Comparing climate skepticism to “creationism” in the classroom

Alternate title: Science education gets Gleicked

From AAAS:

“Is climate change education the new evolution, threatened in U.S. school districts and state education standards by well-organized interest groups? A growing number of education advocates believe so, and yesterday, the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which fights the teaching of creationism, announced that it’s going to take on climate change denial as well.”

Peter Gleick

Peter Gleick

“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.

“There’s a climate of confusion in this country around climate science,” says McCaffrey, and NCSE’s goal will be to ensure that “teachers have the tools they need if they get pushback and feel intimidated.” Recent surveys, such as one done among K-12 teachers in September by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), suggest that attacks on climate education are far from rare. NSTA found that over half of the respondents reported having encountered global warming scepticism from parents, and 26% had encountered it from administrators. And a December survey from the National Earth Science Teachers’ Association found that 36% of its 555 K-12 teachers who currently teach climate science had been “influenced” to “teach the controversy.”

Full story here

========================================

Besides the obviously ridiculous attempts to link creationism to climate skepticsim (apparently the serial use of the word “denier” isn’t denigrating enough anymore) we have the unfortunate appointment of Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute. PI is another handout seeking non governmental organization that publishes its own science opinions.

While Dr. Gleick is presented as an expert in climate science, he’s mostly about water and water systems. Climate seems to be just an angry diversion for him. But don’t take my word for it, have a look at how he treats others on the topic when he thinks he’s among friends.

Here’s some of Gleick’s recent publicly viewable tweets. Does NCSE really want someone on their board of education who says things like this? Think of the children.

Vampires? Hmmm, next he’ll be calling us zombies. Oh, wait, see below.

I find the “whining about water” crack incredibly insensitive in light of what is going on in California’s central valley with artificially (and natural) induced water shortages related to the Delta Smelt.

Really? We all think like that? Who knew?

He really hates Donna LaFramboise’s book. Probably because he got caught reviewing it without actually reading it. Gleick denies not reading it, but the evidence and opinion suggests otherwise.

I invite WUWT readers to read the book for yourself, and see how much “made up crap” is in it.

This one is puzzling:

It seems Dr. Gleick, the world renowned water expert, doesn’t understand/appreciate the immediate need for easily transportable drinking water when water supplies are cut off in earthquakes, floods, etc. He doesn’t seem to get the idea that when disaster strikes, ordinary people respond to the call for help and go buy bottled water to be trucked or airlifted in because they know it is something the will get immediately used. He seems to have a hatred of bottled water so intense that he’d rather see people suffer in emergencies than use it. You can read the Forbes article here. His solution? The worlds largest zipper on a 200 meter long water bag towed by tugboats. Yeah, that’ll work. Try airlifting that.

Sigh…another book he’s reviewed but apparently not read. It’s easier just to call people names than read it I guess. WUWT readers can read it here.

If you can’t argue the facts, call people names and denigrate them with ugly labels that have nothing to do with the issue. Truly professional behavior for a scientist on an education board, right?

This one though, takes the cake:

Yes, Peter, get an axe to attack those you disagree with. Class act sir.

Then we have Gleick’s Climate B.S. of the year” awards, where he tries to downplay the obvious crudeness in the title. I’m a proud recipient at #5. Of course Gleick never bothered to ask me any questions, so he doesn’t apparently know the story of why I withdrew my support for BEST and Dr. Richard Mueller. For him, I suppose it doesn’t matter when your primary work product is public denigration of others.

James Taylor sums up Gleick on Forbes:

Reading Peter Gleick’s January 5 blog post here at Forbes.com, I experienced that empathy in full force. Gleick’s global warming beliefs are misguided and unsupported by sound science, but I nevertheless empathize with his pain and frustration that few people seem to agree with him. A person of thinner skin than me might be offended by Gleick’s frustration-induced rant, but I believe the best remedy is truth and understanding. Accordingly, I understand Gleick’s pain and I will present some truths that might ease Gleick’s anguish if he listens to them with an open heart and mind.

Now compare Gleick’s angry tweets to this video of him in his office espousing as an expert on climate change, where he knows people are watching that may not be part of his Twitter follower clique. I don’t trust my own deteriorating hearing anymore, so I’ll leave it to readers to pull out and transcribe items of interest to post in comments.

The video has 217 views since Dec 30th, 2011. I’m sure he’ll be pleased that WUWT creationists chain smokers flat earthers moon landing deniers readers will make up the majority of his viewers now.

About these ads

187 thoughts on “Comparing climate skepticism to “creationism” in the classroom

  1. The major issue is that it just isn’t happening. That and the entire “climate change” we are talking about here is 0.8 degrees over 150 years.

  2. We will have to very very wary of attempts by the AGW to try to hide some pretty massive declines in temps soon, because you see this would make it absolutely positively impossible to show any warming over the last 30 years. Also be wary of changes to NH ice extent data as they often try to manipulate the borders of each section to avoid showing any declines in melting

  3. I did manage to persuade Peter that I’m not a climate change denier… When I queustioned him about his use of it on Twitter…

    But then he blocked me :(

    @Realclim8gate

  4. The issue I have with activists like Peter Gleick is that they appropriate common ground (e.g. temperature records of *whatever* bracket you like, showing warming) as partisan evidence instead of admitting that it’s common ground and that it doesn’t support what they’re trying to prove. That’s dishonest and irritating. Not irritating enough to make me waste the energy on lifting an axe, though.

  5. OK, I’ll state the obvious–Gleick should never bring an axe to a gunfight, but that would be wasting more mental energy on the guy than he’s worth.

  6. bazza norwood says:
    January 19, 2012 at 12:36 am
    [snip – personal appearance isn’t a valid issue. -A]

    True. What about Facial Expressions? Compare this to the similarly-formatted Hansen video.

    And where did the African continent vanish to on the map behind?

  7. Just the person you would not want involved in education, absolute rock solid on the propaganda and no room for opening the wonderful world of science or purity of fact. I find this mindset weird and unpalatable in his dogmatic presentation of skewed science. And disturbing that he has been appointed to an educational board.

  8. “How do I lie to thee –
    Let me count the ways”.

    Actually, I lost count at about the seven minute mark.
    And there aren’t even any NEW ones. Just the same old, same old.

    Climate change IS happening.
    Most scientists agree climate change IS happening.
    Climate change is man-made.
    Climate change is unprecedented.
    Denial = Big Oil.
    Denial = like Big Tobacco.
    Denial = well-funded, well organised.
    Denial = politically motivated.
    Denial = evolution versus creationism.
    Climate change = hotter/drier.
    Climate change = colder/wetter.
    Climate change = more/less (insert whatever required).
    Climate change = more extreme climate events and more of them.
    Climate change = rising sea levels.
    Climate change = increased spread of diseases.
    Climate change = loss of agricultural production.

    Yada yada yada yada.

    Anthony, I want my fifteen minutes back.

  9. … a December survey from the National Earth Science Teachers’ Association found that 36% of its 555 K-12 teachers who currently teach climate science had been “influenced” to “teach the controversy.”
    In other words, the “controversy”, i.e., evidence that there is no global warming, is misinformation and should not be taught. Universities, reasearch institutions, funding agencies, journals, and media have employed this rationale for censorship for years, so why not in that last bastion of free exchange of ideas, K-12 schools?
    Next, obstetric wards. Get ‘em while they’re young.

  10. Ripper at 12.42 said;

    ‘Sounds to me like it is part of the “Education_for_sustainable_development”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_sustainable_development.

    E.M. Smith had a must read post including this.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/foia-agenda-21/

    —— —–

    In response to your post I have just posted this to Chiefio

    “Sorry to be coming so late to this from a link at wuwt today.

    I wrote about agenda 21 several years ago within the context of The British governments developing policy on climate change, and the push to become the Worlds first country to legally enforce a reduction in carbon emissions.The article is still relevant and forms an interesting footnote to your own excellent piece

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/

    Like you I had originally thought the whole idea of an ‘agenda’ was crazy-but it’s not.”

    I don’t know if someone like Donna , who wrote about the IPCC, has been looking into this but there is definitely a developing story here when you look at this article, together with Chiefio’s, my own, and no doubt lots of other pieces currently not linked together.

    tonyb

  11. It’s easier to indoctrinate children, especially when they are not allowed to question

    “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”

  12. There is a lot of similarity between global warming and creationism. Global warming is the belief that “mankind must have done it … and it is true unless or until someone proves they didn’t”. Creaiontism is the belief that “god must have done it … and it is true unless or until someone proves she didn’t”.

    You can no more have a sensible argument with a global warmists than you can with a creationist. All you can do is stick to the facts and hope that most people are too sensible to go along with it. … or perhaps more practically, hope that it is essentially harmless and can be tolerated. Which unfortunately, isn’t yet the state of affairs with warmists.

  13. Poor Peter Gleick
    The man is sick
    Screaming hate when facts don’t stick
    Demanding those who disagree
    Kowtow to his pomposity
    Conflating Creationism
    As if it relates to anything
    Remotely resembling
    Empirical facts
    Currently missing
    From Gleick’s mad ramblings…

  14. Peter has nailed us ‘deniers’ I’m afraid when he says;

    “(climate change denial) is incredibly well funded.’

    He’s right, I dont know what to do with all the money that Big Oil passes to me for writing my articles on climate history, other than shovel it on the fire to keep warm. Willis is paid by the word and is currently building a large warehouse to house his collection of thirty expensive vintage cars, Monckton has just bought his third castle, whilst a myriad others who contribute here and elsewhere have got their snouts in the big oil trough. Just apply to Big oil and you too can be incredibly well funded and enjoy an Al Gore type lifestyle.
    tonyb

  15. In the UK, the Guardian online reported this last week – the article was focused on UK faith schools and the teaching of creationism

    “The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are “evidence-based views or theories” that run “contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations”.

    Our legislation is often hijacked for uses other than the original intent – creationism this week, next week – objectivity in science. The Climate Change Act 2008, passed through parliament almost without dissent by our elected sheep, represents the “established” science.

  16. Do I believe in Climate? Yes. How asked me the “Real Question”. Do I believe that CO2 Drives the Climate? No. If it did, our planet would have burned up a long time ago.

  17. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead January 19, 2012 at 12:44 am

    And where did the African continent vanish to on the map behind?

    May have something to do with the fact that Africa is not a part of Eurassia! (see large-letter heading to the map)

  18. MangoChutney says: January 19, 2012 at 1:13 am

    “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”

    Give me a global warmist at any age and I will show you a child!

  19. There are similiarities and dissimiliarities on this issue.
    The creation/evolution debate has as its background differing worldviews, namely there is versus there isn’t a God. I doubt if this is true of climate science. I have the creation view, having moved from the evolution view, so I have the minority view. I appreciate WUWT isn’t a religious forum and I don’t wish to make it one, but I think we could all agree that evolution isn’t true because the majority think so, but can only be claimed as true to the extent the scientific evidence points to this, and those who enjoy arguing this kind of issue can no doubt find places to do so, hopefully with civility. A warning light went on for me when the argument was used that just as there is a ‘consensus’ that evolution is true, sceptical views of climate change should be suppressed because there is a ‘consensus’ in favour of the IPCC/AGW view.

    As education is about imparting knowledge and information and teaching people to think critically, the suppression of any view, unless it has absolutely no scientific credibility at all – like a flat earth, amounts to indoctrination. Something has gone wrong when one side fears people being exposed to views that are different, and I suspect this is often because a legitimate fear such views cannot withstand scrutiny. My experience of ‘warmists’ is that they are unwilling even to consider evidence that does not fit the party line, it has some parallel with the mentality of people in religious cults I have spoken to, though they will hotly deny it.

    Of course it’s debatable whether a consensus veiw has ever really existed about climate change, it’s asserted without evidence(!), but the numbers holding a particular view do not determine how true it is, sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes one man or woman is right and everybody else is wrong. If truth were decided by democratic vote, then I suspect by now the sceptical side of climate change would likely win it anyway!

  20. Dr Gleick, on the off-chance that you are reading this thread, I have a question….now where do I start?
    These fossil fuel “Merchant of Death” for instance, who like the tobacco barons know full well the harm they are doing but do it just the same, having wrought world-wide climate devastation and disease etc., do they have a secret rocket launching site where they and their families have planned to head off to a new intergalactic home?

  21. All this is very interesting of course. However, considering that a couple of millenia ago in Exeter, UK, (well it seemed like it & it was v boring & predictable) a bunch of neo-leftist/warmist/dogoodist psychologists/psycho-analysts, I’m not biased ;-), held a forum one weekend to discuss the “mental health” issue of climate denial, what would a reasonablely minded psychologist make (& I know we all say it, “I’ll murder the swine” or “I’ll kill the so-on-so”, when we’re angry – it’s a figure of speech) of someone who is to be most gainfully employed, either directly or indirectly in the public education system, who advocates taking an axe to another for disagreeing with his point of view? I know what I would conclude, being a former primary school governor of 10 years standing!!!!!! Irrational & potentially homicidal, keep well away from children! :-) I have met a few psychologists in my time, most seemed reasonable people, but there were one or two I would think twice about remaining in the same room with……………………………. alone!

  22. Having read and watched his … stuff (for far too long a time) I suggest; This guy (along with everyone who claims to love the environment) should be furious that environmentalism has been over-run by lawyers, government and corporations to the point where “climate change” gets the billions and everything else get the (small) change.

    Instead he talks out of his arse.

  23. I have bought and read ‘The Book’. It is very good and it only takes a few pages to realize that it was well researched and probably 100% true. It is one book that Amazon does not sell, apart from the short Kindle version, so perhaps the story it relays is too close to being true for those Amazon activists.

  24. Isonomia January 19, 2012 at 1:14 am : makes a really important point. “Global warming is (a) belief ….”

    This is what I note amongst some of my good friends – they simply “believe” in global warming because they have been told – they really have read very little on the matter, and take the ‘science is settled’ phrase as a truth – it really strikes mean that it is a matter of ‘faith.’

    Mind you, they think I’m crazy!

  25. Latest news is in! It’s worse than we thought! “Global warming causes global cooling!”

    Global warming has increased Eurasian snow cover which cools boreal winters

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007

    Increased cloud cover has slowed summer warming in Eurasia

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014004

    Study finds no statistically significant changes in Antarctic snowmelt since 1979

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050207.shtml

  26. The question is why should NCSE appoint a controversial character such as Peter Gleick to its board of directors. How do the NCSE react to legitimate skepticism over CGAW being freely expressed in the classroom, be it from student, parent, administrator or teacher, when all they have to rely is a torrent of Peter Gleick verbal abuse and threats.

    Are teachers going to say to kids, “You are all going to burn in hell and so to your parents if you don’t all believe in Global Warming”.

    It may scare the heck out of kids but it is not a convincing and ethical educational position.

  27. Years ago, my wife and I, both teachers and academics, decided to home school our children. They are now in University, honor rolls and top of all their science classes. If they get a 99%, they feel the need to work harder. We opened this discussion up to them years ago because their public school friends were saying certain things about global warming. My kids decided to find out if this was true. They wrote essays, conducted experiments, and read thoroughly about climate history, the GISS, JAXA, and ARGO datasets. They studied ancient geography, glacier advances and retreats, human settlements and analyzed statistics. They debated their friends and their teachers, and came away winners each time because all of the people they discussed this subject with, had no actually grounding in basic math, physics or history. They learned that even adults will manipulate data to serve their own purposes and interests with no regard for the truth. Our children realized at that point what my wife and I had given them………………….an independent and open mind.

  28. We may be at the beginnng of the best of times and the worst of times. If the quietness of solar cycle 24 is followed by and equally subdued cycle 25, CAGW proponents like Gleick will be silenced by the temperature realities of another LIA. But then what nation will be prepared for its effect on world agriculture. Not much of a victory.

  29. And, no doubt, Gleick’s next fact-free smear ‘n whine will be that you’ve “unfairly” taken his tweets “out of context”!

    In formulating his “arguments”, Gleick does seem to rely on appeal to authority – particularly his own. The conspicuous absence of any evidence to substantiate his claims doesn’t seem to trouble him, in the slightest. (See also: Odes for Peter Gleick)

  30. Looks to me like the usual attempt to get the text books turned into propaganda machinery.

    Nice thing is that the snow we’re getting makes it hard to convince folks it’s hot… especially kids…

    I grew up in a VERY religious town. Oddly, the more dogma was pushed at the the kids, the more they turned out non-religious…. Heck, I was subjected to a near constant stream of Southern Baptist (were I was taken most of the time), Catholic (where I went some times) and Mormon (as they were most of the town and are required to have ‘missions’) attempts to “teach” me. Mostly just convinced me to find more fun things to do on Sunday… SO I’m pretty sure the kids will see the snow and just snicker…

    Still, it’s a worry that yet again State Money is being used to a propaganda effort.

  31. ““There’s a climate of confusion in this country around climate science,” says McCaffrey, and NCSE’s goal will be to ensure that “teachers have the tools they need if they get pushback and feel intimidated.”

    uh-uhh-huhh. They can’t even push back the obvious, i.e. creationism, but think they will succeed on something that isn’t made out one way or the other scientifically? If the discussion surrounding creationism is any indication, I don’t see this taking off.

  32. Most posters so far have responded with humor but this is no joke. This attempt by California’s Education Board to stifle debate and to enforce the brainwashing of children is sinister in the extreme. Californians should oppose this development with every tool at their disposal; esp since where CA goes in this respect the rest of the US may well follow

    It’s an attack on every precept of true education; no wonder if Education Boards think this is acceptable, people are no longer capable of thinking for themselves – which is just what the elites want, of course, so they can continue to milk us of taxes while ordering us about

  33. After reading such idiocies, I refuse to give him traction by viewing his video. Where do such morons come from and how do they gain such influence? He does not deserve the appellation “scientist”. I trust K-12 teachers have more sense than to listen to him.

  34. Sorry if this is old news but as I blogged yesterday, the IPCC itself (Nov 2011) does not expect any discernible effect of CO2 emissions on climate extremes for another two or three decades, so anybody claiming the contrary in the name of “scientists” is uninformed or a liar.

    It’s at page 9 of the SPM for the “Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)”:

    Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame

  35. „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.”

    It is a great temptation in all social areas including the area of science community and education, to give targets based on old and new ‘holy’ books to tell people to follow idols – and to tell what are the wrong idols – , but that is not the philosophical sense of education. Education is an offer of teachings, and each child is free to recognize the truth and is free to analyze the teachings. An uneducated slave has recognized himself that the area of a square grows with a square function of the sides. Sokrates has listened to him 2500 years ago.

    It’s hard to avoid the temptation to count all the empty phrases and sayings without reasonable valid arguments (Climate science, Climate change, Climate, irreversible, science opinion, climate science expert, happening, ….. ). Another temptation is to throw all the avoided explanations to the feet of the so called experts, what are the dammed physical reasons is of i.) global ice age oscillations of fixed frequencies and ii.) global temperature spectra with periods of about 1000 years until global periods of about 3 month. But it is senseless, because they say quietly ‘We don’t know, but we must tell anything for the money we get’.

    As hard it is to avoid the temptation to disqualify strange authorities because of their senseless words, on the other side it seems to me that it is also hard to walk the heavy lonesome way of science, because the crowd follows the smiling leader, despised his fallacies.

    However there are two main heat mechanism to discover, and in both the Sun is involved:
    It is not very easy to verify, but it is possible – also for a high school person – to simulate the global terrestrial temperature function for 1 Million years using simple the photon diffusion physics on the Sun:

    The second mechanism is still not understood, but the mechanism must be explainable from the sum of the tide functions on the Sun corresponding to the synodic frequency functions of special objects in the solar system with high densities, because of the empirical strength fit to the know temperature reconstructions. This can recognized best for the temperatures in the years of 1645 to 1715 AD, historians call it ‘Maunder Minimum’, because of the lack of sun spots using the tide functions of 6 planets:

    A higher resolution of the simulation can be reached using the tide functions of density 4 relevant fast running objects like Mercury:

    A detailed simulation can be reached over great time intervall using 11 relevant objects:

    This can also be recognized for a simulation over a time span of 4500 years using only one or two synodic tide function in comparison to a d18O stalagmite sample from Austria.

    Education is an offer of teachings, and each child is free to recognize the truth and is free to analyze the teachings.

    Pink Floyd sings:

    “We don’t need no education
    We don’t need no thought control
    No dark sarcasm in the class room
    Teachers leave those kids alone
    (yells) Hey, teachers! Leave those kids alone!”

    (Pink Floyd)

    V.

  36. So we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and this is creating more downward infrared radiation to hit the earth, which is basically increasing the greenhouse effect. And Peter Gleick thinks the greenhouse effect has something to do with the earths temperature?. Because its clear the earth is not getting warmer http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=fu6e09&s=5 and Antarctic Ice Mass is not declining http://tinypic.com/r/vg05lw/5 I mean look over the last 10 years, no warming http://tinyurl.com/5sbf3kd

  37. I think that the argument in schools was whether to include Intelligent Design (ID) in addition to the theory of evolution. ID is a rigorous science, not religion (creationism), see Michael Behe, William Dembski et al. I still have not obtained a satisfactory explanation of how the self-replicating RNA molecule came to be here on Earth, using processes like self-organization, random mutation and natural selection. Even after life emerged on Earth, micro-evolution was very limited in scope, adaptive changes. And after reading about recent human/ape genome comparisons, there seems to be less evidence for common descent, i.e., large non-random differences between the two genomes. The idea of macro-evolution (speciation) requires ad hoc fixes like “punctuated equilibrium” and most recently “horizontal gene transfer,” which violates the rules of random mutation and natural selection. So the idea that both theories (strengths and weaknesses) be presented to students is really the best choice, in my opinion.

  38. Yes, climate change indoctrination is like creationism, just like skeptical climate science is like evolution. One is religion (and like any religion an elaborate disguise for legalized terrorism and oppression), the other is freedom worthy of the human mind.

  39. I’m not as worried as some of the other commenters. Early propaganda can be powerful in the short term, but the record on evolution shows it’s not nearly as powerful as the commies would like. In both America and Russia, only about 25% of the population is certain about evolution; the other 75% ranges from open-minded to pro-creation. So 70 years of absolute unalloyed pro-evolution propaganda in Russia and 100 years of absolute unadulterated hard-line pro-evolution propaganda in America didn’t succeed in converting the majority of the people.

    I discussed this in more detail here: http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2009/05/ineffective-isnt-it.html

    The climate question has an additional advantage because the evidence for cooling is obvious to most people in the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence for or against evolution is much less obvious and doesn’t hit you in the face when you walk out the door every day. You don’t have to shovel fossils to reach the street!

  40. If theology (Creationism) does not belong in the science classroom, the climate change (aka global warming = junk science taken on faith) does not belong there either.

    It is quite clear that Gleick’s science in general and logic specifically is sorely lacking. How do we revoke pHD’s?

  41. I hope no one is undly surprised or astounded. This move has been telegraphed for several years already. We’ve seen its ponderous development and the apartchiks lining up behind it. No need for science in pushing this lazy, but very effective meme. Anyone have counter-measures? Thought so.

  42. To me, AGW supporters sound a lot like evolution supporters.
    They both take a simple and well acknowledged fact:
    CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    Environmental pressures cause changes in organisms.

    And conflate that into a grand theory of everything.

  43. Peter Gleick features in email 0838 were they are discussing Steve McIntyre’s request for code and data. His contribution is as follows (minor formatting edits):

    Yes, excellent point. This should be what we do. Further, we can point out that we’ve bent over backward here and provided more than typically necessary in order to satisfy persistent but inappropriate demands.
    Peter

    The “should be what we do” he is referring to is the following (my bold):

    Thanks for reminding me about the new email list.
    My point about the code is still that ‘providing the code’ can be interpreted alot of ways. I have thought about this, and imagined if in one of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide all code. I could do that just by sending the pieces with a summary file explaining what each piece was used for. It still theoretically allows someone to see how coding was done. And I do think that is a far sight easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am suggesting that one could do the minimum. Then the point is, one isn’t faced with garish headlines about ‘refusal to provide code’. I think it is harder to come up with a garish headline about ‘refusal to provide completely documented code with appropriate readme files and handholding for running it’.
    Linda

  44. Public education has been a brainwashing disaster since it was introduced by that inventor of totalitarian social mechanisms, Bismarck.

    There is nothing surprising in the fact that public education institutions are supporting and making mandatory a myth serving the main purpose of those in power, that is to stay in power by all means possible, including blatant misinformation and lavish funding of those “scientists” who agree to lie for money.

    How to fix the human nature? That is the question.

    P.S. Look at that Gleick’s face. You say appearances don’t matter? I say they do. Everything about a man, the whole story of his life is written on his face. In this particular case, it’s truly pathetic.

  45. Sam have to agree this is a very troubling development that should be hit hard before it takes hold and becomes the new benchmark to beat sceptics with ,Persons like Gleick are beyond any reasonable debate they are frothing green whacks the fact that he has dragged religion into it shows the utter invalidity of his mindset !
    As an atheist I feel no threat from those who believe in a god [ ok one group but they are a bit hotheaded anyway !] I have even no problems with creationism as it has no effect on anyone with a inquiring mind that seeks out their own path! OK not in schools but neither should be any unprovable faith based idea’s very like the ones he likes !
    So as I see it he is the only one calling for controls and bans he is the one abusing and name calling so he is the problem !

  46. I find it slightly amusing the way these folks now hate so many groups, that they are finding themselves in a smaller and smaller band of believers. I am not a religious person but I welcome all the creationists to the sceptical side of the CAGW debate. It wont be long before the CAGW fanatics turn on each other, thats what usually happens in a dogmatic movement

    Reminds me of the guy in England who was about to jump off tower bridge
    A gorgeous blonde passer-by runs up and shouts ‘dont jump. you have plenty to live for. would you like to talk?’
    ‘It’s my girl back home in NY. She didnt want me to come to the CAGW conference in london. she left me’
    ‘You believe in CAGW ? me too. wow. All that CO2, something must be done’
    The jumper looks interested ‘It’s the water vapour feedback thats the real problem’
    ‘Yes!, and it’s been proven that when the hydrates outgas it will be the end’
    ‘and the clathrates’
    ‘Yes. clathrates.The models prove it could happen by 2100′
    ‘And dont forget the back radiation , which was a brilliant discovery by the team’
    ‘Yes. back radiation’
    The jumper relaxes, eyes the blonde up and down. ‘Possibly a bit of natural ENSO variation as well’
    ‘Natural variability ?? what?’
    The blonde pushes him off the bridge into the icy thames
    ‘DENIER’

    /joke
    EO

  47. Charles Gerard Nelson says:
    January 19, 2012 at 2:46 am
    Gleick does that rhyme wit Prick or Geek

    I am guessing it rhymes with Geek.
    If it was Prick there would be no “e” in Gleick.
    He put in an “e” for eccentric or egotistical.
    ;-( Yes! pretty weak.

  48. Sean O’Connor says:
    January 19, 2012 at 1:39 am

    I’ve learnt to never trust what people say if they have a beard. I know that’s a bit of an ad-beardinem argument but it always seems to work.

    How about Galileo, Boltzmann, Mendeleev, Darwin, Koch, Pasteur, Perelman, Verdi, and Hugo, to name just a few who first come to mind? Not to mention that Hitler, Stalin and Mao the Dung were bloody shavers (beard deniers?). Think again!

  49. afiziquist says:
    January 19, 2012 at 12:20 am
    We will have to very very wary of attempts by the AGW to try to hide some pretty massive declines in temps soon, because you see this would make it absolutely positively impossible to show any warming over the last 30 years. Also be wary of changes to NH ice extent data as they often try to manipulate the borders of each section to avoid showing any declines in melting
    _________________________________
    No problem at all…record low temps would be proof positive of global warming, or at least global climate change. Heck, they even predictated that back in the early 1970’s (the coming ice age). They’ll never be wrong…they can’t be wrong. They shapeshift the theory to fit the data and connect the dots back to the need for world control.

  50. Teachers should never dictate what a child thinks, just that they think, for themselves.
    Why do some teachers find this freedom so hard to allow? Especially when they demand it so loudly for themselves.

    Oh, and I am a science teacher and I have a beard!

  51. “New so called climate change book from the heartland institute once again proves the earth is flat , humans never walked on the moon”

    Really Mr Gleick ? Then perhaps You could explain that to these guys that they are “Climate denying , flat earther , moon landing conspirisy theorists ”

  52. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of people like Gleick and many other advocates of their AGW beliefs is their disgraceful attitude towards anyone who might genuinely believe in the opposing point of view. Their endless vilification, in the rudest and most personal terms, of the huge body of professional scientists and amateur enthusiasts across the world who produce sound scientific evidence for questioning the AGW dogma, supported by sound empirical evidence, is surely proof positive that the AGW dogma is loosing all credibility. It seems that their view is ‘if your cannot challenge the science supporting an opposing viewpoint then you must attack and ridicule the creater of that viewpoint.
    For Gleick to be appointed to the board of governors of any teaching establishment in order to brainwash its pupils, as Gleick most surely will, is a traversty for that teaching establishment
    if it wishes to associate itself with true, open and genuine scientific enquiry. And woebetide any free thinking pupil who might just be sceptical. I just hope the remainder of the board at the Center for Science Education, if they read about Gleick’s ridiculous and outragous outpourings catalogued above, will realise they have made a huge error in appointing him to their board, and in the interests of good teaching and open science, will decide to cancel his appointment forthwith.

  53. In the Holocene Epoch we were promised justice for Gaia,
    By robbing the poor of the 1st world to enrich the elites of the 3rd world;
    But, though we spent plenty of money, there was nothing our money would do,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.”

    (with apologies to Kipling)

  54. He has picked the wrong side with his analogy. It is the scientific sceptic that questions the truthfulness of the biblical story. Scientific sceptics now question the truthfulness of the IPCC bible.

  55. The Science Insider article contained this gem: “Scott says that one of NCSE’s tasks will be to analyze these materials and educate teachers on why they are scientifically unsound.”

    Not “if” but “why”. This does not sound very objective.

  56. 37.Paul Marko says:
    January 19, 2012 at 2:44 am
    “…We may be at the beginnng of the best of times and the worst of times. If the quietness of solar cycle 24 is followed by and equally subdued cycle 25, CAGW proponents like Gleick will be silenced by the temperature realities of another LIA. But then what nation will be prepared for its effect on world agriculture. Not much of a victory…”

    This brings up a point that the CAGW proponents don’t want to discuss: “Can you, with 95% certainty, state that the current recorded anomalies of X (pick a database) will NEVER drop to below “zero”?

    We’ve seen a single volcano drop the temps globally by .5 degrees. We’ve seen the effect of a “dalton minimum” event on global temps. We’ve seen the effect of El Nino/La Nina on global temps.

    What happens if (or when) they do drop?

    I, for one want to be there when the curtain rises on decreasing anomalies…

  57. Anthropogenic global warming and alarmism equals creationism! They are the same faith- and dogma-based religion. No science needed. As a member of a denomination that has lots of creationists, I deal with them all the time, and have for decades. When one has so much experience, one can spot them quickly. The AGW adherents are the same as the creationists. The notions are based on authority and preconceived ideas. Both use simplistic science arguments in twisted ways to make arguments that seem convincing, but are incomplete. Both quote and cite each other in closed loops that give the appearance of open review and thoroughness. But when the facts prevail, and the hard work is done, the claims of the AGW advocates ring just as hollow as the antitevolutionists. It seems to me that proponents like Gleik are the same kind of huckster evangelists as Dr. Henry Morris. Sooner or later, the climate will prove the climate-change types wrong. I worry, that like evolution, long after the average person can go to the records and examine the evidence first hand, climate-change “faith” will live on and “deniers” will continue to be denigrated after all serious scientists move on and abandon alarmism and attempts to regulate burning. A century from now, when it is actually colder and most energy is produced from nuclear power, there will still be environmentalists and progressive extremists who are calling for restrictions on fossil fuels and for preparations for thermogedon and boiling oceans. Hansen will by then be exalted similar to Dr. Henry Morris, and our children will still be subjected to the nonsense, just like has happened with the antievolution movement. For now, it takes a bit of digging and a deliberate long-view to see that the earth has always behaved as it does now. A century from now we will have the historic data and actual records. It will be obvious by then that nature wins and humans don’t really matter that much. Still, there will be the ELF types, and M. Crichton’s State of Fear will be just as relevant then.

  58. Isonomia says:
    January 19, 2012 at 1:14 am

    There is a lot of similarity between global warming and creationism. Global warming is the belief that “mankind must have done it … and it is true unless or until someone proves they didn’t”. Creaiontism is the belief that “god must have done it … and it is true unless or until someone proves she didn’t”.

    You can no more have a sensible argument with a global warmists than you can with a creationist. All you can do is stick to the facts and hope that most people are too sensible to go along with it. … or perhaps more practically, hope that it is essentially harmless and can be tolerated. Which unfortunately, isn’t yet the state of affairs with warmists.

    I object to your statement. I am a creationist. Your views on creationists are myopic and bigoted and just plain wrong. Creationists don’t believe “god must have done it … and it is true unless or until someone proves she didn’t”. First, although God (with a capital G) has no gender, he is always referred to as a male in the Bible or Koran. There are religions with gods, but you did not says gods plural but god singular. That statement alone shows that you have misconceptions about creationists.

    This is not the time or place to get into why I believe in God. Needless to say, it is founded on facts and things I have seem with my own two eyes. My belief in God is based on faith and proof. I cannot see gravity but I know it is exists because I clearly see the effects of it; I cannot see God but I know he exists because I clearly see the effects of him. Please, I beg you, talk to someone like me as to why I believe in God and stop pigeonholing people like me. By pigeonholing me, you are doing the exact same thing you are lambasting Peter Glieck of doing.

  59. The National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE) is expanding into a different area of narrative science that needs defending. Precious. And what a perfect guy to do it. If Eugine Scott didn’t wax her mustache for a week she’d be a dead ringer for Peter Gleick. I’m not sure which of them that insults more but I’m sure it insults neither of them sufficiently.

  60. There is a real risk for propents of AGW linking up with the evolutionsit-creationist debate. If AGW is observed (as opposed to proven) to be false by the very children who are forced to trudge through snow no learn it, won’t these children also become skeptical of the evolution meme, as well? If teachers appear to be as sane as Blue Footed Boobies (no disrespect to Blue Footed Boobies) by teaching the indefensible would not all of their teaching come under scrutiny? The idea of evolution has been around since at least the time of the pre-Socratic, Anaxamander although clearly Lammark and Spenser are the groundfloor of our current views on the subject. It would be a shame to further confuse the issue in children’s minds by linking a good theory to a bad one.

  61. John Marshall says:
    January 19, 2012 at 2:11 am
    I have bought and read ‘The Book’. It is very good and it only takes a few pages to realize that it was well researched and probably 100% true. It is one book that Amazon does not sell, apart from the short Kindle version, ,,,

    It’s actually available in paperback for $14.40 from Amazon here:

    … so perhaps the story it relays is too close to being true for those Amazon activists.

    I don’t know about the rest of them, but Bezos is a libertarian.

  62. This is unfortunately one more facet of a growing problem in education in general. We no longer teach critical thought. Glieck, McCaffrey and organizations like the NCSE are all about turning our children into regurgitative automatons – “you shall think and act exactly as we tell you to.” The only way to teach critical thought (what I consider REAL education regardless of the subject), one must present more than one side of a topic or arguement. Like it or not both climate change and evolution are arguements. Present the evidence and let the individual figure it out on their own.

  63. Old text books were as full of propaganda as new ones are, just on different topics. Every decade or so, these textbooks are declared out of date and old fashioned, stamped with “discard”, and replaced with new textbooks filled with new interpretations of what we should believe and how we should behave.

    A case in point, one of my favorite phonics based early readers had a man smoking a pipe as one of the central characters. The new edition has the same man minus the pipe. And somewhere in my storage closet I have an old flashcard set of Dolch sight words, which includes a picture of a frosty mug of “beer” and a nice shiney 6-cylinder, 45 mag, “gun”. But one of my favorites is an old grade school textbook chronicling the life and times of Dick and Jane. Their mother ate, slept, and apparently went to the bathroom with her apron, stockings, and dress in picture perfect condition, while dad, in clean white shirt and tie, was happily taking a drag on whatever tobacco product he had in his mouth.

    The reasons for such propaganda-ladened textbooks (in the US; sold by just a few private for-profit companies), are probably twisted and complicated. It is enough for parents to know that it exists in all textbooks in every decade and to perform due diligence in staying involved in the education of their children, wherever it occurs.

  64. I think this is very apt for this string. From my local paper in Sussex, England:

    “Hello I am R… F…….. and I would just like to inform you about the environment. In 40 years time the world’s oil will run out and that could cause wars, which we do not want to happen after all the wars we have had, including World War 1 and 2. Also in 60 years time the world’s rainforests will have been completely demolished. If we don’t change in 80 years we could all be dead and I am only 8 years old.
    I learnt this all in one geography lesson, but that’s not what I’m writing this letter to you for. The reason is if we don’t change then we are all going to be stuck for life and I could die at the age of 88.

    RF, aged 8

    I’m trying to phrase a polite reply, not to upset RF, but to let the teacher responsible know that he/she is not doing the next generation any favours.
    Anthea Collins

  65. The hour-long NPR show “This American Life” devoted 15 minutes in its second segment (of three) last Saturday, Jan. 14, 2012, to a woman from the NCSE attempting to re-educate a home-schooled, skeptical gal of 14. The host stated that she provided evidence disproving skeptical claims, and showing that the medieval period was considerably cooler than today’s. The gal stated at the end that she hadn’t been persuaded, and that she’d like to see the points and counterpoints from both sides listed alongside each other. This was followed by a discussion between the host and the NCSE-er discussing whether it’s ever possible to get through to disbelievers.

  66. That’s okay RF. Don’t feel bad that you don’t understand climate variability and natural drivers. The other day I listened to a national news program anchor say that $99,000 (and change) was “Ninety Nine Hundred dollars” and even argued with her panel that she was right, before finally realizing her mistake and claiming “I don’t know how to read”. Adults can be wrong, including teachers and news anchors. This is a lesson you have fortunately learned at the age of 8. That will make you a very lucky and wise 9 year old.

  67. Anthony send him your CO2 vs Air in a jar video. Maybe he’ll catch on that some of CO2’s physical qualities have a cooling effect. And that good science can be taught in a class room to show/teach young folk real information.

  68. NSTA found that over half of the respondents reported having encountered global warming scepticism from parents, and 26% had encountered it from administrators.

    It would seem to me that if half of the parents and a quarter of the administrators are saying that the teachers need to adapt their methods to include skepticism then the proper course of action would not be to hire a [self snip] like Peter Gleick. I tend to think Gleick will up those skeptical percentage rather quickly.

  69. “… that WUWT creationists chain smokers flat earthers moon landing deniers readers ..”

    Moon landing deniers? There is no Lunar Sound Stage in Bldg 1420 at Johnson Space Center in Houston, and they didn’t do nine takes before they got stepping off the LEM to look believable. And then find out that Armstrong flubbed the line after it went out on air. Anyway, we’re all sworn to secrecy.

  70. I think the problems in our school systems are almost universal.

    Here in Alberta, the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) is a member of 1010.org. (A perusal of 1010.org website will confirm this). Also the CBE tried to construct a wind turbine in one of their primary school yards recently – needless to say there was an outcry from the entire neighbourhood which feared noise, an eyesore as well as slaughter of the many birds of prey that live in a city surround by the prairies.

    In Canada, it is almost weekly that we have to compensate for the harmful brainwashing of our children. I believe the situation is not far different from that of the 1900’s in Germany when German Youth were energized into a nationalistic fervor over nature and the “fatherland”. The extremist belief that nature/environment trumps anything else (food, jobs, energy, health, well being, economy) is most clearly a step along the path towards a form of patriotic fascism (Gaia being the end which justifies whatever means).

    The typical type comments by Peter Gleick are noteworthy if only because they are echoed everywhere throughout the blogosphere by other citizens. The keystone pipeline was cancelled yesterday by Obama and a perusal of comments on every news story relating to this announcement reveals rampant “hatred” against conservatives and oil companies. Despite our total dependence on fossil fuels (the relationship between standard of living and fuel consumption is undeniable), this complete hatred of the “hand that feeds” has been whipped up in our very own education systems. There is no longer any balance or rational debate. The extremists are completely opposed to any and all minimal environmental risks despite the huge and proven benefits that industry/development brings to society.

  71. Sorry, please correct my previous post to read as follows:

    Lonnie Schubert says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/comparing-climate-skepticism-to-creationism-in-the-classroom/#comment-869346

    it was relatively easy for me to figure out that man made climate change is a myth.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

    however, I have not yet been able to conclude that out of absolutely nothing,
    and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent person like Lonnie Schuber appeared.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/why-do-i-believe-in-god

  72. An interesting thread.

    Clearly the Warmistas are on the same side as Creationistas: both are faith based and doctrinal whilst those who believe in real science will be sceptical, searching and open to debate.

    To have faith denies debate (see above).

    So, an interesting thread but also very worrying that so many here are Creationistas – unless the Earth was really created 6,000 years ago.

    But the really horrifying point is Gleick and his appointment. How stupid are those who thought this remotely sensible? I hope they are elected and can be voted out! Oh, wait a minute, it’s California…

  73. !st Climate Scientist: Oh no! The IPCC doesn’t expect any discernible effect of co2 emmissions on climate extremes for another 2 0r 3 decades.

    2nd Climate Scientist: Pesky weather, guess we’ll have to turn back the Doomsday Clock a few minutes.

    !st Climate Scientist: DIdn’t we already do that?

    2nd Climate Scientist: Yes we did, but as every climate scientist should realise, the price of truth is eternal vigilance.

  74. I think the entire view of creationists are strawmanned to the point of stupidity. You have to divide them into the correct divisions

    A: Intelligent Design /Divine Puppetmaster – At one end, everything happened in scientifically explainable ways, but it was pushed along. In this case, it is impossible to determine if there was any divine interference at all.
    B: “Let There Be Light”/”Let there be Life” – Almost everything happened in scientifically explanable ways. However the generation of life and/or the beginning of the universe (both still scientific mysteries) divinely occurred.

    Those are the most common versions, but you have a lot of variation, down to the most extreme, “7 Days in 7321 BC Earth Poppage”. Every word in the Biblical histories was the exact, literal truth with no symbolism and all evidence to the contrary is lies, conspiracy, or misinterpretation.

    Now, most of these are compatible with scientific reasoning. Some are not. You cannot lump all of them together and deride the entire thing equally.

  75. Dr Gleick:

    Sharing your spirit of alarmism, I just saw a pick-up truck, pushing through our current blizzard. It had a load of very angry men with baseball bats. I am sure I saw a bucket of tar and a gunny sack of feathers. It was heading in your general direction. Please take all appropriate measures.

    My advise is to RUN! Hide! Don’t come back until it warms a little. GK
    /sarc

  76. climatereason says:
    January 19, 2012 at 1:24 am
    Peter has nailed us ‘deniers’ I’m afraid when he says;

    “(climate change denial) is incredibly well funded.’

    “…Just apply to Big oil and you too can be incredibly well funded and enjoy an Al Gore type lifestyle.”

    Ah, but can you get as much as Phil at UEA got from Shell?

  77. My Pop was educated in a one room school house to the Eigth grade.School’s still standing btw.
    I have his old readers and texts from that era. late 1900’s and early 1920’s.
    Shakespeare.Pasteur.Jefferson.Et.al.
    Free thinking was encouraged.Not a problem as it is today…
    Pop favorite thing was tracking the space program and launches, when I was a kid.
    Remember sitting on his shoulders watching Sputnik..
    Now we get to watch China and Russia fly into space…
    Glieck and others are part of the problem, not the solution..

  78. “Climate change education …”
    In as much as it has to do with science, it would be a pretty advanced and esotreric branch more suited for specialization after first learning the scientific method, empiricism, physics, chemistry, biology and other well-grounded scientific fields of study before wandering off into the speculative – based almost entrely on how one measures things. Don’t get me wrong. I make a distinction that the basics of natural history (like the presence of an ever-changing climate) and climatological events (like the reoccurring ice ages) are not the same as the multiple unproven and/or unprovable hypotheses about how climate might work and how it can(not) be predicted. In as much as it has to do with measurement and data analysis, it seems like a college statistics course – or three.

    In as much as it has to do with indoctrination, it seems suited for grades K-12 in a social science curriculum.

  79. Pamela

    You said
    ‘The other day I listened to a national news program anchor say that $99,000 (and change) was “Ninety Nine Hundred dollars” and even argued with her panel that she was right, before finally realizing her mistake and claiming “I don’t know how to read”.

    The way that numbers are portrayed can cause confusion in such matters as climate. When someone says 0.040 or 0.0040 how many people can actually translate that into a meaningful expression in words or actually imagine how small that number is? I dont think people cotton on that co2 for example is around 380 parts per million or that the vast majority of emissions are natural which puts that figure into an entirely different context. It might be useful for those people writing for a general audience to use figures AND words, especially when talking about fractions.
    tonyb

  80. The good folks over at the Resilient Earth blog has an article on this:

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-skepticism-new-creationism

    “Those who thought that the war was won and the forces of junk science—who prop up the climate change alarmists—were sent packing need to think again. With the new year, a new assault on climate skepticism is being waged on multiple fronts. Editorials in Nature and Science herald the resurgence of the climate catastrophists and their attempt to bamboozle the public, mislead government officials and brainwash our children. Wake up and smell the steer manure, the battle against the bogus boffins of climate hysteria is far from over.”

  81. “Global Warming” is no less a religion than creationism. Neither has any place in a public school classroom.

    Conflating evolution with “global warming”, especially using the very hard line “consensus is science, dissent is denial” meme, is a very bad thing for the future of science. When “global warming” sinks beneath the waves, that anchor is now going to be chained to the neck of evolution, and to the publics trust in science generally.

    As a scientist, that is my fundamental objection to the “global warming” religious/political movement.

  82. I got quite a chuckle when I checked the details of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) poll that the article’s author referenced to “suggest that attacks on climate education are far from rare” in the quote:

    “Recent surveys, such as one done among K-12 teachers in September by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), suggest that attacks on climate education are far from rare.”

    It seems that much of the National Center for Science Education’s (NCSE) angst is really about the question:

    “Have you faced skepticism about climate change education from students?”

    82% of teachers said they had. Conspicuously, the article’s author “forgot” this particular detail.

    In my experience kids have an innate ability to perceive when they are being snookered. So, it appears the NCSE’s problem core problem is that AGW advocates are simply not believed.

    The fact that that 54% of teachers received push back from parents is also encouraging. Particularly given that considerable skepticism is evident among college educated Republican women. Women are the group most likely to be involved in school activities and prepared push back… and know how to do it.

    The NCSE’s also appears to be conspicuously evading clear antidotal evidence of considerable skepticism in the teaching community as well. The NSTA polling site included a number of quotes from teachers. Many of these quotes are real gems. See the sample below:

    “I believe that “climate change” education is used to indict western civilization of false[ly]-manufactured crimes. Most of what the general news media and the education establishment insist upon as true science is simply not. Also, the numerous incidents of researchers altering data and cherry-picking sensor locations in order to influence data have left the United Nations’ and other groups’ theories and claims discredited and untrustworthy.
    —Other, Middle School, High School, Ohio”

    “As an educator in the field of science for 10 years, I am myself still very skeptical…I see too many dollar signs involved in this indoctrination.
    —Educator, Middle School, Oklahoma”

    “I am teaching my students that there is little to no evidence that climate change is [hu]manmade and that the reason that it is such a big deal is because of the money that is being exchanged in order for scientists to support the idea.
    —Educator, Middle School, New York”

    “Poor science on the climate change and obvious falsification of data as shown in the “Climategate” memos…Present side-by-side presentations: Give Al Gore two days, and I do a counterpoint on one day.
    —Educator, High School, Kansas”

    “Politically based, not science based…students either believe [humans are] the evil-doer[s] of all that happens in this world, or they disbelieve in global warming.
    —Educator, Middle School, California”

    The bottom line: It looks like a majority of students, parents, and teachers simply don’t believe in the AGW advocacy within the classroom… and are not prepared to simply roll over and accept it.

    Regards,
    Kforestcat

  83. AGW Alarmisim uses the same arguments as Creationism.

    Intelligent origin of a natural process: World created by intelligent being. / Climate change caused by intelligent being.
    Authority provides all evidence: “The Bible tells me so” / “The IPCC tells me so.”
    They both use mockery and ridicule as arguments.

    They are cut from the same cloth.

  84. when stating a supposed ‘fact’ that one doesnt believe is true, the person doing the stating tends to blink. not only do they blink but in a very different form. it is typically an ‘extended’ one. watch the video and see for yourself. try to pick a sentence that isnt complete bullsh**t and watch how the actions are different compared to when he knows he speaks untruths. OR he is the most condescending a88hole in the world (or maybe just over the parts of the world that were used to collect data for BEST…which would really limit how much of an a88hole he is).

  85. Trying to compare attempts to teach creationism in schools to attempts to teach the scientific facts about non-existence of Human caused global warming is nothing short of bizarre. The boot is on the other foot. The scientific evidence for the occurrence of evolution is positively overwhelming (fossil record, radioactive dating techniques, DNA analysis etc etc). So trying to teach creationism in schools is clearly anti-science. The only possible scientific teaching regarding climate change in schools IS that the mass of scientific evidence shows that the hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming has been found to be a dishonest hoax.
    It is the teaching of CAGW in schools which is anti-science and NOT the other way round.

  86. Possibly slightly OT and not sure if anybody outside of the UK will be able to access the podcasts, but this could be interesting: Next Thursday (26th Jan) there is a discussion being held on BBC Radio 4’s series “In our Time”. These are chaired by left-wing, arty, media luvvy and confirmed CAGW believer, Melvyn Bragg and the topic is The Scientific Method. Here’s the spiel from the website:

    Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the evolution of the Scientific Method, the systematic and analytical approach to experimentation. In the centuries since the birth of the modern sciences, thinkers have recognised that we can only construct an accurate picture of the universe if we succeed in escaping the influence of our own preconceptions and beliefs. Many great philosophers and scientists have examined this problem, and proposed methods, such as the testing of hypotheses, to eliminate such bias. Today the rules and process of the Scientific Method are crucial to any meaningful scientific research.

    Producer: Thomas Morris

    It will be interesting to see if Climateology is mentioned and if so whether Melvyn learns anything. It’s certainly going to be difficult to rationalise the state of climate science with the scientific method so I put money on Melv to stear the discussion well clear.

    The details can be found at the Beeb website here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01b1ljm

  87. Gleick, like Mooney and Romm, is just another profiteer hack pushing AGW.
    All three make a good living pushing AGW propaganda, and none of them are able to actually deal with the issues. Instead they rely on bigotry like eugenics, critiques on books they don’t read, and temper tantrums to avoid communication.

  88. Wade (January 19, 2012 at 6:14 am ), as a fellow Creationist, but of a different religion and of a significantly different sort, I can sympathise with you…only up to a point, though. Fortunately, my kind of creationism, the Modern Orthodox Jewish variety which admittedly may not be your cup of tea, assumes that G-d created the world and the universe, somehow made humankind and gave it a mission and a purpose. This view doesn’t take the creation narrative in Genesis as a scientific description listing time frames and sequences literally. It treats such narratives as simplified and brief figurative preambles in a document that mainly reads as a detailed contract between G-d and mankind and a blueprint for an ethical and worshipful life….i.e., anything but a better-believe-it-or-else textbook on physics and biology.

    This is not a recent rationalisation or a convenient cop-out in the face of undeniable scientific discoveries for us, but a position in a well-established tradition that goes back to at least the Middle Ages. The legitimacy of a rationalistic, evidence based inquiry into the mysteries of our universe and the mechanics behind our kind is covered in the Talmud and even the mystical traditions, Kabbalah, both of which allow honest inquiries through rational, materialistic, scientific and non-mystical means. This tradition assumes that while we may have greater tasks and goals, it is still our job to understand Creation as we see and experience it, and to do this by the rules and tools of human thought and skill with which the Almighty has gifted us.

    That being neither here nor there, where differences in faith or lack thereof are concerned, I’m not fishing for a theological debate or attempting to sway you into my camp. But I will boast that my approach doesn’t set me against obvious and clearly established realities such as evolutionary processes, the age of the universe, geological time frames and who-knows-what-else we are bound to still discover. To me, the idea that G-d would concoct an elaborate hoax salted with a gazillion pieces of evidence to apparently and inexplicably mislead our senses about our world, to trick our logic and ways of knowing about our physical universe and then to punish us for doubting, is not only absurd to me, but verges on a blasphemous contempt of G-d. But that’s me.

    In any event, friend, when on a science site, surrounded by people grounded in rationalistic, evidence-based thought, expect to see some knocks at the absurdities of literalist Creationism. And don’t hope for much help from Creationists of my kind, who regret that that our views, our open theology and respect for empirical science are being eclipsed, shamed and debased by the literalist quackery of uneducated rural pastors in backwoods churches and pseudo-scientific cranks in bible colleges. Sorry for the strong opinions on that, and no insult directed at you, but that’s them facts as I sees them and tell them.

  89. I suspect Ms Scott is indeed concerned about boredom in her membership base, and is glad to have found another thing to be annoyed about and keep the funding coming in for her staff. What better choice than the wealthy climate alarmism sector for funding, and Mr Gleick for hyperbole to stir things up and present the NCSE as fighting the forces of darkness and ‘anti-science’? I am encouraged, though, by the ostensible goals of her organisation, which boil down to encouraging good science in schools. If they follow that path and study the weak arguments and evidence of the alarmists, they will become their arch-enemies. But first they have to get past the powerful PR and other manipulative tactics of that sector. I hope they do so quickly, before much more harm is done by the pushers of fearful alarmism in schools, not least by those who see this as a good way to recruit ‘little climate activists’. A few more thoughts on all this here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/

  90. Oh, goodie, that bastion of scientific objectivity, the NCSE steps into the climate fray.

    At least Scott got this part right: “. . . she says she began to see “parallels” between the two debates . . .” Scott mistakenly thinks one parallel is “–namely, an ideological drive from pressure groups to “teach the controversy” where no scientific controversy exists.”

    That’s right folks, there is no controversy. All is consensus science. Everyone move along now.

    The real parallels are in fact quite striking. Just off the top of my head: (i) an authoritative claim of “consensus” among all scientists, when science doesn’t operate that way and there is serious question about the extent or breadth of the consensus in any event, (ii) labeling those who dare question the status quo with pejorative labels, (iii) claiming that all who question the status quo are “anti-science” and, therefore by definition, not worthy of consideration, (iv) official proclamations from organized science organizations that the science is “settled” and that there is no debate, (v) failure to properly define and quantify what is being discussed so that terms and definitions are slippery and can serve the particular consensus claim being made, (vi) reliance on models about things that are not currently observed but that allegedly occurred in the distant past or could occur in the distant future, (vii) an organized campaign behind the scenes to keep papers out of scientific journals, (viii) an organized campaign behind the scenes to sack journal editors who dare publish articles against the consensus . . .

    We could come up with more parallels between the two debates — they are indeed quite striking.

    I’m glad to see the NCSE weigh in on the horrors or climate change — it will help people to see the propaganda for what it is.

  91. The use of ad hominem attacks is telling. For thousands of years the rhetorical device has been the desperate refuge of debaters who recognize they can no longer effectively counter propositional statements, but have not the sense to abandon a debate they cannot win.
    From a strategic point of view it is encouraging.
    Of course, the best counter to it has always been to point out this fact.

  92. The Bible is a spiritual book and is not a book about science. And science can’t do anything to prove or disprove the existence of God. There SHOULD be no conflict between the Bible and evolution. The problem is some Bible scholars incorrectly draw the conclusion the earth is 6000 years old when nowhere does the Bible say that. And some scientists incorrectly say these old bones dug up out of the ground prove the is no God.

    Not saying one way or the other if Albert Einstein was a Christian, but he did believe in a higher power:
    “The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”
    -Albert Einstein

    So I guess some think evolution science has evolved so much since Einstein was here that we now KNOW there is no God? Prove it! No? I didn’t think so.

  93. So Climate Warming Holy Rollers™ are just as uptight as the Christian, Maoist, Moslem and Hindu varieties. How knew??

    Frankly I have no problem with the religious and I understand the view that one must express to others one’s opinion as a duty to what they feel is sacred. Some feel they have a duty to save CO2. Well, they should be the example of what they advocate. People can perhaps learn by their example and dedication.

    The problem comes when any particular group (or individual) view is forced on the general population because of the fervour of the adovcate. It is typical of the missionary zeal that led to the destruction of library of the Incas, for example, because as the monks said, they could not find in it any reference to Jesus Christ (in an acceptable form).

    The anti-scientific reasoning of the monks burning libraries is no different from the anti-scientific reasoning of those who burn data and fabricate ‘pope-ish’ blogs exhorting the faithful to punitive holy-war action against the heathen who, in any case, deserve no respect or tolerance. The pattern of behaviour is evident thoroughout history: fleeing true Religion for a man-made imitation of it, then inflicting wrath upon those who question the petty orthodoxies that spring from their vain imaginations.

    Is there any doubt that the AGW crusade is anything other than vainty and the desperate defence of those who have lost any semblance of probity? It is long past the stage of them knowing they are fabricating evidence. The environment is a deeply moral subject.

    There is however, to use a religious term, an abomination: that nothing is being done at the global level to prepare us for the coming food shortages that will result from the downturn in temperature when so much is already known about its inevitability.

  94. Sorry, Lonnie, I seemed to get the impression from your post here that you did not believe in God.
    I was wrong.
    Your views are interesting and thought provoking. Something to discuss for hours and hours, whilst having a few sundowners. Perhaps that is why God created: To have friendships. That is what I think. But, in the way that an artist creates an artwork: He cannot be in His own artwork. The best He could do is leave an image of Himself, by the example of the life that He led on earth. And He believes that we will pick up on that, in a way that I am there for you (when you need me) and you are there for me, (when I need you). That is the test/choice for everyone in life…. (Matthew 25)

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/what-was-that-what-henry-said-3

  95. Evangelical Christian here, who teaches science in my high school classroom. I therefore teach neither creationism or AGW.

  96. Mike Wilson, Einstein was actually a Jew. Not strictly observant and quite secular in outlook, but he did have his bar mitzvah, was a Zionist, and throughout his entire life fully identified as a Jew. However as much as I admire Einstein for his science, I find his or any scientist’s belief or lack of belief in G-d to be entirely useless as pro or anti “proof” in any discussion. While unlike Einstein I’m fairly observant and theistically-inclined, I don’t think good rational arguments, proofs or dis-proofs, can be made by either side at this point.

    Otherwise, I agree with your first paragraph in that faith and science are two different systems of knowing which need not be mutually incompatible. The letter should be taken with a grain…no, make it a block… of salt, though, I’d caution. Attempts by some to make them compatible, to “force” a happy middle ground are often simplistic, misguided and ultimately futile, leading to even more misunderstanding. It’s far better for both sides to retain decorum and to agree to disagree on some of the issues. In my own case, I’m quite comfortsble with befuddlement, mysteries and lack of answers (no choice really, what with being neither a particularly good theologian or scientifically very literate) and I simply assume that science and religion are two entirely different ways of knowing about different aspects of existence, which may overlap and compete in some areas, but mostly address very different issues.

  97. I believe in evolution. How could I not? It was taught to me as absolute fact from grade school on. The church I grew up in viewed the Genesis creation story as figurative, symbolic. It seemed that the ONLY alternative was Creationism (i.e. a literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative) and this always seemed preposterous to me. I never questioned evolution. I always conflated “Intelligent Design” with Creationism and dismissed it out of hand. Just within the last year or so I encountered a comment thread right here at WUWT that discussed Intelligent Design so I did a little reading about ID. Turns out there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution that I either never was aware of or never bothered to question. I still believe in evolution but I approach these discussions today with an open mind. The real epiphany I had was when I realized that I was indoctrinated. Evolution was taught as absolute scientific fact and none of the weaknesses were ever presented. The lightbulb came on while I was railing against the fraudulent AGW theory being taught as absolute fact to school children. I realized that I, too, was taught to accept an unproven (and unprovable) theory as scientific fact since I was a child (I turn 55 next week).

    Evolution and AGW are very different theories. Though it’s incomplete, we have about 150 years of pretty good evidence – PHYSICAL evidence – to support evolution. We have maybe 2 or 3 decades of conflicting and contorted “data” and manipulated computer models that support the AGW theory. Evolution is no longer a political issue. AGW is almost entirely a political issue. Belief in, acceptance of or denial of evolution doesn’t really change anybody’s life. It doesn’t affect global economies. It doesn’t diminish standard of living. It doesn’t lead to a worldwide redistribution of wealth or loss of national sovereignty. With evolution we’re guessing about the past. With AGW we’re trying to divine the future. It’s hard enough to determine exactly what has already happened. It’s impossible to predict what is yet to be.

    Warmists love to compare evolution to AGW. How could you possibly believe in one unprovable theory (evolution) yet “deny” another unprovable theory (AGW)? Truthfully I’m rather pissed that the valid doubts inherent in the evolution theory were never presented to me. Google them – I think you’ll be amazed. Go to the ID sites rather than the religious Creationist sites. They make some very good points that are quite thought provoking.

    I think evolution and ID (not Creationism) should be taught in schools – as THEORIES. Accordingly, I think it’s fine if the AGW theory is taught in schools as long as the other side of the debate is presented as well…and they’re explained as THEORIES rather than proven fact. Finally, I agree with a previous commenter – I think it’s far more important that school kids K-12 (and early college) learn chemistry, math, biology, physics and basic Earth sciences before they can be expected to actually understand even the basics of climate science.

  98. The NCSE needs to address this extremely serious problem.

    All these evil parents and evil children need to be questioned about their lack of faith in the truth of CAGW.

    I propose that they adopt the “proven methods used by the Spanish Inquisition” and implement said at all levels of schooling.

  99. OMG – we got the intelligent design extremists out… Another attempt to prove God exists!

    Hello hello – of course things look intelligently designed, what else could anyone expect ? Evolution has a few billion years to work with!!

  100. Once I had grown weary of listening to a co-worker’s creationist rants while arguing with another co-worker’s Darwinian rants. I implored them to shut up with the extemporaneous proclamation that “Evolution IS Creation”. At the time I did not know of “Intelligent Design” philosophy. I had felt it though, in my own self-generated philosophy.
    Adam and Eve were not God’s “Ken and Barbie” in Eden, as depicted Genesis.
    Nor is life on Earth a random occurrence as Darwin implies.
    I mean, come on.

  101. Upon reading Donna L.’s “Delinquent Teenager…” book, I was stricken by an observation of hers that I had not heard put so succinctly before. The gist is: With human-caused global warming the problem – warming, is presented to us, the masses, inextricably linked to the solution – the control of fossil fuels. With no debate allowed on either argument.
    She’s right, this AGW scare does stink from the onset.

  102. Jeremy said, “Evolution has a few billion years to work with!!”

    Since it appears at the beginning of a sentence, it’s anyone’s guess whether Jeremy capitalizes “evolution.” It appears to enjoy a rather important status of some sort. Perhaps, not to take his presumed Creator’s name in vain, he could even spell it “Ev-lution” or Evol-tion.” Philosophers would, of course, have a giggle over the origins and deeper meaning of the “work” bit, whereas simpler souls might ask about where the time thing suddenly came from. Must be from his watch. Which…works! My, are we all brilliant today.

  103. “Nor is life on Earth a random occurrence as Darwin implies.
    I mean, come on.”

    OMG – we are special and the Earth is special! All created for a divine purpose!!!

    I mean, come on.

    Why did the “divine being” bother creating all the countless other galaxies if the Earth is such a special place? And why are we not at the center of everything like we should be if it was not all random?

  104. The NCSE position on this is simple nonsense and illogical, for people can fully support the idea of climate change , the fact their not sitting very flatly under half of mile or ice my help them here , but still not support or have good concerns about AGW .Not even the IPCC claim there one an the same thing , so why NCSE pull the offensive and stupid ‘climate change deniers’ BS is anyone’s guess .
    But given who they have chosen form an alliance with its clear the S out of NCSE no longer stands for science in any real sense.

  105. Jeremy asks: “Why did the “divine being” bother creating all the countless other galaxies if the Earth is such a special place?”

    As a theist myself, the simplest and most honest answer I can offer here is, “I don’t know”. Theists are allowed to say that. Not having an answer to such a question does not disprove the existence of God.

    Jeremy also asks: “And why are we not at the center of everything like we should be if it was not all random?”

    Why should we be at the center of everything?

  106. “Nor is life on Earth a random occurrence as Darwin implies.”

    You…you don’t really know what Evolution by Natural Selection actually is…do you?

  107. “Not having an answer to such a question does not disprove the existence of God”

    No, but you actually have to *prove* God first. If you’re making the claim that ‘X’ then you have to demonstrate that ‘X’ is true; saying “well that doesn’t disprove it!” is irrelevant because you’ve yet to demonstrate the validity of the conclusion in the first place.

  108. Bill says: “No, but you actually have to *prove* God first. ”

    Until I make a statement of fact, I don’t have to prove anything at all. I was merely addressing a question Jeremy asked. He did not ask if God exists, but rather why He would make so many galaxies. And again, not knowing why, does not speak to the question of the existence of God. That’s an altogether different question.

  109. @ CW “Why should we be at the center of everything?”

    As far as I can tell, the Universe extends the same distance in every direction from me. If it is the same distance in every direction, then obviously I am at the centre of everything. The universe revolves around me.

  110. @ Jeremy. “Why did the “divine being” bother creating all the countless other galaxies if the Earth is such a special place?”

    Decoration. It costs him nothing, and it makes the universe pretty.

  111. California columnist Steve Frank looks at the graduation rates of California schools: ‘This is from the Los Angeles Times, “L.A. Unified’s estimated graduation rate for the four-year period is 55%. However, the state’s new system places the district’s rate at 64.2%.

    And a broadly adopted formula used by the National Center for Education Statistics credits L.A. Unified with graduating 70.4% of high school students in four years.”
    So what is it—55, 64 or 70% graduation rate?
    It should be noted that last year the dropout rate, statewide, was about 40% and LAUSD admitted to a 60% dropout rate. Could things have improved so much in the past year?’
    _______________
    The horrible dropout rates for these schools which push social agendas, rather than provide basic academic skills, show evidence of being manipulated and hidden. A missing student can be reported as “homeschooled” or “truant.” 20,000 students in CA are stuck on waiting lists to attend charter schools, while those who can afford it leave the failing educational system and send their children to private school, or they choose to homeschool. Meanwhile Gleick et al whinge on about the “push back from parents” concerning the global warming farce, and seek greater regulations for schools and students that do succeed.

    I am sure we can all agree on this: there is absolutely no evidence of intelligent design – in the California public school system.

  112. Bill says:
    January 19, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    “Not having an answer to such a question does not disprove the existence of God”

    No, but you actually have to *prove* God first. If you’re making the claim that ‘X’ then you have to demonstrate that ‘X’ is true; saying “well that doesn’t disprove it!” is irrelevant because you’ve yet to demonstrate the validity of the conclusion in the first place.

    ————————–

    You ‘know everything’ people have yet to prove you know everything..

    Your claim is implicit..

    Intelligent Design could be rephrased as Guided Evolution..

    does that change your mind? or are you still a bigoted atheist that can’t handle the thought that humans aren’t the greatest thing in the universe..

  113. The Universe is a soccer ball God created. The big bang is God kicking the ball. The ball has curve from spin. Ball goes where it may. God starts again.

    =========

    can anyone disprove this statement..?

    (here’s where this belongs ;-) )

  114. @Mike Wilson

    1. Einstein did not believe in God in any conventional Jewish sense. He publicly declared belief in Spinoza’s God. Spinoza’s ideas were so un-Jewish he was expelled from the Synagogue and cursed by the Dutch Jews.* But his letters reveal that he thought that Judaism was childish superstition. Text here:

    http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

    and here

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

    2. He was only a cultural Zionist. He opposed the establishment of the state of Israel. There is a good discussion here.

    http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm

    *Now that Spinoza is classed as one of the great philosophers he is reclaimed as a great Jewish philosopher rather than as a Dutchman, and they insist on calling him Baruch (his synagogue name) rather than Bento or Benedict, which were the names he used himself.

  115. ‘Tis a pity that my comment has generated far too many participants in this forum talking about whether or not God exists — which is not really the point.
    The point is that science is on the side of the occurrence of evolution — as many of you mercifully concede. And science is also on the side of those who reject the hypothesis of human caused (CO2 caused) global warming. In both cases the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
    So, the teaching of creationism in science classes is in no way equivalent to the teaching of the skeptical rejection of the CAGW hoax. It is only the CAGW dupes who makes this invalid comparison.
    The teaching of creationism in science classes makes not sense and the teaching of the CAGW religion in science classes is equally inexcusable.
    We ought to be consistently on the side of honest science and surely that is exactly what WUWT is all about.
    Whether or not God exists and deep philosophical speculation about the nature of God and human spirituality does not enter into the story.

  116. It is not correct to presume that epistemologies which do not a priori deny the possibility of a personal beginning also reject the concept of fact, and belong in some “upper story” of provability. It is generally good form to let a viewpoint explain its own views rather than forcing your views of them into their mouths.

    Creation model science deals in data and fact. It isn’t about an existentialist “leap of faith” ID, which is an entirely different thing, a form of neo-Darwinism which does not make the a priori assumption of no personal actor, should not be confused with it. There are proponents of the former, and possibly proponents of the latter which live up to the stereotypes, but it is exactly of a piece with the way warmists deal with skeptics. What is needed is rigorous science, not a priori assumptions that are never examined on pain of job loss, refusal to publish, or comment deletion.

  117. “I agree with your first paragraph in that faith and science are two different systems of knowing which need not be mutually incompatible”

    Faith is not a system of knowing at all. It brings no new knowledge. It is simply systematic self-deception.

  118. “It’s not like we’re bored,” says NCSE Director Eugenie Scott. “But we were running short of funds, and let’s face it: Fighting Creationism pays dick. I’m sure we can get a government grant in today’s liberal Washington for this program, maybe even enough to make us relevant again.”

  119. @ Van Grungy

    “You ‘know everything’ people have yet to prove you know everything.”

    But Bill says he doesn’t know. You are the one claiming knowledge.

    “Intelligent Design could be rephrased as Guided Evolution.”

    When there is compelling evidence for guidance, then I will accept it.

    “or are you still a bigoted atheist that can’t handle the thought that humans aren’t the greatest thing in the universe.”

    I do not seriously claim to be the greatest thing in the universe. I simply don’t see a reason for believing God exists.

  120. Absurdities:
    * birds can’t outfly climate change
    * clown fish drunk on CO2.

    Contradictions
    * Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect
    * Global warming could cool down northern temperatures in winter

    False Prophesies
    * Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
    * Drought is permanent in Australia,

    Intolerance:
    * 10/10
    * gassing of skeptics

    Looks like a religion to me.

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

    (see table on right)

  121. And there was I having posts deleted cuz U don’t do religion on this blog.

    [Unless there’s an exception, like an article about a specific subject, such as comparing skepticism with creationism. Normally religious discussions that creep into science threads are discouraged because they tend to get out of hand fast. ~dbs, mod.]

  122. Ted Swart:

    “The point is that science is on the side of the occurrence of evolution . . . So, the teaching of creationism in science classes is in no way equivalent to the teaching of the skeptical rejection of the CAGW hoax.”

    True. If, that is, we use a definition of “evolution” much narrower and more limited than what is typically presented in school and if we use a definition of “creationism” that is akin to something like Biblical literalism.

    On the other hand, the possibility that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a super-dense, information-rich, multi-layered, 4-bit digital coding system with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing sophisticated file allocation tables, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, and advanced protocol hierarchies is more likely the result of intelligent activity than a series of coincidental accidents is most certainly a valid scientific question — one that any objective individual, even in the classroom, might do well to consider.

    “It is only the CAGW dupes who makes this invalid comparison.”

    Agreed, it is only those who are trying to push a “consensus” view of science (which is precisely what Eugenie Scott referred to) who try to draw the invalid comparison. There are plenty of folks who accept evolution (writ large) and reject CAGW, and probably vice-versa.

  123. Having debated creationists for quite a few years now and having lately started to follow the debate on this and related websites, it never ceases to amaze me how alike the two groups (creationists and folks who are…not too keen on the idea of anthropogenic global warming) and their way of discourse are. People on this website are generally better educated and more well-informed, though, and remind me more of Intelligent Design fans. I can certainly see why the NCSE would like to get involved, but I do hope they make a better job of it than they have so far.

  124. “I trust K-12 teachers have more sense than to listen to him.”

    I think the ones that do are rare. I teach AP Environmental Science at our homeschool academy, so joined the teacher listserv run by the College Board. All I can say is… “Wow.” There are many laments about parent “deniers,” colleagues who dare to question, kids who are foolish enough to enter the classroom with a styrofoam cup, etc.

    I made a comment early on about the history of science teaching us to be humble in our ignorance. I suggested that they teach the kids how to research their concerns about data, analysis, etc. And to include a lesson on logical fallacies during the semester. You can only imagine the welcome I received in this community…

  125. I have been thinking about the parallels between the creationist/evolution debate and the climate change controversy for a while, except that I equate the AGW proponents with the creationists. 

    In the 1970’s, the University of Texas sponsored a debate between two esteemed biologists and two members from the Creation Institute. One of their rationalizations put forth to explain modern day observations of natural selection at work was to accept the reality of “horizontal evolution” but reject the possibility of “vertical evolution,” though the mechanisms were identical. 

    Blinded by their ideology of what they would and wouldn’t accept, they made these bizarre rationalizations. Similarly, the AGW folks’ inability to look at climate variation over geologic time seems comparable to what the creationists did with their distinction of evolutionary processes being special and unique over the short term but impossible over the long term. Climates are varying over the long term and short term due to the same mechanisms – both the creationists and AGW proponents won’t interpret the data in front of them due to interference from more powerful belief systems.

  126. Roha says:
    I simply don’t see a reason for believing God exists.

    Henry@Roha
    it was relatively easy for me to figure out that man made climate change is a myth.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

    however, I have not yet been able to conclude that out of absolutely nothing,
    and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent person like Roha appeared.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/why-do-i-believe-in-god

    To quote from the above:
    What about the question: where does matter itself come from? Where did all the atoms that form the person that you are and the earth that you are living on and the air that you are breathing, came from? If you believe there is no God, then obviously in the beginning there must have been absolutely nothing. Good for you if you believe in the Big Bang theory. But the question still remains: where did all the matter that forms the universe, originate from? You see what the problem is? It does not make sense to believe that there is no God because that in itself is not logical. In fact, if you believe there is no God, you are actually saying that you believe that out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being. Now, for you to believe that such a miracle could have happened, you must actually have a much bigger faith than that of a person simply believing and admitting that there is a Higher Power, a God who created him for a specific plan and purpose…

  127. I’m guessing they were tasked to find a rabid intellectual who unquestioningly supported the offical dogma, and in the end they just had to go with rabid.

  128. There’s nothing like sticking your fingers in your ears and going La La, La La very loudly to win an argument.
    As those who question AGW have come to expect in reply to their questions and offering of looking at actual readings.
    James Bull

  129. HenryP: What about the question: where does matter itself come from?

    Everything comes from the bifurcation of nothing into positive and negative domains, i.e.: 0 = -1 + 1
    A period of early hyperinflation produced “the ultimate free lunch”…

    ~~~~~~~~
    “There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeros after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raise the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy in the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, once can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels out the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.
    Stephen Hawking, Brief History of Time, p.136
    ~~~~~~~~

  130. Khwarizmi (or S.Hawking) says
    But that just raise (sic) the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy in the universe is exactly zero.

    Henry@Khwarizmi
    do you see that that statement above does not make sense?

    I think many believers in God including those of the Jewish and Moslem faith (Exodus 14:24) and even those in the past who believed in the Sun as their God, can understand that God= energy + intelligence.
    We can also perceive that His intelligence is bigger than ours, but unfortunately, unlike the popular belief of some, He is not like Superman in the sky. Jesus said that you must compare Him with someone like your father when you were a child.

  131. The key part of Gleick`s video is at 1:34 to 1:44, where he says: “..and it`s our understanding of the natural components (of climate change) that is what really tells us that the changes we seeing today cannot be explained purely by natural phenomena.”

    It`s a bluff, there is no chance of explaining natural variation or “climate disruption” without considering short term solar factors.

  132. “Anne says:
    January 19, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    I have been thinking about the parallels between the creationist/evolution debate and the climate change controversy for a while, except that I equate the AGW proponents with the creationists.”

    Exactly right Anne. That is the only logical comparison to make. The sooner we teach genuine science in schools the better.

  133. “Anne says:
    January 19, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    I have been thinking about the parallels between the creationist/evolution debate and the climate change controversy for a while, except that I equate the AGW proponents with the creationists.”

    I equate the AGW proponents with psychiatrists, they say it`s all down to a chemical imbalance, and believe it`s too late for a cure.

  134. One of the best examples of the futility of the theist vs. atheist disputation can be found in a post by RoHa, a few posts above. Therein two proponents of the atheist and materialistic paradigm exchange a joke. Jeremy, asks, “Why did the ‘divine being’ bother creating all the countless other galaxies if the Earth is such a special place?” A reasonable question, to be sure. And RoHa quips, just as reasonably unbeknowst to him/her, “Decoration. It costs Him nothing, and it makes the universe pretty.” Dissecting the underpinnings and implications of these two quips can fill volumes and take centuries, and will still not be resoved to everyone’s satisfaction.

    We’re wrestling over explanatory models based on cultural realities, philosophical inclinations and degrees of probability, not over evident or verifiable, fool-proof certainties…assuming the latter is even theoretically possible, given our limitations. Otherwise, we’d know for sure and we’d all either be atheists or theists. Science, though, stands quite apart from all of this, being a methodology, a strategy, an inqury system. It’s an incredibly successful means of knowing, but as such, has inherent limitations as well and these limitations are just as hard on the materialistic paradigms as the theological ones. In any case, both theists and atheists can be hopelessly stumpted by a number of good alternate explanations or speculations, such as the simulated universe theory. That one’s based on purely materialistic and theoretically possible principles and yet raises a reasonably strong challenge to the presumed reliability and certainties of observation.

    No wonder our moderators want to shy away from such discussions!

  135. This sure puts a new light on the Fahrenheit 451 book and film. Now the temperature police will drag you away if you mention that the earth is cooling when it is obviously not supposed to. The brown shirts are gathering their forces now to round up the scattered opposition. And punish the students with more doses of ADD meds too.

  136. Henry@PeterKovachev
    If you define religion as: seeking God’s face and asking Him to show you which is the way (to do good) and you define science as doing tests and measurements and evaluations to find out what to do (to do good), then it should not take you very long to figure out that science and religion are two paths that both must lead to the truth.

  137. On important measures, evolution and AGW share strong similarities. Both are the dominant official paradigms within the scientific establishment and societal institutions, while anti-evolution and climate scepticism occupy minority positions, and all that entails.

    There are also numerous and strong similarities in the arguments made by anti-evolutionists and climate sceptics about their respective opponents. Among them are claims of:

    Corrupted science; media bias; accusations of religion/cult; evolution/AGW as groupthink; no consensus; politically inspired science; educational indoctrination; lack of falsifiability; career prejudice; corruption by funding; growing numbers of anti-evolutionists/climate sceptics; evolutionists/AGWers as nasty people; censorship; “The tide is turning”; nefarious agendas; Hitler/Nazi/communist links; hoax and fraud.

    Of course, these similarities tell us nothing about the accuracy of the science in either case. Nevertheless, they do indicate a similar mindset or way of viewing an issue.

  138. Anne says:

    I have been thinking about the parallels between the creationist/evolution debate and the climate change controversy for a while, except that I equate the AGW proponents with the creationists.

    Here are two pieces of evidence as to why the analogy doesn’t work well that way:

    (1) Of the small handful of “AGW skeptic” scientists who have a real publication record in the field, one of them is actually on record as saying that he believes “intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism” ( http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/faith-based-evolution.html ) To my knowledge, there is nobody amongst the scientists who publish in climate science and are not “AGW skeptics” who has made a similar claim. [Given that there are so many more of the latter, it is possible one might be able to find one…Although even if one could, it would represent a much smaller percentage of the relevant sample.]

    (2) For both creationism/evolution and AGW, there is a gap between what the public thinks and what the scientists in the field think and the statements of respected scientific organizations like NAS, AAAS, and the councils of the various societies like AMS, AGU, and APS. And, that gap suggests that the analogy goes the other way.

    Blinded by their ideology of what they would and wouldn’t accept, they made these bizarre rationalizations.

    You might want to check out some of the posts and comments on this website if you want to see similar rationalizations are completely untenable positions (e.g., http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/ ).

    Similarly, the AGW folks’ inability to look at climate variation over geologic time seems comparable to what the creationists did with their distinction of evolutionary processes being special and unique over the short term but impossible over the long term. Climates are varying over the long term and short term due to the same mechanisms – both the creationists and AGW proponents won’t interpret the data in front of them due to interference from more powerful belief systems.

    It is in fact by looking at what has happened to climate over geologic time that scientists have been able to estimate how the climate responds to “forcings” such as the one we are producing by changing greenhouse gas levels…and, alas, the conclusion is that the climate is quite sensitive to these forcings. See, for example, this short Perspectives article in Science ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5697/821.summary ):

    Climate models and efforts to explain global temperature changes over the past century suggest that the average global temperature will rise by between 1.5º and 4.5ºC if the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles. In their Perspective, Schrag and Alley look at records of past climate change, from the last ice age to millions of years ago, to determine whether this climate sensitivity is realistic. They conclude that the climate system is very sensitive to small perturbations and that the climate sensitivity may be even higher than suggested by models.

  139. “Brendan H says:
    January 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    On important measures, evolution and AGW share strong similarities. Both are the dominant official paradigms within the scientific establishment and societal institutions, while anti-evolution and climate scepticism occupy minority positions, and all that entails.”

    What you say is superficially true Brendan. But my point is that this superficial resemblance is extremely misleading. The scientific support for evolution is long-standing and growing in strength as time goes by as new evidence clarifies its trajectory. CAGW is very far from being in the same category. Its strength is crumbling in the face of hard evidence to the contrary. The supposed consensus for CAGW is a fabricated myth (as attested to over and over again here on WUWT). The 15 years of no warming attested to by satellite temperature measurements is a harbinger of the end of the phony CO2 caused global warming hypothesis. I see no such imminent demise of the scientifically based claim that the occurrence of biological evolution is an indisputable fact.
    Time will tell but time is running out w.r.t. AGW.

  140. Ted Swart,

    Exactly right. Evolution is a Theory; AGW is not. And CAGW is plain ridiculous, with zero supporting evidence.

    There are no ‘strong similarities’ between AGW and Evolution. Brendan may not be aware of it, but the only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic. Scientists are not “climate skeptics”, they are either skeptics, or they are not. Very few of those pushing AGW – and none of those pushing CAGW – are skeptical scientists.

  141. Ted Swart: “But my point is that this superficial resemblance is extremely misleading.”

    I don’t think the resemblance is superficial. There is a fundamental underlying similarity between anti-evolution and climate skepticism: both exist as pushbacks against the dominant paradigms of evolutionary theory and AGW theory.

    Absent the theories of evolution and AGW, there is no reason for the existence for anti-evolution and climate scepticism. It’s this pushback by the “underdog” that gives both of these movements their similar flavouring.

    Thus, for example, claims about the imminent demise of the theory are a staple of both anti-evolution and climate scepticism, and are repeated despite their failure to eventuate.

  142. Really, you should take this over to

    http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&webtag=ab-atheism

    so that we can go into this at length. (I’m a retired professional philosopher, and philosophy of religion is one of specialisations, so when I say “length”, I mean length!)

    I’ll just give a few comments on what you have quoted.

    “where does matter itself come from? … If you believe there is no God, then obviously in the beginning there must have been absolutely nothing.”

    1. This assumes there was a beginning. Perhaps the universe – or some sort of multiverse – has always existed. We don’t know.

    2. Why is it impossible for a universe, and matter, to pop into existence? Admittedly, we don’t see many things popping into existence here inside the universe, but that observation only tells about things inside this universe. It tells us nothing about universes as wholes.

    3. “It does not make sense to believe that there is no God because that in itself is not logical.” The writer does not understand much about logic. I suspect he means “not reasonable”.

    4. “out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being.”

    But to believe in God is to believe either

    (a) that out of out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person without a material body came into being,

    or

    (b) that such a being has always existed.

    The implications of (a) should be obvious.

    But if (b) that being (God) always existed, it is equally possible that I, too, always existed, though I was not always embodied. (There is a brilliant argument to this effect, but space here is too limited for it. The argument also shows that it is logically impossible for God to create me unless I am God.)

    So God is not necessary to explain my existence, and is superfluous.

    5. “But what about the body?” I expect you to ask. Well, we do know that bodies come from other bodies. We have never experienced bodies (or any matter) being brought into existence by a non-physical entity. We do not know how that could happen. On the other hand, our knowledge of chemistry and biology gives us some hints about how living bodies could emerge from non-living matter.

    At the moment, then, it seems there is no need to postulate a Higher Power, a God. It explains nothing, and just adds another layer of things to be explained.

  143. @ Peter Kovachev
    “two proponents of the atheist and materialistic paradigm exchange a joke.”
    Jeremy canspeak for himself, but being an atheist does not, in my case, make me a materialist in the philosophical sense of the word.

  144. So I used to sport a soup strainer, and a goatee and hairy chops. It was a compensation for the fact that nothing grew above my eyebrows.
    Then when I started to look more like Santa Claus year round, I bought a razor and excommunicated all of it.

    Not only did my head naturally sit up by itself, but suddenly I was 30 years younger.

    Looking at that video, I can sort of imagine what Gleick might look like 30 years younger.

    Well you can’t be a scientist without a beard. The clam chowder also tastes better without being strained, through a brush.

  145. Henry@Roha
    It seems you ignore the knowledge that we already have, namely, that the universe started out really very small, the size of a proton. or smaller. Our equations and understanding of physics tell us a great deal about the state of the universe when it was a day old, an hour old, a second old, even a tiny fraction of a nanosecond old. But if you go back far enough in time, to when the Universe was literally 10 to the power -43 second old, our physics break down. There is a veil hiding the true beginnings of the Universe….
    (freely quoted from a book by Philip Plait Ph.D)
    You say: I am the beginning and the end, and that you have not experienced Him (yet)
    I say: He is the Beginning and the End (Rev. 22:13), I experience Him every day.

    I am afraid we have to leave it at that.

  146. HenryP, you said, “…it should not take you very long to figure out that science and religion are two paths that both must lead to the truth.” I must disagree.

    First, there are many different religions which say many different things. Your assumption, then, may lead you to admit that a religion which centres around human sacrifice, or one that is based on gods and godlings running around causing mischief and strife, somehow leads to “the truth.” I’m guessing this is not what you meant. Secondly, science may lead us to many truths about measurable phenomena and even their effects on us, but it does not attempt to, if it’s a true science, to rule on such things as purpose, ethics or morality as absolutes, which philosophy and religion strive to provide. The point I was tring to get at before, though, (not very successfully) is that both theism and atheism are, at the core, philosophical outlooks, paradigms, ways of looking at the world.,,,in short, pure beliefs based on assumtions which cannot be objectively tested or verified. It is why eventhough I’m a firm theist, I can’t in all honesty “look down” on the atheist. His worldview is just as logically consistent and logically unassailable as mine.

    RoHa, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that you’re not a metrialist “in the philosophical sense of the word.” I suspect you may think that use the vernacular sense, as a value-laden insult implying shallownessand greed . Given how popular usage has sullied the term, perhaps I should have clarified that I mean it in the purely philosophial sense. Wiki, which I must say is rather good with such things, gives us the following bare-bones definition in its opening paragraph on the subject: “In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.”

    Of course, philosophical materialism comes in many flavours, yet with the above general definition in mind, I can’t imagine how atheism can be anything other than a materialistic philosophy. But then, I don’t know everything, so perhaps you can fill me in, as I’m genuinely curious about how one can be an atheist and a non-materialist at the same time.

  147. Henry@Peter
    First of all, note that I don’t look down on anyone. If you look carefully, I said to RoHa:
    “yet”
    I acknowledge that there has been a time in my life where I was agnostic.
    We are all on a path going through life.
    Think of the apostle Paul. He persecuted the Christians before he met Jesus and we know of at least one murder in which he was involved. There were probably more. Many holocaust survivors and people running the camps had terrible feelings of guilt after the war – knowing that you did not act when you should have – to save lives.
    I am saying all of this because, to get rid of this guilt, many of us will seek redemption, for that which we know we did wrong. In the old days, people sought to get rid of this guilt by making sacrifices to God. In the new covenant, it is God (Jesus) Himself who paid the ultimate price for us so we could be free from this guilt. None of the other prophets or religious leaders from other religions did this.

    “Science” is not without error, causing serious problems. For example, here, on WUWT,
    we often note that man made climate change, (which is a pseudo science), is a man made myth, that looks like real science, to keep “green” jobs.
    I explained some other more serious errors here:

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/open-letter-to-radio-702

    Again I say: If you are looking for the truth, and if you define religion as: seeking God’s face and asking Him to show you which is the way (to do good) and you define science as doing tests and measurements and evaluations to find out what to do (to do good), then it should not take you very long to figure out that science and religion are two paths that both must lead to the Truth.
    John 18 vs 33 –38

  148. HenryP, I didn’t imply you do look down on anyone. We all get combative here, but on this I’m taking a totally non-contentious attitude.

    However, I must respectfully decline to think about, look up, research or discuss the distinctly Christian arguments and sources you present. We’re of different faiths you and I, you see, so I do not necessarily accept your theologically based arguments and conclusions about science and religion agreeing on the same truth or Truth. But this is where the scientific method comes in really handy in giving us a common platform; for no matter what you, I, or anyone else may believe, we can effectively discuss anything which may be universally observed, tested, verified or falsified.

  149. [Mod: Sorry, messed up the html again, here’s the better ersion:]

    HenryP, I didn’t imply you do look down on anyone. We all get combative here, but on this I’m taking a totally non-contentious attitude.

    However, I must respectfully decline to think about, look up, research or discuss the distinctly Christian arguments and sources you present. We’re of different faiths you and I, you see, so I do not necessarily accept your theologically based arguments and conclusions about science and religion agreeing on the same truth or Truth. But this is where the scientific method comes in really handy in giving us a common platform; for no matter what you, I, or anyone else may believe, we can effectively discuss anything which may be universally observed, tested, verified or falsified.

  150. Crito says:
    January 19, 2012 at 6:31 am
    There is a real risk for propents of AGW linking up with the evolutionsit-creationist debate. If AGW is observed (as opposed to proven) to be false by the very children who are forced to trudge through snow no learn it, won’t these children also become skeptical of the evolution meme, as well?

    I’m convinced this is already happening, and has been for some time. When I was in school – long ago – there was no serious opposition to the idea of evolution that I could see. My generation understood that “Inherit the Wind” was a parable on the McCarthy era, and not a beating of the dead horse of anti-evolution.

    How, then, shall we explain the fantastic revival of creationism (even the word is recent, as far as I know)? Have new discoveries cast doubt on evolution? There have been plenty of discoveries, but none that are even explicable except in terms of evolution. I can only see the popularity of creation ideologies as a reaction to the series of assaults on freedom and civilization in the name of science, of which AGW is only the latest and most destructive.

  151. That’s a very interesting line of thought, Beale. I recently looked through some primary and high school books from the early 1900s and was surprised to see how mater-of-factly evolution was dealt with and how positivistic, perhaps a little naively, attitudes on science were several generations ago. What probably happened, I think, is that once science became the dominant knowledge source, scientists adopted over-the-top authoritarian pretensions and then blew their credibility in the worst possible ways. I’m thinking eugenics, inability of the mainstream to spot and cull the cranks, especially those of social standing, racialism, Lysenkoism, Nazi “medicine,” “scientific” socialism, ever-changing and contradicting “scientific” pronouncements by the nutritionists, naturalists/environmentalists, educators, psychiatrists, psycholigists and social workers and now, of course,AGW proponents. People can understand errors in science, but when these are accompanied by costly and at times horrible errors by status-hungry megalomaniacs, near-religious certainty and arguments from authority backed by the power of the state, they understandably conclude that science is just another unreliable and dangerous form of oppression.

  152. Ted Swart says:
    January 19, 2012 at 4:23 pm
    ‘Tis a pity that my comment has generated far too many participants in this forum talking about whether or not God exists — which is not really the point.
    The point is that science is on the side of the occurrence of evolution — as many of you mercifully concede. And science is also on the side of those who reject the hypothesis of human caused (CO2 caused) global warming. In both cases the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
    So, the teaching of creationism in science classes is in no way equivalent to the teaching of the skeptical rejection of the CAGW hoax. It is only the CAGW dupes who makes this invalid comparison.
    The teaching of creationism in science classes makes not sense and the teaching of the CAGW religion in science classes is equally inexcusable.
    We ought to be consistently on the side of honest science and surely that is exactly what WUWT is all about.
    Whether or not God exists and deep philosophical speculation about the nature of God and human spirituality does not enter into the story.

    I thought the teaching in classrooms kerfuffle was about “intelligent design”, not “creationism”? Or are the two synonymous for some? Seems to me random adaptation without intelligent design and creationism with, both have the same drawback, lack of intelligence. They both use indoctrination, bullying that they are right, so neither should be allowed in a science class.

    http://www.publicschoolspending.com/daily-updates/12271/

    • I surely concur on your issue about these comments. I can only add that creationism had to rebrand itself to stay relevant and adapted it’s approach to “intelligent design.” I think this was a little after “punctuated equilibrium” articles started to appear about the evolutionary record, because this was one of the creationists big complaints about what we knew then about the record…I am too far away from this now, but I was impressed at the time as to what seemed like a major marketing/rebranding/rationalization-to-stay-relevant effort from the creationists, rather than a theory that emerged from scientific analysis. Evolutionists and climate warming skeptics are kindred spirits.

  153. And if one were to look for parallels, I bet the rebranding tactics that the creationists used to reinvent themselves c. the late 1980’s, early 90’s could have many similarities to the tactics used by the AGW folks to remain relevant against a swarming tide of conflicting evidence to their positions. Just sayin’ somebody should compare and contrast the two “movements.”

  154. Peter says:
    We’re of different faiths ….so I do not necessarily accept your theologically based arguments and conclusions about science and religion …

    Henry@Peter
    It does not matter what faith(s) we are. In fact, you could be agnostic or an atheist and still do the work on earth that God wants us to do. Namely Matt. 25:31-46 shows what God’s work entails and how we will be judged. It does not say you have to have a faith or that believe in God specifically is a pre-requisite.

    Nevertheless, at the end of this blog, it is perhaps good to consider a sermon that I heard the other day,
    freely quoted from my memory here.

    We all live in a ship (body) called the “Titanic”. That ship is sinking slowly every day. One day it will be completely submerged. All that will matter then will be this: did I make the right choices? Did I make the right decisions? Did I have the right priorities? What does our life revolve around? Perhaps we made ourselves the center of everything in the world, but, at the end of time, God will be at the centre of everything beyond. We should be able to measure the effect of our faith by the positive effect it has on the lives of the people with whom we get into contact. If it is not God’s work that you are interested in (think of someone like Hitler – he was interested only in doing the opposite), then you won’t like heaven and you probably won’t get to go there.

    remember this on a daily basis.

  155. What! Consensus, What! a well founded anti-AGW campaign by who,what money how much did the pro-AGW spend.? What! fear. What! climate change and evolution. What! rising sea levels. What! Tobacco, fossil fuels, the merchants of doubt. What! teach the kids lies. What! WTF I cannot listen to this.

Comments are closed.