Global warming and anti-evolutionism

[mumluvsherboys]

The recent thread on YECism and global warming in the creationist subforum (http://www.christianforums.com/t4743108-global-warming-creationist-view.html) prompts this new thread.

Increasingly, it seems to me that the creationist response to global warming is, "It's still cold here -- what a bunch of hooey!" It strikes me, though, that, like their position on anti-evolutionism, many creationists are misrepresenting what global warming says.
I'm no expert on the subject, but I do know that the theory of global warming (perhaps more appropriately called 'climate change') does not purport a uniform increase in temperature across the globe. It says that the average tempature of the earth will rise in the coming years, with varying, non-uniform extremes in temperature occurring in localized settings. And yes, scientists do recognize the fluctuating climactic patterns as revealed by the rock record. They are the ones who developed the model (which extends back to the Palaeozoic) which creationists have now exapted to support a post-Flood ice age. But scientists also have their reasons for believing that the recent rise in global temperatures has been exacerbated by human activity.
For what it's worth, as little as a year ago, I also doubted humanity's effect on global warming. For one semester in 2005, I worked in a micropalaeontology lab that consistently yielded results denying human impact on climate, based on the distribution of foraminiferans in lake sediment cores. Take that for what you will, but the extreme weather in Canada this past winter has got me second-guessing. The unexpected blizzards along the west coast, the rediculously mild temperatures in Ottawa, and the southward migration of polar bears due to glacial melting is enough to make me question my presuppositions.
In fact, I'm a little surprised that more YECs aren't touting global warming as a sign of the end times, given that it is expect to lead to increased famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_and_agriculture).

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Wasn't it just a few years ago(some 30-50 years) that scientists were saying the opposite, that we are actually headed for the next ice age? I remember just 15-20 years ago that snow used to pile so high we couldn't even get out our front door. Now we're luck to have snow by January. I personally do not believe that pollution has anything to do with Global warming. Pollution is a killer, but it does not effect the earths environment enough to change the temperatures that drastically. I believe it is a sign of the end times. But we will all see, when it all happens.

God bless and have a great day, Mallon.

 

[Deamiter]

Wasn't it just a few years ago(some 30-50 years) that scientists were saying the opposite, that we are actually headed for the next ice age?

And it was sad that the media picked up on this initial finding and then dropped it when it was corrected because the public certainly isn't going to go checking facts!

This story was reported throughout the world when the first data from ice cores came in showing a relatively regular fluctuation in temperature. The ice cores showed that we are overdue for another cold period and perhaps even another ice age! Of course, at that point, they hadn't established the correlation between CO2 and methane levels and the temperature.

Of course, now we know WHY we are overdue for another ice age. That's why it's really very important to get your scientific news from sources OTHER than media outlets -- they will report sensational stories, but when more data is added or a particular claim is corrected or rejected, they rarely pick up the story a second time.

 

[Deamiter]

One correction - this is in the news section of the London Times, not the op-ed section.

The section in which the article is published does not change the form of the article. It is not written as a news article which would attempt to objectively report somebody's view, it is written as an opinions piece that gives the author's view.

When it's written in first person by an interested party, it's not a news article no matter where you find it on the website.

Don't take my word for it (as an 8-year editor of various school papers)! Look it up -- you won't find any standard for news stories that fit this article, though it's spot on as an opinions piece! That certainly doesn't automatically make it wrong, but it's far from an objective news story.

 

[mumluvsherboys]

And it was sad that the media picked up on this initial finding and then dropped it when it was corrected because the public certainly isn't going to go checking facts!

This story was reported throughout the world when the first data from ice cores came in showing a relatively regular fluctuation in temperature. The ice cores showed that we are overdue for another cold period and perhaps even another ice age! Of course, at that point, they hadn't established the correlation between CO2 and methane levels and the temperature.

Of course, now we know WHY we are overdue for another ice age. That's why it's really very important to get your scientific news from sources OTHER than media outlets -- they will report sensational stories, but when more data is added or a particular claim is corrected or rejected, they rarely pick up the story a second time.

I know, isn't it weird how the media works that way? Thanks for your reply. Real reasoning isn't as sensational as "what if?" Have a great day!

 

[Smidlee]

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming


There is still much more to learn. Who right about global warming is hard to tell but for now it just mean paying more taxes and given more control to the government.

 

[laptoppop]

I think we can probably agree on a few things.
1) politicizing science is wrong. The conclusions should be supported by evidence, not funding or conjecture.
2) good stewardship of this planet is important
3) pollution is bad

 

[Deamiter]

I think we can probably agree on a few things.
1) politicizing science is wrong. The conclusions should be supported by evidence, not funding or conjecture.
2) good stewardship of this planet is important
3) pollution is bad

Amen! This is the second time in one day I wish I could give you more reps!

Whether a global warming trend is caused or initiated by humans, cutting down on our polluting emissions now that we can do it relatively cheaply is just good sense. And if political groups weren't so focused on using science to advance political, economic or personal agendas, it would probably be a lot easier to figure out exactly what WAS important! That's not to say that all scientists are saints -- there's certainly those who want to affect politics, but to get published, they are required to back up their conclusions whereas politicians and the media only have to report what they think and maybe find a PhD who will publicly agree with their position.

Meh, enough rambling -- as I said in the first place, I don't think there's any direct correlation between a person's stance on evolution and global warming. I acknowledge that there are demographic effects (including education and political bent) but I think people are more likely to adhere to these positions due to their demographic, not the other way around.

 

[shernren]

Meh, enough rambling -- as I said in the first place, I don't think there's any direct correlation between a person's stance on evolution and global warming. I acknowledge that there are demographic effects (including education and political bent) but I think people are more likely to adhere to these positions due to their demographic, not the other way around.

I don't know if this agrees or disagrees with what I'm about to say, but I would say that to a certain extent that there is significant correlation between YECism (not anti-evolutionism in general) and ignorance about global climate change. I've said this before and I stand by it. A lot of geoclimactic data comes from the discipline of paleoclimatology, which has had a good grip on the processes of long-term deposition of records such as ice cores and deep-sea sediments. These same records convince us that modern climate change is real, imminent, and largely anthropogenic.

YECs don't have access to those records, and because they lack coherent geoclimactic paradigms within which they can interpret data, ice cores and deep-sea sediments are simply inaccessible to them as data sources. Hence I have seen YECs make a big deal out of the "fact" that we "only" have global temperature data for 150 years of the earth's history, out of their supposed 6,000 years' worth of it. What, we can't pick up anything from the other 5,850 years? Old-earth interpretations have inter-correcting records that show us just what the Earth ought to look like and how different it is today. Without that kind of knowledge it is simply not possible to make informed and complex decisions about the right action to take concerning climate change.

So I would add on to what you are saying to say that generally, YECs have an increased disposition to be skeptical of things like climate change.

 

[mumluvsherboys]

I think we can probably agree on a few things.
1) politicizing science is wrong. The conclusions should be supported by evidence, not funding or conjecture.
2) good stewardship of this planet is important
3) pollution is bad

Absolutely! God bless!

 

[Xaero]

I think climate change is something that is real observable even in my short lifespan: In the last years the August was very rainy, the winters are warm, and there are more floods in Germany.
Just google for "flood and germany"

 

[busterdog]

Excellent exposition showing that global warming is real, cyclical and driven by natural forces, and probably the sun. Not that this means it will be less catastrophic.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warmin

Proof of the obscurantist politics of science.

I note the study of ancient weather suggesting cycles of warming going back millions of years. Elegant, but I am not swooning on that part.

 

[gluadys]

Excellent exposition showing that global warming is real, cyclical and driven by natural forces, and probably the sun. Not that this means it will be less catastrophic.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warmin

Proof of the obscurantist politics of science.

I note the study of ancient weather suggesting cycles of warming going back millions of years. Elegant, but I am not swooning on that part.

No one is disputing the existence of natural cycles of global warming.

What they are noting is that even during the warmest of the natural cycles there was nothing like the speed and intensity of the current increase in atmospheric CO2. No one knows what the effect of this increase will be, except to note that the level of CO2 is closely related to the average global temperature. More CO2=higher temperature. So we have two questions:

1. How did we get such high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, when nature never produced them before?

2. How will this affect the earth if (when) it drives the global temperature higher than ever before?

The answer to #1 is that we now have a significant human contribution to CO2 levels in addition to the natural cycle. And that is what we have to deal with.

The natural cycle alone would cause problems, and we need to prepare for that in any case. But we don't need to keep adding to what nature is already doing.

 

[shernren]

Of course, there is no coherent YEC interpretation of graphs like this:

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Of course, there is no coherent YEC interpretation of graphs like this:

Yes there is... increasing CO2 caused the industrial revolution, not the other way around

 

[Mallon]

It always puzzles me when YECs discount global warming by pointing to the cyclicity of average global temperatures or CO^2 concentrations... which extend back hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It always puzzles me when YECs discount global warming by pointing to the cyclicity of average global temperatures or CO^2 concentrations... which extend back hundreds of thousands of years.

God has always made it cool off agin. God will make it cool off again this time. Are you saying God can't do it?

 

[shernren]

Excellent exposition showing that global warming is real, cyclical and driven by natural forces, and probably the sun. Not that this means it will be less catastrophic.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warmin

Proof of the obscurantist politics of science.

I note the study of ancient weather suggesting cycles of warming going back millions of years. Elegant, but I am not swooning on that part.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.

But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.

 

[busterdog]

No one is disputing the existence of natural cycles of global warming.

What they are noting is that even during the warmest of the natural cycles there was nothing like the speed and intensity of the current increase in atmospheric CO2. No one knows what the effect of this increase will be, except to note that the level of CO2 is closely related to the average global temperature. More CO2=higher temperature. So we have two questions:

1. How did we get such high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, when nature never produced them before?

2. How will this affect the earth if (when) it drives the global temperature higher than ever before?

The answer to #1 is that we now have a significant human contribution to CO2 levels in addition to the natural cycle. And that is what we have to deal with.

The natural cycle alone would cause problems, and we need to prepare for that in any case. But we don't need to keep adding to what nature is already doing.

When that dirty black cloud of soot crosses the Pacrific or when I see fish die from acid rain in the NE, this video certainly gives me no comfort.

But there does seem to be legitimate debate about the cause of what is happening. The way that was treated was interesting to me.

Another graph would be to chart the level of real action, which probably declines with cacophany, which is what this debate has become in the media. Millions will die from flooding and weather problems, whatver the cause, and much of that is preventible.

But there will be more talk that action. Banning light bulbs and carbon taxes will do nothing but empower government scammers.

It has also seemed to me that given the choice between a clean development and pollution, even where the costs are relatively equally, the humans always want to do the dirty in their own rice bowl. Much of this pollution is just not necessary.

As for cyclical warming, probably the plague is cyclical, or avian flu. I don't fell any better about that either due to its cyclical nature.

 

[grimbly]

It would seem that Dr Wunsch is not a happy camper after seeing how they butchered his statements in that film.
http://http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response

There's a nice discussion of the film over at
http://http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=200328

Seems that the producers were a little loose with the facts. Enjoy..

 

[laptoppop]

Interesting article with new data concerning the correlation of warming and carbon dioxide:
http://mises.org/story/2571