Creationism in the service of climate change denial

[Frank Robert]

Young Earth creationist organisations are united in rejecting the secular science of climate change.

This science, they say, incorporates the study of positive feedback loops as demonstrated by data from Ice Age cores (true). But all of this is part of the secular science that regards the Earth as ancient (also true) and is therefore unsound (no comment). The creationist organisations are left with the task of explaining the Ice Ages, which they do with a degree of ingenuity worthy of a better cause. This in turn leads to a creationist climate science, in which positive feedbacks are ignored. It follows that conventional climate science can be discarded, and our current concerns rejected as alarmism.​

​

This conclusion fits in well with the aims of the right-wing organisations with which the creationists are intertwined. One frequent commentator on environmental matters in Answers in Genesis is Calvin E. Beisner, founder and CEO of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which exists to oppose any environmental constraints on industry, and Beisner’s work has been praised by the Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute. The Cornwall Alliance itself is deeply linked to creationist theology, and its Statement of Faith commits to separate creation of a historical Adam and Eve, original sin as a historical fact, and “the bodily resurrection of the just and unjust, the everlasting punishment of the lost, and the everlasting blessedness of the saved.” The conservative commentator Jay W. Richards, Senior Fellow of the evolution-denying Discovery Institute, is a Fellow of Heartland and a former adviser to Cornwall. But the political agenda of creationist organisations is a major topic in itself, to which I shall return.​

​

We must also remember that while there is no commercial interest in denying evolution, denying the need for action on climate is a well-funded industry, to whose voluminous output the creationist climate change deniers have full access.​

​

Back in 2010, Answers in Genesis1 (AiG) spelt out clearly what’s at stake:​

“It will be shown that the Bible provides sufficient counsel to enable Christians to evaluate the claims of global warming and arrive at a confident position that is in accord with real science. The contention that man’s activities are causing global warming, as described in the media and by its advocates, is a myth. There is no reason either biblically or scientifically to fear the exaggerated and misguided claims of catastrophe as a result of increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2).”​

​

This August, AiG, whose Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are located in flood-ravaged Kentucky, reiterated its earlier position even more clearly:​

Read more... and here: World on ‘thin ice’ as UN climate report gives stark warning

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is a fascinating question to ask why people believe what they believe. From flat earth, to young earth, to Pleiadeans and holocaust deniers. Intelligent people go all kinds of directions. Why?

 

[driewerf]

Your post echoes these papers:

Creationism and climate change denial

Book chapter in Climate change, cultural change: religious responses and responsibilities, edited by A Elvey & D Gormley-O’Brien, Mosaic Press, Melbourne, 2013

www.academia.edu

Book 1 Ch 3 Ver 1.0: The Corporate, GOP, and Christian Right's War on Science

Consider chapters 1 through 6 to be Version 1.0. Chapters 2 through 6 have Information Cutoff Dates ranging between March 4, 2012 (Ch 2) and November 28, 2014 (Ch 3). I completely stand by the results of these chapters. They are published in current

www.academia.edu

 

[essentialsaltes]

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) started in the 1980s to combat creationism in education.

"In 2012, the NCSE announced they would be engaged in efforts to keep climate change education, and global warming issues, safe from threats from special interests.[26]"

"It's not like we're bored," says NCSE Director Eugenie Scott: Five state bills that would allow teaching intelligent design in schools have already surfaced in 2012. But after hearing an increasing number of anecdotes about K-12 teachers being challenged about how they taught climate science to their students, she says she began to see "parallels" between the two debates --namely, an ideological drive from pressure groups to "teach the controversy" where no scientific controversy exists. To get expertise in this area, NCSE hired climate and environmental education expert Mark McCaffrey as its new climate coordinator and appointed Pacific Institute hydroclimatologist Peter Gleick to its board of directors.

NCSE expects this task to be much harder than fighting creationism. "The forces arrayed against climate science are more numerous and much better funded," Scott says, and are better able to get their message across in the mainstream media than creationism supporters. Organizations such as the Heartland Institute, which questions whether humans cause climate change, send out free educational materials to teachers and school boards. As Science reported in September, teachers who already struggle with small science budgets and little time for teaching have no time to fend off ideological attacks from students, parents, and administrators. Scott says that one of NCSE's tasks will be to analyze these materials and educate teachers on why they are scientifically unsound. NSTA's survey found that many teachers feel unprepared for global warming skepticism because of a lack of teaching tools.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The thing is that some people believe their own literal understanding of scripture as Revelation takes priority over anything science can come up with. And this is in spite of the fact that these same people accept the countless other benefits of science such as using the internet right now, for example.

 

[Frank Robert]

It is a fascinating question to ask why people believe what they believe. From flat earth, to young earth, to Pleiadeans and holocaust deniers. Intelligent people go all kinds of directions. Why?

One answer that comes to mind is for financial and political reasons to keep people believing that they are doomed to the hot place for eternity if they diverge an inch from genesis being the is the literal word of their God.

 

[Frank Robert]

Your post echoes these papers:

Creationism and climate change denial

Book chapter in Climate change, cultural change: religious responses and responsibilities, edited by A Elvey & D Gormley-O’Brien, Mosaic Press, Melbourne, 2013

www.academia.edu

Book 1 Ch 3 Ver 1.0: The Corporate, GOP, and Christian Right's War on Science

Consider chapters 1 through 6 to be Version 1.0. Chapters 2 through 6 have Information Cutoff Dates ranging between March 4, 2012 (Ch 2) and November 28, 2014 (Ch 3). I completely stand by the results of these chapters. They are published in current

www.academia.edu

Qué Bueno?

An "insightful" and in-depth look at anti-science politics and its deadly results (Maria Konnikova, New York Times– bestselling author of The Biggest Bluff ). Thomas Jefferson said, "Wherever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government." But what happens when they aren't? From climate change to vaccinations, transportation to technology, health care to defense, we are in the midst of an unprecedented expansion of scientific progress—and a simultaneous expansion of danger. At the very time we need them most, scientists and the very idea of objective knowledge are being bombarded by a vast, well-funded war on science, and the results are deadly. Whether it's driven by identity politics, ideology, or industry, the result is an unprecedented erosion of thought in Western democracies as voters, policymakers, and justices actively ignore scientific evidence, leaving major policy decisions to be based more on the demands of the most strident voices. This compelling book investigates the historical, social, philosophical, political, and emotional reasons why evidence-based politics are in decline and authoritarian politics are once again on the rise on both left and right—and provides some compelling solutions to bring us to our collective senses, before it's too late. "If you care about attacks on climate science and the rise of authoritarianism, if you care about biased media coverage and shake-your-head political tomfoolery, this book is for you."— The Guardian

Here is an except form the book. You can also get the book on ebay for ~$5.00

 

[Frank Robert]

How Earth Would Look If All The Ice Melted | Science Insider​

We learned last year that many of the effects of climate change are irreversible. Sea levels have been rising at a greater rate year after year, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates they could rise by another meter or more by the end of this century. As National Geographic showed us in 2013, sea levels would rise by 216 feet if all the land ice on the planet were to melt. This would dramatically reshape the continents and drown many of the world's major cities.​

 

[returnn23]

Very, very poor responses here. First, discard politics. Second, discard the common meaning - mostly political - of Creationist. All comments here are worthy of being discarded. By the way, I have no political party affiliation.

So-called Creationists believe God created the Earth and the Universe. "Science" is not to be considered beyond what it can show to be true. In this case, that's not much. Ice cores do not indicate anything about cars burning gasoline or smokestacks spewing tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. Those things are new. It was only in recent history that car manufacturers put catalytic converters on cars. But the owners of factories generally refused to put what are called 'scrubbers' inside smokestacks to remove pollutants. It would affect profits.

Electric cars are not new.

The Electric Car’s History Goes Back Further Than You Think

The first electric cars appeared long before the earliest gas autos, and the history of electric cars is littered with innovative takes on four-wheeled transit.

www.caranddriver.com

But oil companies wanted to make a profit. In my city in the U.S., trolley tracks were ripped up so General Motors could make money off of busses.

So get off it. It's about money. Just money. Not Saving the Planet. Just money. And the peasants will be expected to pay for it - as usual. This is not about science. It's only about making the rich richer.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Very, very poor responses here.

That's quite a critique, yet you don't provide even an example of the "very poor responses" in this thread.

First, discard politics.

Is this an instruction? A critique of the thread? (I suspect the latter.)

Second, discard the common meaning - mostly political - of Creationist.

The most common definition of "creationist" (particularly in reference to this forum) is one with several sub-types, but all relating to the story given in Gen1-2 in contrast to the ideas of conventional science. (or as we would normally say -- science) The creationist puts at least some literal belief in the Biblical story.

All comments here are worthy of being discarded.

Which isn't your decision, and it is also a position would not endorse. Even some of the counterpoints to what I would support are worthy of reading, not discarding.

By the way, I have no political party affiliation.

And since this is the science section, we don't care. It just doesn't matter.

So-called Creationists believe God created the Earth and the Universe.

Most creationists use that term for themselves without issue. This claim about "God created" is part of creationism, but not the whole story. There are forms such as "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC), "Old Earth Creatonism", "progressive creationism" (PC), "Intelligent Design creationsim" (ID). Just being a Christian and accepting the Creed doesn't make you a creationist. I did the former, but was never a "creationist".

"Science" is not to be considered beyond what it can show to be true.

That's a fairly narrow definition of science (and "true" isn't really the best term, "demonstrated" would be a lot better). It is a definition that can be used to put science in the corner and diminish it.

In this case, that's not much.

There are vast number of this science knows, including about the origin of things and about the climate. (The subjects of this thread.)

Ice cores do not indicate anything about cars burning gasoline or smokestacks spewing tons of pollutants into the atmosphere.

Well that's quite the strawman. Ice cores are not a primary tool for measuring the impact of cars or industrialization on the climate, atmosphere or polution.

Those things are new.

Exactly, which is why ice cores aren't used for those measurements. (I like it when people admit to the strawman right away.)

It was only in recent history that car manufacturers put catalytic converters on cars.

Irrelevant. Catalytic converters are for reducing NOx pollution, a primary source of smog, not for reducing CO2 the main greenhouse gas.

But the owners of factories generally refused to put what are called 'scrubbers' inside smokestacks to remove pollutants.

Irrelevant. Scrubbers also aren't about greenhouse gases, but health hazard related air pollutants.

It would affect profits.

Which is why environmental laws forced them to do so, just as they did for catalytic converters on cars. Air quality is up greatly since both were implemented.

Electric cars are not new.

The Electric Car’s History Goes Back Further Than You Think

The first electric cars appeared long before the earliest gas autos, and the history of electric cars is littered with innovative takes on four-wheeled transit.

www.caranddriver.com

Irrelevant. No one claimed electric vehicles were new.

But oil companies wanted to make a profit.

Early electric cars just weren't as useful as gasoline cars. The gasoline cars had much better range and refueled more quickly.

In my city in the U.S., trolley tracks were ripped up so General Motors could make money off of busses.

Not sure how this is relevant, but things like this did happen.

So get off it.

Get off what? Climate change related efforts? Associating creationist rhetoric with anti-climate interests? Your post is very hard to follow.

It's about money. Just money. Not Saving the Planet. Just money.

This sounds like you think "climate activists" are just in it for the money, but as with most of your post, the reasoning is hard to follow.

And the peasants will be expected to pay for it - as usual.

I had no idea there were still peasants. Which kind are you: bound peasant? free peasant? serf? landed peasant?

This is not about science. It's only about making the rich richer.

Again, the plot of your post is hard to follow, so I have no idea what "this" is.

Are you arguing against climate mitigation efforts? Climate research itself? Against the fossil fuel companies? It's really hard to tell.

 

[returnn23]

For more clarity. The whole 'climate change' idea is an invention. I submit that there is no scientific evidence that the current global temperatures are caused by human activity but are more likely to be the result of a natural trend in the earth's history. "Climate activists" believe in what they are doing but, in my view, are more alarmist. I am not against any mitigation efforts but again, this involves the investment of large sums of money. This, I believe, is the goal, and was the goal all along.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

For more clarity. The whole 'climate change' idea is an invention.

That's quite an assertion, one I *know* you can't actually back.

I submit that there is no scientific evidence that the current global temperatures are caused by human activity but are more likely to be the result of a natural trend in the earth's history.

And you would be wrong as has been rather conclusively demonstrated scientifically.

"Climate activists" believe in what they are doing but, in my view, are more alarmist.

Climate activists are irrelevant to the science. Activism is for policy, not science.

I am not against any mitigation efforts but again, this involves the investment of large sums of money. This, I believe, is the goal, and was the goal all along.

Sure seems like your are arguing against mitigation (to the extent you are arguing anything). Not sure why the "activists" or the scientists would have a goal of spending large amounts of money. It makes no sense.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

This article does not support your position.

 

[Frank Robert]

For more clarity. The whole 'climate change' idea is an invention. I submit that there is no scientific evidence that the current global temperatures are caused by human activity but are more likely to be the result of a natural trend in the earth's history. "Climate activists" believe in what they are doing but, in my view, are more alarmist. I am not against any mitigation efforts but again, this involves the investment of large sums of money. This, I believe, is the goal, and was the goal all along.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Denial w/o any evidence. The only climate invention is a replay of the tobacco industry playbook (or simply disinformation playbook). The sad part is that people fall for the bovine droppings are insuring that fossil fuels industry wins and leaves the next generations in a world of $H^%(*).

If you wonder why the world is suffering from inflation and shortages of food and energy:

The Fed Cannot Fix Today’s Energy Inflation Problem​

 

[USincognito]

For more clarity. The whole 'climate change' idea is an invention.

That's a fascinating claim and I would really like for you to clarify what you mean by it. That climate changes has been well understood for over a hundred years and the effect it has on human civilizations has been studies by paleoclimatologists, archeologists and paleoanthropologists.

I submit that there is no scientific evidence that the current global temperatures are caused by human activity but are more likely to be the result of a natural trend in the earth's history.

Climatologists aren't idiots. They model for known natural factors like Milankovitch Cycles (we're not in one), changes to the earth's orbit (hasn't happened), solar activity (the sun has been nearly moribund for 20 years), volcanic activity (no significant increase), etc. The only factor that has changed, rapidly and consistently, over the last 100 years, has been anthropogenic atmospheric CO2.

"Climate activists"

are irrelevant. Vice President Gore and Greta Thunberg and as meaningless to the science as Lord Monckten and former Sen. James Inhof. What matters are the observations and the data.

this involves the investment of large sums of money.

Six years ago I posted this to CF. It's as true today as it was then.

Economic arguments don't matter either. The "fix" for global warming could cost a penny or a bazillion dollars and either way it wouldn't effect the science one iota.

 

[sjastro]

For more clarity. The whole 'climate change' idea is an invention. I submit that there is no scientific evidence that the current global temperatures are caused by human activity but are more likely to be the result of a natural trend in the earth's history. "Climate activists" believe in what they are doing but, in my view, are more alarmist. I am not against any mitigation efforts but again, this involves the investment of large sums of money. This, I believe, is the goal, and was the goal all along.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

And here we go again for umpteenth time.
Here is the data which shows that while the troposphere is warming up the lower stratosphere has been cooling.
This is the characteristic signature of AGW and cannot be explained by changes in solar activity or Milanovich cycles which have caused temperature changes during the earth's geological history.
If these mechanisms are the cause for global warming both the troposphere and lower stratosphere would be in phase and the temperature would increase in both.

Here is the 1967 paper which predicted the lower stratosphere would cool due to human action decades before AGW became topical let alone politicized.
Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity in: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 24 Issue 3 (1967)

Syukuro Manabe one of the authors of the paper won the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Manabe's work is summarized in this link.
Winners of 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics built mathematics of climate modeling, making predictions of global warming and modern weather forecasting possible

Here is a simplified explanation (minus the thermodynamics) of how AGW causes the lower stratosphere to cool.
Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

​

 

[sjastro]

A party trick is to balance a chair on one leg.
It can be done and is an example of unstable equilibrium; the slightest nudge will see the chair land on all four legs which is the case of stable equilibrium.

Currently the Earth's climate is at or near an unstable equilibrium on the left hand side of the diagram.

It is balanced on top of a potential hill.
When there is a change of conditions such as temperature the Earth reacts to maintain this equilibrium.
While us idiotic humans are warming up the troposphere, the Earth is reacting by cooling down the lower stratosphere.
There only a limit to how far we can warm up the troposphere before the Earth gives up by finding a new more stable equilibrium as illustrated on the right hand side of the diagram.
Unfortunately for us this new stable equilibrium has a lower potential energy and the difference in the potential energy between the unstable and stable equilibrium is converted to heat energy.
The result is runaway temperatures and given the new equilibrium is more stable our attempts to cool down the planet will be futile.

The IPCC have warned we may be a lot closer to the tipping point caused by inaction in reducing our greenhouse emissions.

What does the new IPCC report say about climate tipping points and feedbacks?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the first part of its sixth assessment report (AR6) in August. Much of the media attention focused on what the new report had to say ab…

climatetippingpoints.info

 

[AV1611VET]

The IPCC have warned we may be a lot closer to the tipping point caused by inaction in reducing our greenhouse emissions.

Can you give me an example of something that will trigger this?

 

[Frank Robert]

Can you give me an example of something that will trigger this?

five dangerous tipping points may already have been passed due to the 1.1C of global heating caused by humanity to date.

These include the collapse of Greenland’s ice cap, eventually producing a huge sea level rise, the collapse of a key current in the north Atlantic, disrupting rain upon which billions of people depend for food, and an abrupt melting of carbon-rich permafrost.​

​

At 1.5C of heating, the minimum rise now expected, four of the five tipping points move from being possible to likely, the analysis said. Also at 1.5C, an additional five tipping points become possible, including changes to vast northern forests and the loss of almost all mountain glaciers.​

​

In total, the researchers found evidence for 16 tipping points, with the final six requiring global heating of at least 2C to be triggered, according to the scientists’ estimations. The tipping points would take effect on timescales varying from a few years to centuries.​

​

“The Earth may have left a ‘safe’ climate state beyond 1C global warming,” the researchers concluded, with the whole of human civilisation having developed in temperatures below this level. Passing one tipping point is often likely to help trigger others, producing cascades. But this is still being studied and was not included, meaning the analysis may present the minimum danger.​

 

[Postvieww]

All scientists are not towing the line.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There are 100 firefighters in the room. 1 says there is no fire. Do you follow the 99 and a course of action that reduces the risk of loss of life and property, OR do you follow that 1 brave firefighter who won't tow the line? "There is no fire. I am speaking out against tyranny. THEY just want you to believe in fire. THEY are getting something out of spreading fear. I don't know what or how, but something."