Related Posts
New polls in Britain and US show strong public belief in climate change
A new survey of UK residents conducted by the University of Cardiff shows that public acceptance of climate...' src='http://gf3.statico.be/wp-content/themes/greenfudge/thumbnails/7217.jpg' alt='skepticism-politics-and-profits' class='art-teaser' width='95' height='95' />‘Skepticism,’ politics and profits The current public 'debate' on climate science and global warming is for the most part essentially an ideological...
Climate change: The war for hearts and minds in the UK
Belief in global warming plummeted amongst the British public after the climate change conference in Copenhagen last December,...
Sound and fury: Thoughts on climate science and the media
A cool thing about science is that – just like the climate – it's always changing. It isn't...
Climate change debate back in the news
In the wake of a summer that spawned harsh heat waves and forest fires in Europe; and catastrophic...
Tip of the Day
Go grocery shopping locally to help reduce your carbon footprint
Creationism and climate change skepticism: Not so strange bedfellows
photo by tastypiesinc (source: Flickr Creative Commons)
The politicization of science class in the American public education system is nothing new, the main issue of contention being the teaching of evolution or natural selection in biology classes.
Recently, however, teaching climate change in state schools has come under fire from skeptics in much the same way that evolution in the science curriculum has been challenged by creationism – most lately the proponents of intelligent design.
A New York Times piece explores how in certain American states, advocates of climate change skepticism are campaigning to include their side of the climate argument in the curriculum. South Dakota has already passed measures effectively requiring this, while Texas, Louisiana and Kentucky have introduced bills bundling the two subjects of climate change and evolution into a group of subjects of which – to quote George W. Bush – ‘the jury is out’. These states now encourage or promote ‘critical thinking’ or presenting ‘all sides’ on subjects such as global warming, the origins of life, evolution and human cloning.
The issues of religion, evolution and climate science are separate issues for most part, but do have a large crossover, probably to the chagrin of atheistic skeptics or evangelical environmentalists. (Yes, there are plenty of both.) But the legal and political advantages to this kind of bundling bring a certain biblical parable to mind, something about killing two birds with one stone.
The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.
–New York Times
John G. West, a senior fellow with the intelligent design advocacy group the Discovery Institute:
‘There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue, […] with scientists being persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy. We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.’
–New York Times
But creationist beliefs are generally founded in dogma. This isn’t a criticism, as creation accounts undeniably come from scripture believed to be the word of God. It is also where fundamentalist teachings always seem to butt heads with science – if we take the Bible to be literally true, scientific findings that contradict its words must be inherently false. It isn’t a case of logic vs. faith, but rather of trying to force the two into the same mold. In other words, why use science to prove or disprove something if you feel that science itself isn’t authoritative? The conflation of science and religion is comparable to the conflation of science and politics already apparent in the climate debate, never mind religion and politics.
Anyway, those skeptical of global warming might find legal and political strength by teaming up with the enemies of Darwin, but such associations can’t help their scientific arguments. Of course, those arguments should be judged by evidence and not the politics or religion of the people behind them – but they sure don’t half make it hard.
by Graham Land
Read the Leslie Kaufman’s article ‘Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets’ in The New York Times.
Tags: American, Climate change, creationism, New York Times, Politics, religion, school, science, skeptic, skepticism
10 Comments
You can also log in to post a comment.
Other Greenfudge.org posts
Add biodiversity to the list of important things no one gives a sh*t about
Environmentalists, NGOs, relatively progressive governments and the UN made a lot of noise about climate change a couple of years ago. Nothing really happened. Then 2010 was hailed by the United Nations as the “Year of Biodiversity” in order to draw awareness to the catastrophic loss of natural resources, which global ecosystems (including humanity) depend on for little things like livelihood and survival. But comfort, convenience and promises of wealth trump doomsday scenarios every time. Just like with climate change, governments...
My Amazon Experience
In 1996 I went on a tour of Brazil with an American punk band called Shelter, in which I was playing at the time. It was for the most part a surreal, yet hectic schedule of concerts in front of hundreds of fans in metropolises several of which we’d never heard of. Brazil is a massive country of ironic extremes: it is the largest Catholic country and easily one of the most sexualized. When I was first there, the Brazilian...
Dozens of Starving Sea Lion Pups Found Along California’s Beaches
Nature is known to be both kind and cruel; but regardless of what mood strikes, Nature is always wonderful. However, there are times when bad things happen that Nature did not intend; things that are caused by too much intrusion and interference. Due to these interferences, far too many creatures have suffered and it may (unfortunately) be too late to help some of them. This article is about one time when that intrusion has gone too far—and yes, Global Warming...
Storms and floods bring death and chaos to central Mexico
Unseasonal winter weather in Mexico has caused widespread flooding resulting in death and destruction in the states of Michoacan and Mexico State as well as in the massive capital of Mexico City. According to an AP article, there have been 29 deaths in central Mexico so far as a result of the storms. Greater Mexico City is one of the three largest metropolitan areas in the world and lies in an enclosed mountain valley, making it vulnerable to flooding. The capital...
Wunderkind eco warrior aims to plant 500bn trees
Johnny Apfel Seed, Harry Tree-Potter, Felix the Eco-Brat… whatever stupid Sun-style nickname you give this 13-year old German environmentalist, Felix Finkbeiner is making quite a name for himself. All thanks to an unflappable attitude and an impressive tree planting campaign that has spread throughout the world. Inspired by Kenyan political activist and ecologist Wangari Maathai’s Green Belt Movement, Finkbeiner decided to take environmental degradation and climate change into his own hands: His organisation, Plant for the Planet, recently achieved its target of...
Fight drought and famine in Somalia
Last week the United Nations declared a famine in two southern areas of Somalia. According to aid workers 800,000 children could die due to the current hunger. Somalia’s Foreign minister warned that 3.5m are at risk of death by starvation. All in all, around 10m people are in peril. Islamist Militants have expelled workers from the UN’s World Food Program workers where possible. Nonetheless, the WFP is in the process of delivering 10 tons of food to the areas worst stricken by the...
U.S. smog standards get stricter under Obama
The United States Environmental Protection Agency – or EPA – has proposed new smog regulations that are tighter than those under the previous administration. An article in the Guardian describes smog standards as 'lax' under the term of George W. Bush, a period during which environmental concerns went largely ignored in favor of corporate interests, such the fossil fuel lobby. 'The proposed new standard would set the acceptable ozone limit in the air at between 0.06 and 0.07 parts per million....
Nobody Here but Us Chickens!
Household waste can pile up rather quickly, without us even realizing it. An orange peel here, an old newspaper there, and before you know it you’ll have quite a lot of waste to deal with. Some people may throw things onto compost piles; others are more inclined to simply throw all that waste into the trash. To teach citizens about household waste management, the Belgian city of Mouscron has come up with a most unique campaign. They intend to give away...
HBO documentary ‘The Lazarus Effect’ highlights Sub-Saharan Africa’s AIDS crisis
On May 24th, HBO will air the documentary 'The Lazarus Effect' by director Lance Bangs. The film follows four HIV positive people in Sub-Saharan Africa in an attempt to show the effects of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) on patients with HIV and AIDS. From a review on Shockya.com: These people include Bwalya, an 11-year-old orphan; Paul Nsangu, a young man who is married and has a daughter; Concillia Muhau, who has a daughter that is virus-free; and Constance (Connie) Mudenda, an HIV Peer...
Sea Shepherd Update: New Zealand and Australia Finally Investigate Crash
Earlier this month, there was an incident involving the Ady Gil vessel (of the Sea Shepherd fleet) and the Shonan Maru No. 2 (which is with the Japanese whalers). To make a long explanation very short, the Shonan Maru No. 2 rammed the Ady Gil, causing irreparable damage to the vessel and now the Ady Gil is somewhere on the ocean floor. Both sides blame each other for the crash and some form of official intervention is needed. Now that we...
View all articles
Fair enough. Alicia. I will give you the last word on this one
Hi Graham,
I really appreciate this exchange of ideas but it seems we´re going somehow off-topic.
Not believing is not cynicism but the essence of science.
Thank you for this conversation.
Hi Alicia,
Of course you are right about scientists not using religion or politics when arguing the research, per se, but people will do so. I wasn’t using Monbiot as a scientific source, but I thought he had some insightful things to say about why most people align themselves vis-à-vis the climate debate.
/
There is a lot of scientific research out there to read. It is not unequivocal, but there is plenty providing information to be very concerned about. Anyway, if you are cynical to the point where you believe nothing then why argue the science at all? Most public ‘skepticism’ does not come from knowledge regarding the quality of the bulk of scientific research, but from political motivations.
/
I also agree that govt ads should be accurate and not designed to cause panic, but I also don’t think they are actually doing that. I grew up during the cold war and that paranoia was worse, then there was terrorism. Far more paranoid political climate. In the US and UK this climate change political “debate” is essentially about taxes. I am perfectly willing to let the scientists handle the scientific part of the debate, but right wing politicians and journalists are plainly attacking the pervading science because of ideology.
Hi Graham,
The very thing that bothers me is the use of political/religious arguments to spoil the scientific debate. Of course there are crossovers and political allegiancies but sound scientists at both sides of the climate debate won´t resort to the Bible nor an election manifesto as peer reviewed papers. Distorted information is the real pollutant!!
I don´t think Mr. Monbiot, sharper when we all had less information, is an objective source. Just for starters, he doesn´t consider scientists those who are against AGW thesis. He is wrong (e.g. http://sppiblog.org/news/a-physicist-supports-sound-climate-physics ). I obtained 48.500 results google searching for Monbiot & Creationism. I´m amazed, this is not new!! Quoting him in the very first result: “Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don’t answer their critics”… so (conclusion): global warming is real.
The word “facts” is a very good bait for me. I eagerly read through his text searching for facts only to find matters of trust, faith and beliefs. He is longing for a new Messiah now that Gore is so descredited. He also argues whith a psychologic mechanism which is a double edged sword: reinforcing faith when confronted to contrary evidence works regardless the belief.
So, which facts is Mr. Monbiot talking about?. Glaciers not melting?. Polar bear populations increasing?. Coral reefs recovering?. Everyday flaws discovered in the IPCC AR4?…
I believe nothing. I don´t even know if CO2 is cause or consecuence of temperature. Politicians decided what to believe and how to act, and maybe some counterproductive measures are going on. I see a big economic green bubble swelling while we have not recovered yet from the real estate one. Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Maybe we breath a different air in Europe but children are scared and fed up with propaganda. Just remember the cute girl´s nightmare running away from an earthquake in the video at CO15 opening. A few days ago I was delivered this very good news: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/13/uk-ads-banned-for-overstating-climate-change/
Am I talking nonsense??? You need eye-catching headlines, but you, as many others, are bending the truth. Just suggesting, insinuating… with not scientific arguments.
Hi Alicia.
In that case, I think I was expressly non biunivocal when I stated “The issues of religion, evolution and climate science are separate issues for most part, but do have a large crossover, probably to the chagrin of atheistic skeptics or evangelical environmentalists. (Yes, there are plenty of both.)”
The Times article states: “there is little doubt that the skepticism about global warming resonates more strongly among conservatives, and Christian conservatives in particular.” Hence, the use of “not so strange bedfellows”.
The bit that seems to bother you most is the line “those skeptical of global warming might find legal and political strength by teaming up with the enemies of Darwin”.
This doesn’t necessarily mean skeptics are courting evangelicals. But politically speaking, they don’t really need to be courted because most people (who are not capable of judging the science anyway) tend to follow their political allegiances. Look no further than America’ premier skeptic (in political terms – not scientific) Senator James Inhofe.
From your standpoint can see that it would bother you that some children are afraid of something which you don’t believe is real. From another standpoint, I see most children simply not caring about something that may be very risky and too dangerous to ignore.
I have to see this as a political distinction: those who have ideological reservations with climate change policies are likely to be skeptics and judge the science as not reliable. Those who don’t are likely to trust the scientific establishment, for better or worse – because lets face it, we are not a society of climate scientists.
George Monbiot explains it nicely:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/03/08/the-unpersuadables/
Hello again Graham,
Thank you for your answer.
I am not shocked by “bedfellows”. Change it for “birds of a feather” and I would be even more shaken. It is the concept of pairing creationism and CC skepticism the thing that disturbs me. OK; it is political jargon and there are very strange alliances everywhere.
What I mean with “biunivocal” is the use of paired false premises such as “all skeptics are conservative” and “all conservatives are skeptic”, and the like, to support, logically false, conclusions.
I am not concerned with the NYT article; I found it quite informative. I am aware of the extremely difficult atmosphere sorrounding all this issue and I feel sorry for it. But I am not talking to Vatican; I am talking to you, and what I said is that you distorted Times article just to say the contrary of its headline in the last paragraph of your post. It is not the same “Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets” than “skeptics are looking for political strength teaming with creationists” (if they “find” it is because they´re “looking for”, isn´t it?).
Excuse me if I was rude in my former comment. A number of readers wouldn´t click the link to Times article and some of them would only read the title of your post. What I see out there is a lot of children, and adults, scared about global warming And there is not evidence nor reliable data to support it.
Hi Alicia.
Thanks for your comments. We may have some misunderstandings. If you were shocked by the title, “strange bedfellows” is a common figure of speech, especially for describing political alliances. I, on the other hand, had to look up “biunivocal” and gathered it had to do with math, language and French philosophy, but I still don’t quite get it.
If I simply reiterated or paraphrased the Times article, I could just have stopped with a link. But this blog has a lot of news commentary and I had a few thoughts to put down concerning how some fundamentalists’ approach natural science. Juxtapose this against the Vatican’s current positions:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/
Your understanding, if I am correct, is that the connection described in the Times article could politically harm rather than help the skeptic cause. You might be right. It could of course do both. But in certain American states where fundamentalist Christianity is very strong, you’d be surprised. It’s politics. (Remember, the Iranian revolution was fought by communists, radicals, feminists and fundamentalist muslims – very “strange bedfellows” indeed – against the autocracy of the Shah.)
“Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets” in this case means that those who refute natural selection and evolution are also coming out against the teaching of man made climate change and using political and legal mechanisms to do so.
As far as being ‘dangerous and unfair’, I try my best to be fair and I don’t see how this post is teaching children any more than any other example of widely available media. And have you seen what else is out there?
Hi Graham,
The title of your post shocked me so much that I had to read it and so did I with the NYT article it links.
From my point of view, you are setting a biunivocal correspondence between political/religious groups and scientific theories. This is very dangerous and unfair.
NYT describes the complex environment on educational programs from all perspectives and writes down the facts and the statements of different people.
In your second to last paragraph you make a messy reasoning involving creationism, Bible, God, dogma, fundamentalism, logic, faith and sience. Only to apply it to climate debate in the last sentence.
Finally, you say in your last paragraph “skeptical of global warming might find legal and political strength bay teaming up with the enemies of Darwin”. Whaaaat????. Maybe Im not fluent enough in english, but I understood quite the contrary. How the hell do you translate NYT headline “Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets????
If this is the logic you use for your science, I wouldn´t dare to allow you teachig it to children. That is precisely one of the things you do when writing in a blog.
Take care.
Hi Eduardo.
Your criticism doesn’t really relate to what I wrote. If you do not personally identify those who are supporting (and bundling) creationism and climate change skepticism in U.S. state legislatures, courts or school boards as ‘skeptics’ then fine, please let them know. The Times piece isn’t about scientists anyway, but rather those with mutually advantageous religious and political agendas.
I have no problem with the term “AGW agnostics”, as its use could be stretched to describe all scientists, but lets not pretend that agnostics have ever had a loud voice in any debate. “I don’t know” isn’t something that tends to appear in headlines or get screamed during protests.
*Please note, I did write “The issues of religion, evolution and climate science are separate issues for most part, but do have a large crossover, probably to the chagrin of atheistic skeptics or evangelical environmentalists. (Yes, there are plenty of both.)”
Kind of acknowledges your position as both a shrewd skeptic and proponent of evolution.
You have things upside down: warmers have a Sacred Dogma, the same as Creationists do, and sceptics have NEVER denied or opposed evolution. Not that I am aware of. Not among hundreds of climate scientists I know.
Sceptics -or a much much better label: “AGW agnostics” are not “attacking climate science”. They are merely attacking flawed statements and studies by scientists shown to have been practicing an “Ivory Tower science” full of malfeasance and tricks in order to push their wrong Dogma.
Please go back to your drawing board and start all over again.