that the theory of anthropogenic climate change has become as firmly established as, say, the theory of evolution, but there are telling similarities. Both views have won broad acceptance by the vast majority of scientific experts and now only come under fire from a small band of contrarian outliers. Moreover, the outliers aren't contributing much real science at this point. With a few exceptions, they're taking their case straight to journalists and public policymakers, an end run around the peer-review process. And of course, when the debate isn't going their way, they cry persecution.
Skeptics should recognize many of these traits; we've seen them before, not just in antievolutionists but among a wide variety of fringe scientists. At the very least, then, it seems that anyone who claims to be a science defender -- but questions the reality of human-induced climate change -- should have to answer the following question: Why trust the mainstream scientific community on other issues but not this one? One possible response -- dismissing today's climate science as warped by environmentalist alarmism -- strikes me as simply untenable. If we truly believe that ideology can so corrupt the scientific method in one field, then why place any more trust in the rest of science? [emphasis added]
Chris Mooney's question is very good and should be emphasized: whether one dismisses evolution or global warming, they are dismissing a conclusion accepted by just about everyone in the relevant scientific fields -- but if they are so incredibly wrong, how can the consensus of this field or any scientific field on any other issue be trusted? Obviously it's possible for a group of people to be right about one thing and wrong about another, but the conclusions at issue here were all arrived at by the same process.
If one is right and the other wrong, it should be possible for "skeptics" to identify how scientists went wrong in one case but not the other. Not only have they not done so, they haven't even really tried. The closely thing to an "explanation" which has been offered is the presence of conspiracies: a conspiracy of godless atheist evolutionists has created a "consensus" around evolution in order to discredit the Bible while a conspiracy of godless, socialist internationalists has created a "consensus" around global warming in order to undermine America's national sovereignty, enforce global socialism, etc.
In addition, there seems to be people who reject the anti-evolution "skepticism" of creationists while disputing the global warming consensus of science. Such people should be asked why the anti-warming arguments look and work so much like the anti-evolution arguments. They should have to explain what distinguishes their position from that of creationism and Intelligent Design, ideologies which they readily reject as absurd. This also shouldn't be too difficult, if in fact their skepticism is based upon genuine skeptical and scientific principles while that of creationists is merely a front to rationalize a religious ideology.
Update: Three years after this was first published, Eric at Classical Values "responds," after a fashion:
Anyway, as it's not every day that I read that I "should be asked about something," I figured might as well respond to the argumentative question -- "why the anti-warming arguments look and work so much like the anti-evolution arguments."
My central argument is that there is no crisis. Certainly nothing which would justify the massive government intrusions which are being demanded by a political consensus which masquerades as "science." Furthermore, I am against government solutions to "crises" -- whether the crises are real or not.
I put the word "responds" in scare quotes because Eric doesn't actually address the question he said he "might as well" answer. The question is about the parallels between skepticism directed by creationists at the science of evolution and the skepticism directed by global warming deniers at the science of global warming. Eric, though, doesn't address the science.
Eric doesn't see a "crisis" and notices that there is no "crisis" postulated by evolutionary theory, so wonders where the parallel is supposed to be. He should have wondered why he was looking in the wrong direction: the idea of a "crisis" is an evaluation of the direction we are going and consequences of the data -- you can, in theory, agree with all the scientific data and still not think it's a crisis (even in the worst case scenarios, you might be a misanthrope who looks forward to humanity suffering).
Eric doesn't think government should be trying to solve a crisis, even if there is a crisis (since it doesn't matter, why bother disputing it?), and notices that evolutionary theory doesn't postulate government doing anything so wonders where the parallel is. By this point he definitely should have noticed that proposals for government action are derived from values independent of scientific data and thus have nothing to do with the parallels between reactions to the science in each situation (though we might, for the sake of argument, draw a weak parallel to objections to public schools teaching evolution).
The parallels that Eric claims to wonder about are alluded to briefly in the quote from Mooney above and explained in more detail in the original article: "Both views have won broad acceptance by the vast majority of scientific experts and now only come under fire from a small band of contrarian outliers. Moreover, the outliers aren't contributing much real science at this point. With a few exceptions, they're taking their case straight to journalists and public policymakers, an end run around the peer-review process. And of course, when the debate isn't going their way, they cry persecution"
I'm pretty sure Eric read that as well as the full quote. I'm pretty sure that Eric was able to understand that what's being described here are some basic similarities in the reactions of "skeptics" to the science of evolution and the reactions of "skeptics" to the science of global warming. I asked why people who are critical of the first sort of skepticism engage in the second sort of skepticism even though both sorts of skepticism look so much alike in structure and behavior.
Eric pretended to answer, but in reality he didn't even begin to address it. I don't think he can. He rejects the pseudo-skepticism of evolution denial, but he's unable to explain how and why the skepticism of the science of global warming is any less a pseudo-skepticism. He says that he sees "no resemblance at all between evolution and global warming," which means that he's unable to recognize that the science behind global warming is about as secure as the science behind evolution.
Perhaps that's a significant part of his problem -- perhaps he doesn't accept science on it's own terms, but only when it doesn't contradict previous ideological commitments. This impression if reinforced when he says "I resent the attempted linkage," as if pointing out that two scientific fields are fairly equally secure were somehow a personal affront -- as if it were about him, rather than about how well a scientific field meets basic scientific criteria. Can you imagine anyone with any education about science saying "I see no resemblance at all between geology and evolution, and I resent the attempted linkage"? Of course not -- it's an absurd statement that only reveals the speaker's total ignorance of science.
Global warming skepticism may be many things, but tying it to creationism is a rhetorical cheap shot and not a legitimate argument against it.
Insofar as global warming skepticism partakes of the same tactics and attitudes as creationism, it absolutely is a legitimate argument against it -- and this is because the tactics and arguments used by creationists are not legitimate tactics and arguments for use in science. Comparing this to the tactics and arguments used by global warming deniers who reject creationism is a very good point to make and not at all a cheap shot because it reveals just how situational their supposed "standards" are: they reject behaviors which they themselves are happy to use in the right ideological setting. It reveals that the are not genuine supporters of science -- rather like the supposed supporter of free speech who only happens to support it when it comes to speech they like but not speech they don't like.
No wonder that a growing number of people on the right have grown tired of trying to engage in legitimate arguments.
This presumes that they truly understand what a legitimate argument is. When a person uses a legitimate argument against the tactics and methods of creationism, but then uses those tactics and methods themselves when it comes to global warming, I will doubt that they truly understand that argument in the first place -- I will suspect that they only used it because it sounded good against something they disagreed with, not because they truly understood what it meant. If they really understood it, then wouldn't ignore it once the ideological setting shifted.
Now, it's possible that Eric doesn't actually use any of the tactics and methods common in creationism and which are found in so much global warming denial. Maybe he's an unusual gem among global warming deniers. Even if this is the case, though, he can't fail to recognize the illegitimate tactics and methods so common in global warming denial: the lack of peer-reviewed scientific research, the attention paid to policymakers instead of scientists, etc. In that case, the proper response would be to agree with the criticism but explain how some, like himself, are exceptions. He didn't do that, though, which suggests that he isn't so unusual after all and fails to understand how all of this doesn't work as reasonable, legitimate objection to science.
Which, you know, sounds an awful lot like what we find in creationism.
Comparing and contrasting the evolution and global warming debates is a very interesting topic, and one that really does not get the attention it deserves. i’ve also noticed that most of the global warming “deniers” are also evolution “deniers”, but you rarely see any crossover, i.e., one who accepts evolution but is skeptical of global warming. I believe I fall into this category. Before you assign any political motivation to my opinions, please know that I am also an atheist, and my political perspective is much more pragmatic than ideological.
The obvious differences between global warming/climate change and evolution (as I see them, feel free to take issue with my opinion) are:
1) evolution has a much broader base of evidence underneath it than climate change does.
2) evolution is simply a theory that shows how life came to be, it does not threaten to produce world-wide natural devastation.
3) public policy changes based on evolution are pretty much limited to whether or not we should teach our kids about it. public policy changes based on global warming will have far-reaching, unpredictable economic effects.
4) if scientists discover new evidence that shows our current theory of evolution to be completely wrong (as unlikely as that would be), that means we will have printed alot of text books with incorrect information. if scientists discover new evidence that shows our current theory of global warming to be completely wrong (i.e, it’s very much natural and nothing disastrous will happen), we will have made sweeping public policy changes that need not have been made.
The way I see it, when it comes to global warming, we stand a lot to lose either way. If we’re right about global warming and we (the U.S.) end up destroying the environment with our aggressive economic policies, we’ll regret having not taken the advice of the scientific consensus. On the other hand, if we decide to be aggressive in the other direction, imposing the sort of limits that are supposedly beneficial to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it ends up that we were wrong about global warming, then we risk stifling economic progress for no good reason.
Basically, policy changes based on the current scientific consensus on global warming have much more inherent risk. it’s one thing so say, “here’s what we’ve found across the various fields of study…therefore we believe the planet is heating up and it’s our fault”. But it’s another thing entirely to say, “it’s our fault the planet is heating up, therefore we HAVE to make arbitrary adjustments to our ecomony in the HOPE that we can make it stop heating up”.
as you know, consensus has a pretty good history of changing when new, more accurate evidence is discovered. scientific theories and models can be updated fairly quickly to incorporate new evidence, but public policy is far less dynamic. we may be able to cut greenhouse emissions, but what if the planet keeps on heating up? what if we stifle progress both at home and in 3rd world countries, while china and russia cruise past us, and we (as a planet) reap no environmental benefit?
to me, implementing public policy in order to try and affect the ENTIRE global environment honestly feels like alarmism, and THAT is frightening.
This says it all. The tying of evolutionary theory and Climate change is a
specious argument at best. It doesn’t shed any light. It’s only grasping pitifully in a childlike manner at attempting to confuse those who can’t or have no interest in following the logic of an argument.
Drew, Your a better man than I. If what you wrote is not understood to be truthful and correct then the truth is not what is being looked for but just a confirmation of magic thought.
B
That would be a difficult assertion to support.
This doesn’t seem much different from #3 and #4 (consequences of being wrong or right). Evolution is the central organizing principle of all the biological sciences and, as such, is the principle behind all genetic engineering and medical sciences. If evolution is wrong, we’ll be involved with much more error than just incorrect textbooks.
If it’s purely a cost/benefit calculus, the cost of being wrong and doing nothing seems to be worse than the cost of being wrong and acting. Of course, cleaning up pollution and finding cleaner sources of energy carry benefits even if global warming isn’t affected.
They are different: the first acknowledges we’ve created a problem, the second demonstrates that one cares enough to try to fix the problem one has created.
In that case, the economic benefits we would have gained from not acting will be completely moot.
Is it mere coincidence that just about all 1970’s ‘believers’ in the eminent environmental collapse due to population growth and current believers in human-induced global warming are politically leftists?
Is it mere coincidence that just about all ‘skeptics’ of both safe nuclear power and the safety of pesticides are politically leftists?
I doubt it’s a coincidence — though I’m not sure what the common factor is. Perhaps once having been introduced to anti-scientific ideology and/or the idea of preferring ideology over science, it’s easier to do the same to a new subject.
There is a far stronger scientific consensus on the safety of pesticides and nuclear power than there is on calamitous/problematic human-induced global warming.
Also if you look at the nature or nurture debates you will find that leftists have just as much of a problem with Darwin as conservatives do.
Conservatives tend to reject arguments for government action on human-induced global warming because they do not like government action and they remember what projections environmental scientists made in the 1970. They see no danger in a wait and see approach. Leftist seem to really fear things in the environment whether or not scientists can display a real danger.
Leftists seem no more likely than conservatives to believe in science, so you will have to come with more a concrete argument.
The argument isnt going to go away anytime soon of course and I suppose its inevitable that there will be skeptics on any subject with such broad reaching implications.
I agree with the article though, the skeptics of Global Climate Change are acting in a very similar manner to those who aregue against evolution. i.e. vociferous public denunciations but little un the way of offering scientific studies to support thier position. (with some exceptions)
an interesting article from the BBC
I move back and forth on GW as the data moves around. Clearly humans are a factor in temperature changes, but it isn’t clear exactly how much given the complexities of inputs into global temperatures. It is clear that GW has been occurring, however. The most important claim of GW is that it can accurately forecast climate change 10, 20, and 50 or more years into the future. That these forecasts are, in fact, accurate has not been established yet, for instance the last ten years of stable temperatures were not indicated by climate modeling. Climate doesn’t equal weather, so perhaps average temperatures will have increased in the next ten years, adding more support to current GW theory. If that does not occur, it is reasonable to count the lack of rising temperatures as evidence that temperatures are not rising.
Evolution is an historical science. It cannot predict with any hope of accuracy exactly how a given species will evolve in the future because we don’t-and can’t-know all the ‘possibility-space’ afforded an organism: what mutations will occur, how it’s environment will change. Climate science predictions may well be akin to trying to predict future evolution. I don’t think it is impossible, but it is possible that we haven’t yet obtained enough data-points to successfully predict climate change. I’m willing to wait a few more years to see which way the wind is really blowing before I commit to an opinion or course of action:
Outcome Action Result
No GW Business as Usual Best case
No GW Massive Effort Pretty bad*
GW Business as Usual Worst case**
GW Massive Effort Pretty bad
* The economic cost of actually stopping GW by emission reduction is pretty severe barring some amazing technological breakthrough.
** Best thing that can be said about this one is that at least there are economic resources for adaptation and geo-engineering, and an amazing technological breakthrough is still possible.
In order to make an informed decision, we need to know the probabilities of these outcomes (and also the multiple additional options I didn’t specify), and seeing how things are in 2015 should increase certainty one way or another to a level that I personally can see committing to a course of action…even if it is ‘business as usual’.
There are benefits to reducing carbon emissions and cleaning up polution that may make going green more desirable in the long run reguardless of whether or not Global Warming is significantly Man Made.
That being said, I personally would like it if supporters for Global Warming would organize and create a very concise version that would be more capable of being proven wrong, and hence more likely to have some real value.
Good point, Nick, reasonable efforts to control emissions and otherwise ‘go green’ are a good idea in any case. Maybe it will turn out that we need to practice abstinence, until we know, moderation is a sound middle-road.
I think there are two separate questions to ask/answer about Global Warming. First is whether it is happening, the second is whether it will result in net good or in net bad.
I think the first question is resoundingly answerable according to empirical evidence that yes there is atmospheric warming occuring and ~100 ppm of the CO2 thats doing it is from human beings.
Sorry, pressed submit by accident before I finished….
Still on the first question: Its relatively simple physics that CO2, being a dipole molecule, will interact with reflected infared electromagnetic radiation by absorbing in the form of kinetic energy. Temperature is the movement of molecules, so CO2 that is moving faster from the EM radiation, results in higher atmospheric temperatures.
So that, I would say is as conclusive as the science behind evolution.
However, onto the second part: Will a warmer atmosphere result in net good or net bad? This is not as clear, and so I would say that this aspect is not as certain as evolution. It seems that a band of latitude near the equator will fare poorly with higher temps, however, presummably, parts of Northern US, Canada, Russia, China, Patagonia, etc. will become warmer and more arable. There will be less ice at the poles and some lost coastal land, perhaps, but nothing about this scenario inherently means that human existence is impossible or even more difficult. The scientific community and their models predict an increase in the temperatures of the future, however, I’m skeptical that these models are also capable of determining the net good or bad that these temperatures mean for humans or the planet based on those climate data.
Also, I’m of the opinion that there is no inherent worth in biodiversity or moral reason to preserve it. (There may be economic worth, but that’s another story) So trying to argue to stop AGW on biodiversity basis fails in my eyes. There have been many instances of evolutionary bottlenecks, and species inevitably blossom afterwards onto myriad of evolutionary trajectories.
So I can see how people would argue against Government action on Global warming despite agreeing with nearly all scientists that it is happening.
Just a side note on my personal beliefs related to the subject. It’s very convincing to argue for regulation of CO2 emissions based on Ocean acidification, much more so than based on temperature increase. Also, I would totally support a tax on or decrease in coal combustion, but mainly on grounds of mercury, arsenic heavy metals and radiation release rather than on CO2 emissions.
“Evolution and Global Warming are two entirely different areas of science; at the same time, though, they share an interesting similarities: they are vociferously opposed by people who adopt the mantle of scientific skepticism even as the entire scientific community has gotten behind a general consensus.”
You mean the entire scientific community apart from those who disagree. And as for the consensus regarding global warming… well it seems to have suffered a blow of late. ClimateGate has revealed much about the strength of the data underlying GW and the activities of the scientists involves and their treatment of the GW deniers. Perhaps the parallels will apply here also.
This is where the argument for both evolution and global warming are at their strongest. Ignoring an honest presentation of the facts, and instead focusing on insulting the opposition.
It’s Hans Christian Andersen 101…
If that is science, then I am as unscientific as atheists say I am.