Comparing climate skepticism to "creationism" in the classroom

Ladies and gentlemen we are entering a whopping period of record jaw dropping LOW temperatures well below record low averages take a look http://icecap.us/images/uploads/gfs_t2m_anom_plan_16.png
-0.35C read whole article at Icecap please Mr Gleick

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

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.

[snip – personal appearance isn’t a valid issue. -A]

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?

Personal appearance is not a valid issue, but PI clearly needs additional funding so Peter can eat, and afford a barber!

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.

… 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?
http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content10/when-worlds-collide-ramp.jpg

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.

[snip. “Deniers” is an unacceptable label. Please read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

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.

Gleick does that rhyme wit Prick or Geek?

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

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”

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

Sigh. More propoganda for the children. At least, those who haven’t exploded yet.
But one day AGW will publically implode, the truth will out, and those kids who have been solemnly taught the party line will be very annoyed at having been fooled.
For some propoganda blitzes that didn’t quite work, this (from an impeccable source):
http://www.cracked.com/article_17224_5-retarded-health-campaigns-that-backfired-hilariously.html

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!

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.

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

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 !

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.

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!

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!

I have put my view of this on my blog:
“There are more things …”

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)

Surely the creationists here are the cultists from the religion of Mann Made Global Warming?
Mailman

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…

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.

Peter Glieck does not sound all that knowledgeable about either the science or the skepticism. Is he supposed to be a scientist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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..

He blinks a lot when he talks.
Typically that’s a good sign someone is lying.

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.”

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

How does this clown (Gleick) explain Matt Ridley ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/thank-you-matt-ridley/

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.

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!!

It must be tough being upstaged so often by his brother Jiminy.

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.

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.

“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?

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.

@ 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.

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..

@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.

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.

“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.”

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)

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.

“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…

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
~~~~~~~~

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.

“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.

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.

But just in case anyone has any further doubts, we’re doomed.

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.

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.

[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.

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.