Yes, the resurgence of the "climate-deniers" -- like weeds, or zombies -- is discouraging. But this resistance to scientific knowledge has a long history in the United States. Consider the enduring revolt by many conservative fundamentalists against Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Quick recap: Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859. The landmark Scopes trial (the basis for the play and the film, Inherit the Wind) took place in 1925 in the state of Tennessee, which sought to bar the teaching of evolution in its public schools. Fast forward 80 years: the dispute over the validity of evolutionary theory has infamously (embarrassingly) been carried into the 21st century by, among others, the Kansas State Board of Education, the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board, and now, according to The New York Times, state capitols in Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Texas.
It appears that these two strains of deniers -- those questioning climate change and evolution -- have joined forces to supplant scientific knowledge with religious zeal. Local politicians and certain conservative Christian organizations are categorizing both climate change and evolution as merely "theories" that should be presented to schoolchildren alongside alternative explanations.
Of course, evolution is a "theory" only in the formal, scientific sense: that is, "a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts," as was pointed out by the curators of the 2006 Darwin exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. This is in contrast to the more colloquial meaning of the word: "an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence."
If one of the most well-documented theories in the annals of science -- a foundation of modern intellectual thought and of countless advances in the natural sciences -- can be questioned over the course of 151 years, should we really be shocked that the overwhelming evidence of human-induced climate change would also be disputed? This is especially true when you consider that the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change carries huge implications for powerful industries and entrenched economic and political stakeholders, who reap benefits -- in the short term, at least -- by fanning the flames of the Anti-Science/Anti-Knowledge movement in the United States.
None of this offers much consolation, but it does provide some historical perspective. Still, the basic challenge remains: how do we as a society enlighten -- or perhaps marginalize -- those who marginalize science, so that rational minds can prevail? Reverend Jim Ball, the senior director for climate programs at the Evangelical Environmental Network, who has worked with evangelical leaders and adherents to address climate change sensibly, told the Times that this group of religiously motivated skeptics "already feels like scientists are attacking their faith and calling them idiots."
The question, then, may be: How do we bridge this deep cultural divide in order to benefit the planet and all God's creatures who inhabit it?
Doug, I have wanted to write the same post as this for a good while….!
As an enthusiastic Catholic Christian AND environmentalist/scientist (yes, you can be both), I despair of bridging this chasm. E. O. Wilson in "the Creation" tried, in his own way, although I feel Francis Collins in "the Language of God" did a better job. I am a British-born American and can tell you that we here in the USA are quite unusual in our anti-science stand. The Scopes trial - so I learn from the marvelous program about it on the History Channel! - started off as a quite reasonable attempt by the ACLU, of all people, to prove that religion and science were NOT incompatible. Instead it ended up polarizing the nation and driving fundamentalist Christians to build their own institutions and schools so as to remain aloof from (as they saw it) godless science. Add to that a pretty poor level of scientific literacy and we are where we are.
However, in the United Kingdome, where Christians are an endangered species, there is the same cynicism on global warming. I don't really understand why, except for the aforementioned lack of good science teaching and the dearth of scientific heroes in the media.
So, what to do? Getting many Christians to accept the vast evidence for evolution is a quixotic battle, but I try, when I can! The evidence for global warming is hardly as substantial - how could it be? Evolution is as established a fact as gravity - but nonetheless, you are right, the opposition to it can appear mighty pig-headed. I think people do not want to believe it because - (a) heathen scientists talk about it and (b) it will mean a change in their lifestyle.
I hesitate to say which of these two obstacles is more difficult to overcome.
The claim of "scientific consensus" is, of course, a total & deliberate lie told only by totally dishonest eco-fascists. Or perhaps somebody can produce some evidence otherwise.
I would like to take issue with the idea that there ever was a "scientific consensus" on global warming.
I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmists now totalling in the 10s of thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.
There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.
Neil, you talk about consensus, and then you quote a fake petition created on a farm in Oregon? full of fake names and proven to have tricked people into signing on the premise that this so called petition was endorsed by the US National Academy of Sciences.
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[15] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
so check you sources buddy. you talk about lies, yet you quote lies!
every scientific body on earth supports the science of global warming and they have all published official statements saying so.
that IS consensus. they ALL back the massive collection of evidence.
I'm amazed that you trust a hoax petition over the official statements of every scientific entity on earth.
Or do you think EVERY scientific report stating evidence about global warming is a lie?
One of the most simple, yet paramount things I ever learned from science, can be summed up in 4 words: Correlation doesn't guarantee causation. In other words, where is the proof that carbon dioxide is causing increased temperatures? I see slight temperature increases and I see increasing carbon dioxide levels (Correlation). Now an uneducated person might say, "Well that's easy, how could increased temperatures have any effect on carbon dioxide levels?"
What happens when you shake up a bottle of soda? Tiny bubbles form and race to the surface. And what are you doing when you shake a bottle? You're adding energy into the system causing an increase in collisions between all the atoms that make up the soda. This energy increase allows the gases to bubble out of suspension.
Similarly there are gases trapped in the oceans of the Earth. These gases (specifically CO2 in this example) are created from cellular respiration done by organisms living in the oceans. Now these gases dissipate into the atmosphere at some rate, slowly leaving the ocean waters. What happens when the system is given a good shake (the addition of energy)? When temperatures increase, the rate of collisions of atoms that make up the ocean is increased. Analogous to the soda example, gases evacuate (carbon dioxide is vented into the atmosphere) and voila! We now have a significant increase in carbon dioxide. It's quite simple. If only people would take a moment to analyze the relationship.
Some advice: Everyone has an agenda, especially those with power and influence. Follow the money and you'll find your answer. How much money has been made on the "Go Green" initiative? It's sad that most people can't connect these dots. People see their government taking interest in the environment and assume a positive change. If only.
Better yet, follow the politics. The whole world is uniting under this umbrella of faux science. In my opinion, this is the well thought out ground work for a new world order.
Be honest and think critically. And always question a politician.
Chris March 07, 2010, 12:37PM
You seem to be arguing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels in recent times has been caused by the warming of the oceans. That is not true. It has been caused by human emissions of CO2, primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.
The evidence from ice-cores shows that there was very little change in CO2 for several millennia before the industrial revolution – the graph is flat. See, for example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr...
Thus ice-core evidence shows that CO2 levels have not changed by more than a few ppmv of CO2 for several thousand years prior to 1750, and had not increased by as much as 20ppmv above the 1750 level of 280ppmv (ie exceeded 300ppmv) for at least 800,000 years, even though there had been changes in temperature greater than those experienced recently during that time (for example during the Eemian interglacial). There is absolutely no reason to believe that CO2 levels should have suddenly shot upwards in recent times for any other reason than human action. Thus, from that reasoning, human activities can be safely said to account for all (or very nearly all) of the increase from 280ppmv in 1750 to 388ppmv now.
But, secondly, there is another way of understanding this claim:
If you wish to know if there has been any NET natural contribution to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, all you need to do is measure
1. the amount humans have ADDED to the atmosphere, and
2. the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the same period.
It is that simple.
The figures for the atmosphere from 1850-2000 are as follows:
1. Total human caused emissions of CO2: 441 billion tons CO2
2. Increase in atmospheric CO2: 174 billion tons
Thus, the amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere greatly exceeds the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere so the human contribution is more than able to account for the entire increase (most of the CO2 emitted by humans has been absorbed into the oceans ie the process is the reverse of that which you suggest).
[Figures for CO2 can be found here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html]
Douglas S. Barasch is the editor-in-chief of OnEarth magazine. Barasch became editor in 2003 and has since led the magazine to the Independent Press Award for Best Environmental Coverage (2005) and for General Excellence (2006); several Gold Ozzie and Eddie Awards
...Douglas S. Barasch is the editor-in-chief of OnEarth magazine. Barasch became editor in 2003 and has since led the magazine to the Independent Press Award for Best Environmental Coverage (2005) and for General Excellence (2006); several Gold Ozzie and Eddie Awards from Folio Magazine (2006); and numerous citations from the Society of Publication Designers. The magazine was a finalist for the 2007 John B. Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism, administered by Columbia Journalism School, and multiple OnEarth articles have been selected for inclusion in the Best American Nature and Science Writing annual anthology. Barasch was previously a senior editor at Discover magazine and a freelance contributor to numerous publications, including The New York Times Magazine, New York, Elle, and Redbook, where he was a contributing editor.
Follow him on Twitter: @DougBarasch
More Close