Is anthropogenic global warming skepticism similar to belief in intelligent design?

Question

The NAS has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25

Intelligent design strikes me as similar to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skepticism/denial. Evolution and AGW are both theories with huge amounts of evidence supporting them, but which have not been "proven". Skeptics claim that because they have not been "proven", alternative theories (i.e. solar global warming, intelligent design) could be right.

In fact, at least one skeptical global warming scientist is also a big proponent of intelligent design.

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

Do you think that AGW skepticism is similar to belief in intelligent design?

If you're skeptical of AGW, are you a believer in intelligent design?

Answer 1

I'd say it's much more akin to belief in evolution:

The planet evolves life on its own...the planet heats/cools on its own...

Both beliefs tend to be skeptical of religions that state otherwise...

Answer 2

NO, because we are supposedly experiencing "global warming" and should be able to prove it here and now.

The real question is:

Is global warming alarmism similar to those paid programming ads that run late at night?

With the constant puffery of this global warming nonsense, I say yes.  There is supposedly huge amounts of evidence supporting, but there is also huge amounts of evidence disproving it.  So keep citing Wiki and all of the other biased sites, because you aren't winning any real minds over.  Just the drones or those with low self esteem who feel the need to be a part of "a cause".

Answer 3

no.

i don't agree with either viewpoint, but they are different.

there is, however, a group of individuals that advocate / accept both lines of thought because they're told to do so.  unfortunately.

intelligent design / creationism, is a religious perspective.

many religions have trouble adjusting to changes in the world.

many individuals need to believe in their religion more than they need to understand science that may not necessary for them, in order for them to live reasonably happy and productive lives.

i wouldn't advocate that viewpoint, however, if an individual will be more happy, i don't think it's my place to change his view.  as long as he, or she, stays out of schools, and does not attempt to force that viewpoint on others, i don't have a problem.

AGW skepticism is simply a greed perspective, "i want cheap gasoline and i don't care who it impacts, or when."

In fact, AGW skepticism is more closely related to advocation of tax cuts at the same time the country is running enormous deficits, than it is to creationism.

someone's belief in creationism does not hurt me, unless they're pushing to get it taught in schools, in which case i vehemently disagree with them.  other than that their belief does not impair their ability to get along i society, nor does it create a problem, or worsen a problem, that will have to be addressed in the future.

both AGW denial and advocation of deficits, do create problems, and both are stealing from the next generation.  both are caused by greed, and the total lack of appreciation for the world they have inherited and their responsibility to do the same for the next generation.

Answer 4

The argument that it's just a 'natural' occurrence,are just using the word 'natural' for the belief that it's only 'God' that can change the Earth. I can imagine how frightening it must be learn that everything you 'know' is wrong!  Years ago,in the N.W.,I was with a group of people at a all night gathering.  That night ,unknown to us, NASA had an experiment that involved exploding some sort of missile in the upper atmosphere,loaded with special chemicals to measure the electro-magnetic field.  We were all looking at the stars right at the moment the thing blew up! A guy next to me went crazy! He started crying and shaking uncontrolably! He was screaming about Jesus and that this MUST be the second coming!  Even by morning when the radio had the news of the strange burst of light in the sky being just a NASA experiment,the guy would not shut up! Funny thing,before this,the guy was not known for being very religious, just stupid!Needless to say, he's still regarded as just stupid!

Answer 5

No, sceptics generally have a more scientific way of thinking than believers.

Most believers have never critically examined the basis for their belief.  The current crop of climate models are full of numbers that were pulled out of the air to make the models fit the available data and are not able to predict the future, or even predict verticle warming gradients.  This is not a good scientific technique.  

It takes faith to believe in significant AGW, much like following a religion.

Answer 6

7 May 2007

Father of Climatology Calls Manmade Global Warming Absurd

Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences in the 1970s he became the first director of what is now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He is a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment. He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor?

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

Answer 7

AGW skepticism is more related to Panglossianism.  

The similarity is that both AGW skeptics and ID proponents completely butcher the interpretation of what a theory represents, and how facts and evidence relate to the development, refutation, and evolution of theories.

Answer 8

The Intelligent design,/Evolution/Creationism debate is not an intelligent debate by any of the parties, so I don't see it as a good analogy.

Science is great, but the mechanistic reductionist universe  that at least some scientists see is not an accurate description of the universe.

The universe is far stranger than either the standard scientific view or the standard religious view can account for.  The Intelligent design theory is not much better.

I just thought I would add this quote from an answer, on Yahoo Answers, made by Dr Deepak Chopra, the well know author of many books about health and other issues.  He is both a western trained doctor and a doctor of traditional hindu medicine.

" Finally, there are traditions of spirituality--going far beyond organized religion--that tell us about consciousness from the viewpoint of wisdom. Science isn't the only valid way to extract knowledge from nature. The ancient Vedic rishis of India provided a clear, coherent worldview that fits perfectly into advanced concepts from quantum theory. The merging of wisdom and science has much to offer."

I'll be brief because this is all off topic, but for anyone interested in what I'm talking about, the following books will shed some light.

The Spiritual Universe  by Fred Alan Wolf Phd

The Tao of Physics      by F. Capra

The Dancing  Wu Li Masters

Mysticism and the New Physics  

Quantum Healing   by Deepak Chopra

Ageless Body Timeless Mind  by Deepak Chopra

Conversations with God   3 books

Ok, I read the article on wikipedia.  It's all nonsense based on the same tired assumptions.

The idea that science represents facts and everything else is faith is just not true.  True spirituality isn't about faith it's about wisdom.

And Liebnitz idea of the "best of all possible worlds" is completely misunderstood in the parody that wikipedia presents.  The story referred to is a hatchet job by someone with 0 wisdom.  There is higher conscioiusness, I guarantee you that, and it has little to do with any kind of blind faith in any philosophy or religious dogma.  The absolute doen't fit any concepts but it can be experienced.

That experience is well known and has dependable repeatability just as science experiments do. The result is more profound though.  While scientific discoveries may lead to more and better stuff. The former can lead to a profound transformation of ones consciousness,  which is more valuable than any stuff.

In fact science is a faith in itself, the faith that only it has all the answers. That it is the only authority.

Science makes models.  Just like a map is not a piece of land, models made by science are not the universe, they are relatively true, we can see that because they are valid, meaning useful. But it's still models.  Validity does not equal truth.

I would also add that most real scientific breakthroughs are the result of revelation.

Only later do they become detailed drawn out theories.  Einstein said as much.  He said

"my scientific theories are not the result of my rational mind"  or words to that effect.  

   And wikipedia is certainly not the authority on everything.

Answer 9

Not really.  The deal with AGW, as opposed to "hard science" is this.  For a theory to be validated as fact, you have to prove the causal relationship and have the experiment be repeatable.  It's pretty simple.  Predict the outcome, then conduct the experiment that achieves the predicted outcome.

The theories on AGW don't actually do this.  They blend a lot of models and assumptions into an amorphous blob of prognostications that haven't matched, thus far, what was predicted, either things are melting faster than predicted, or water temps are changing as predicted, or whatever.  

Until such time as the predictions truly match the behavior, the theories remain unproven.  Taking actions that could be grossly expensive and possibly disastrous taken as a results of theories is ill-advised at best, just sheer idiocy at worst.

Answer 10

Where do you think your ability to critique God came from?

I just suppose your where created in a test tube because, they wanted someone just like you to be here.You know science has limitations but unlimited interactions in the way it can be utilized. I don't really see your connection with faith and science....just unanswered questions

Answer 11

Thank you for fleshing out this idea.

edit:

I predict that no denialist will admit to their belief in creationism.

edit2:

I just recalled an encouraging bit about the trial in Chester PA.  The jurors were surprised by the depth and breadth of evidence supporting evolution.  They had no idea the science was so advanced, was worked out so well.  

When they were presented with the evidence (and nailed to their seats under threat of contempt) and forced to consider the entire argument, and realized the pathetic weakness of the opposing argument, they came to a startling conclusion -

Science!

edit3:

Reid Bryson?  AGW is impossible?

Arthur C. Clarke:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

edit4

Ok, here's the rest of it for everyone else.

There is absolutely no real, reproducible, extensible, non-inconsistent or peer-reviewed scientific evidence for Creationism. There is a huge body of pseudo-science built up over the past 150 years (since Darwin) by individuals with the incredibly focused motivation that to accept Darwin means to refute the Bible. And since to refute the Bible means the end of their belief system, they will go to any length, any extreme, to build an alternate belief system (Creation Science) that supports the dogma.

The science of Evolution has built up a huge body of evidence over the last 150 years. Is has been built by different scientists of different nationalities of different faiths working in different fields of science. It is extensible (consistent with other scientific domains), internally consistent (when the theory is challenged from different approaches it withstands the analysis) and peer-reviewed real science (assumptions, methodology, datasets and conclusions that are consistent with accepted scientific norms - the same norms that give us every bit of technology that works in the world today).

And you know what has happened? The idea of Natural Selection has expanded to other fields and then converged to become one of the most or possibly the most profound idea ever formulated in the history of science.

In comparison, the “science” of Intelligent Design (Creationism) is the result we get from of a small group of fanatical fundamentalist Christian hacks and cranks.

The "science" of climate denial is quite similar to that of ID.  It is not extensible - they don't even agree with one another.  It is not internally consistent - the slightest critical analysis causes it to collapse.  None of it is peer-reviewed and when it does make it to publication, it gets disavowed by the authors of the source data.

Climate denial "science" is the result of a small troop of dedicated hacks and cranks.

Einstein’s theory of relativity went through the same process. First disbelief. Then acceptance. Then finally irrefutable proof when the bending of light was measured during the eclipse in 1920.

The science of ecology is new, but it has built an impressive body of real, reproducible, extensible, non-inconsistent, peer-reviewed evidence over the last few decades. The anthropogenic cause of environmental problems is now beyond dispute. I believe Ecology will become the cornerstone of the new political economy and eventually become the most important science in the history of mankind.

We are in the beginning phase of the process. Disbelief.

To begin to believe it means you have to accept that your belief system is flawed. The American Way, Capitalism, unlimited individual freedom, as great as it is, is creating the problem. Political freedoms, free markets and technology lifted humanity from utter poverty and deprivation to the incredible life we enjoy today (those of us lucky enough to live in the first world, that is).

What if political and economic freedom for individuals to do whatever they want without regard for the natural world is going to CAUSE the apocalypse? When you consider population, resources, the destruction of natural systems and the limit of the biospheres ability to absorb our waste - On the current trajectory global environmental collapse is inevitable.

Since the dawn of the environmental movement, deniers have been incredibly motivated to discredit the movement because to accept Environmentalism means to refute our very way of life.

To have to accept that your belief system is flawed is too difficult for many people to face.

Evolution challenges Genesis, therefore Evolution is blasphemous, abhorrent and evil and must be challenged and eradicated.

Environmentalism challenges Libertarian Democracy and cornucopian laissez-faire capitalism is therefore blasphemous, abhorrent and evil and must be challenged and eradicated.

edit5

Mang got it.

Answer 12

In the post by BB citing Dr. Reid, Dr. Reid makes an absolutely incorrect statements about H2O and CO2 absorption.    

Reid: science fiction

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapour? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor?

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

Science fact

The absorption by H2O and CO2 is frequency dependent.  In the visible range (450-700 nm) neither have significant absorption.  If you can see an object more than 30 feet away, Dr. Reid is wrong.  The earth radiates like a black body (with a frequency dependent emissivity).  The emissions from the earth's surface (~ 290 K) are predominantly at < 1000 cm-1 (> 10 microns).  The strongest absorption lines in this region are 670 cm-1 (CO2) and 590 cm-1 (H20) with absorption cross sections of 5E-18 cm^2 and 3E-20 cm^2, respectively.    Water vapour at about 10,000 ppm is about 26X more abundant than CO2, but the absorption cross section for CO2 is about 167X larger.  If all of the absorptions in this range are integrated, a similar result will emerge.  Dr. Reid is a geographer not a physicist, so his ignorance might be understood.

Answer 13

The key word is "belief."

Many believe humans cause global warming/cooling.  Many do not.

Many believe humans were created and did not evolve from monkeys.  Many do not.

The good thing is that we have the freedom to believe in what we want to believe in.  When the government steps in and says we must believe in ID or we must believe in AGW then that's a problem.

Answer 14

I'm not sure that skepticism of global warming is similar *to* belief in ID. Anthropogenic global warming theory, unlike the theory of evolution through natural selection, which is at its core so elegantly simple as to seem almost a no-brainer to us living after Darwin, is actually very complex. Many elements are difficult to understand and, without a solid understanding of the underlying physics, it's very easy to deny the evidence for AGW. Combine this with all the conflicting information on the theory floating around the Web, and I'd say skepticism of AGW theory, while certainly misplaced, is far more reasonable than skepticism of evolutionary theory.

Now, I would be very interested to know just how many AGW skeptics subscribe ID creationism. I was somewhat surprised to find that Roy Spencer was an ID proponent, and somewhat less surprised that Tim Ball was as well. Because, to be honest, I put very little store in the scientific opinions of ID proponents, regardless of their knowledge of other areas of science.

Answer 15

They are both based on one thing- scientific ignorance

so at their base levels they are one and the same.