ID and AGW

Can someone familiar with the thinking at Uncommon Descent explain why there is such opposition to the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming?  There’s this today, following several long commentaries by VJ Torley on the pope’s encyclical, mostly negative. I don’t get the connection. Is it general distrust of science? Or of the “Academy”?  Or is there something about the idea that we may be provoking a major extinction event that is antithetical to ID?  Or is it, possibly, that the evidence for major extinction events in the past is explains the various “explosions” that are adduced as evidence, if not for ID, then against “Darwinism”?

I’m honestly curious.  Personally, I’m really concerned about global warming, and about the more general impact the human species is having on the rest of the world’s ecology, not because I think that major extinctions are inherently tragic (I know Earth will become lifeless one day, and that major extinctions are inevitable) but because human beings evolved to live in one ecosystem, and are unlikely to be fit for a very different one.  So we are on the list of potential extinctees.  And a hell of a lot of human suffering will occur if our climate changes too rapidly.  If there’s anything we can do to slow things down, surely we should?

305 thoughts on “ID and AGW

  1. Basically they’re all scientifically illiterate morons who think reality should conform to what they demand it to be, not the other way around.

    It’s really that simple.

  2. There are two main issues that conservative Christians have with AGW. As a number of the ID folk are conservative Christians, I presume these issues have become part of the ID talking points.

    1) God gave man mastery over the planet. Anything we choose to do with the planet is good by definition. Further, God would never allow the planet to become unfit for human habitation (He decreed it our home afterall), so the science of AGW must be wrong.

    2) The science of AGW and all subsequenent environmental policies are essentalially one and the same and as said policies are bad for big business, they are bad for the broadening of the Christian message (Christian expansion and branding has become big business, to say nothing of the fact that many of the wealthiest big business owners are conservative Christians). As such, fighting against the science of AGW is the same as fighting against environmental policies – either one reduces the regulations against big business.

  3. Yes, I understand a kind of Creationist opposition (although I’m picking up a kind of wild enmeshing of home-schooling/new-age/prepping/permaculturing/back-to-Eden thinking in some parts of the web). But ID? Especially the catholics (struggling, apparently, between loyalty to the pope and anti AGW). Odd.

  4. In both cases — denying unguided macroevolution and denying anthropogenic global warming — it’s a refusal to draw the most reasonable inference under conditions of uncertainty. As the old joke goes, someone who believes in microevolution but not macroevolution is like someone who believes in individual stairs but not in staircases. They can invent “barriers” to evolution (which are never as insurmountable as they seem, once you look at the details) all they like, because the inference from microevolution to macroevolution is never strong enough to conquer their sheer incredulity.

    AGW is similar, except that much more is at stake, since coming to terms with AGW would mean giving up a lot of stuff that people in the West enjoy having, like cheap meat with every meal and cheap gas to drive everywhere. It’s all about the (illusion of) freedom.

  5. They believe in a God who would never allow AGW.

    Presumably their God would also never allow killer tornados, killer Tsunami’s, killer floods or killer earthquakes. But then they can always blame those catastrophes on homosexuals. They’ll eventually have to find something to blame for AGW.

  6. hmmm.

    I still don’t get it. I’m wondering if it’s one of these chaotic things – the line had to be one or the other, and having opted for one, that’s the one that’s acquired a narrative.

    Or it could be a Discovery Institute funder directive?

    Dunno. Seems weird. There used to be a couple of people at UD who were very concerned about anthropogenic climate change. Was Chris Doyle one? Brandon?

  7. Lizzie,

    I don’t think there’s an intrinsic connection between ID and AGW denial, except that both sets of beliefs tend to be held by conservatives who are anti-science and anti-intellectual generally.

    To become a denialist in a particular area of science requires persuading yourself that the experts in that field are idiots, liars, conspirators, or all three. Having done that for one field (eg evolutionary biology), it’s easier to repeat the process for another, such as climate science.

  8. Can someone familiar with the thinking at Uncommon Descent explain why there is such opposition to the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

    I’m honestly curious.

    You could go over to UD and ask, if you’re truly curious. 🙂

    Is it general distrust of science? No, just distrust that it’s “settled science.” VJT, for example, cites numerous scientific papers in his arguments.

  9. If the experts can be wrong about global warming they can be wrong about ID too.

  10. But that wouldn’t explain why the consensus seems to be negative. I mean, it can’t ever be “settled science” because it’s a forecast, and it’s a chaotic system. But what is certainly “settled science” is that CO2 and other human-produced gasses are greenhouse gases and that many of the feedback loops are positive. The best hope is that there are some negative loops that we don’t yet know about.

    And the surface temperature “pause” isn’t very encouraging, because so many other indicators haven’t paused at all.

    To me, the sensible response to the models is: temperatures are rising: they may well rise catastrophically; human activity is increasing that likelihood; so let’s curb that human activity. Waiting for it to be “settled science” seems a bit like waiting until you get peritonitis before doing something about the tummy ache that might be appendicitis. When a risk is of a catastrophe, even a low probability mandates action. And the probability, even on an very optimistic reading, isn’t low.

  11. What AGW model of the last 20 years has accurately predicted anything without what appears to be an effort to shoehorn in non-fitting data?

  12. William J. Murray: What AGW model of the last 20 years has accurately predicted anything without what appears to be an effort to shoehorn in non-fitting data?

    Fer instance?

  13. Well, can you give an example of what you mean by “non-fitting data”? It’s a basic principle of modelling that you fit the model to the data, not the other way round.

    But in answer to your question, look at the simple chart above. The CO2 level is a pretty good fit to the temperature profile.

  14. Here’s a nice example of a well-fitting model: when natural and anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are entered separately into the model, the fit of model to observation isn’t great. But when both are entered, the fit is excellent.

    But when it comes to the future, obviously there are unknowns, and as it is a non-linear (i.e. feedback) system, the predictions won’t ever be reliable. But they can be tweaked each time there is new data.

    And unfortunately, where the data has not been a good fit to the projections, it hasn’t always been in the conservative direction. Both sea-level rise and sea ice melt have been on the upper end of IPCC projection. It’s only surface temperature that has seen a “pause”.

  15. EL said:

    But in answer to your question, look at the simple chart above. The CO2 level is a pretty good fit to the temperature profile.

    I have no idea where that chart came from, or if it is accurate, but suffice it to say that even if it is valid, it shows nothing more than a correspondence of rising heat levels with rising CO2 levels, which doesn’t mean one causes the other; but even one was causing the other, which one is the cause, and which one the effect?

    What would that chart look like if you go back, say, 400,000 years?

    Kinda puts things in perspective.

  16. William J. Murray: have no idea where that chart came from, or if it is accurate,

    From NOAA You can make your own, from any data in their database you choose.

    but suffice it to say that even if it is valid, it shows nothing more than a correspondence of rising heat levels with rising CO2 levels, which doesn’t mean one causes the other; but even one was causing the other, which one is the cause, and which one the effect?

    Check my other posts.

    The fit of models to data will always be correlational in this case, because we do not have a control Earth. Not being able to do an experimental study should not prevent us from doing our best to make causal connections. In the case of climate change, simulations are the answer – you change one thing and see if it changes another. You can see the simulated effects in the diagram I linked to, and the fact that when both are simulated, the temperature matches the observed values very well.

    And, can you give an example of what you mean by “non-fitting data”?

  17. William J. Murray: What would that chart look like if you go back, say, 400,000 years?

    Kinda puts things in perspective.

    Not really. It’s human beings I’m concerned about, and the potential for catastrophe. If climate is going to change, it would be good to have time to prepare.

  18. Additionally, looking back over the past 400,000 years of data, it appears that what global warming has occurred since the last cooling period, fits well within the pattern. While I agree that the evidence indicates that the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling, I’m skeptical of the idea that humans are catastrophically adding to the current warming pattern.

    And, can you give an example of what you mean by “non-fitting data”?

    Here you go:

    “NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a previous interview.

    Goddard says that NCDC has been cooling past temperatures in the data to make the present look much warmer by comparison, bolstering the case that global warming is being caused by human activity and is rapidly getting worse.

    “NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”

    See! AGW “deniers” have charts, too!

    EDIT: well, you cant see the chart here for some reason, but it’s on the linked website.

  19. William J. Murray: I’m skeptical of the idea that humans are catastrophically adding to the current warming pattern.

    And yet both theory and evidence supports the case that adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, which is what we are doing, will increase global warming.

    William J. Murray: See! AGW “deniers” have charts, too!

    Why should I believe your source? Especially given the specious reasoning presented:

    “But a variety of errors in data measurement and collection would typically have both positive and negative signs,” Spencer noted, adding that he corrects for such errors when calculating satellite temperature data even if they tend to cancel each other out.

    “In contrast, the thermometer data apparently need to be adjusted in such a way that almost always leads to greater and greater warming trends,” he added.

    Firstly, it is simply not true that measurement errors “would typically have both positive and negative signs” – depends on what the error source was. But secondly, why on earth would the NCDC try to adjust the data if it wasn’t warranted? Cui bono?

  20. So William, the reason for your skepticism, I take it, is that you think the scientists are actually lying about the data – not that the science is unsound, right?

    Because if they are lying about their data, then the science is irrelevant.

    Which are you alleging?

  21. And if they are lying about the American Corn Belt temperatures (wtf?) are they also lying about sea level rise, sea ice melt, sea temperatures?

  22. I don’t think you could anymore persuade WJM of AGW using evidence than you could persuade Sal that the earth is 4.5 billion years old using evidence. I’m inclined to say that this has to do with ‘worldview’ but I think its even more fundamental than that – it has to do with how one processes and weighs evidence based on a worldview. Anyone whose core belief is in a creator God that takes and active role in human affairs will never accept AGW. It doesn’t matter what evidence is presented, they’ll find some way to discount it up to and including simply claiming that the evidence is an outright lie.

  23. EL,

    I think scientists, in a significant measure, get the results they intend to get.

    RodW,

    You’re right. Nothing can persuade me to believe that AGW is real.

  24. Elizabeth:
    Here’s a nice example of a well-fitting model: when natural and anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are entered separately into the model, the fit of model to observation isn’t great. But when both are entered, the fit is excellent.

    But when it comes to the future, obviously there are unknowns, and as it is a non-linear (i.e. feedback) system, the predictions won’t ever be reliable.But they can be tweaked each time there is new data.

    And unfortunately, where the data has not been a good fit to the projections, it hasn’t always been in the conservative direction.Both sea-level rise and sea ice melt have been on the upper end of IPCC projection. It’s only surface temperature that has seen a “pause”.

    There’s an even more comprehensive set of charts on Bloomberg. Amazing how the charts merge.

  25. William,

    Thank you for submitting yourself as a data point in favor of my hypothesis:

    To become a denialist in a particular area of science requires persuading yourself that the experts in that field are idiots, liars, conspirators, or all three. Having done that for one field (eg evolutionary biology), it’s easier to repeat the process for another, such as climate science.

    Don’t forget to send your friends, too.

  26. William,

    I think scientists, in a significant measure, get the results they intend to get.

    Right. It’s that damned “intention field” again.

    Invent an intention screen — say, in the form of a hat made out of tinfoil — and you could make millions, William!

  27. William J. Murray: You’re right. Nothing can persuade me to believe that AGW is real.

    How is that a “useful mental model” for you? Moreover, if AGW is true what does that make you and how should society value you? Can you understand why some people may find you contemptible?

  28. Richardthughes said:

    How is that a “useful mental model” for you?

    I can’t see any useful application in my life for the “AGW is real model”. Nor do I see any useful application for the “AGW is not real model.” Therefore, I have no belief either way.

    Moreover, if AGW is true what does that make you…

    Whether or not AGW is true, I’m still uncommitted and skeptical. I’m probably the most skeptical person on this site, ironically enough.

    and how should society value you?

    Not even sure what this means. Can’t say I care what society thinks of me.

    Can you understand why some people may find you contemptible?

    Sure. Can’t say I really care, though.

  29. William,

    I’m probably the most skeptical person on this site, ironically enough.

    That’s a keeper.

  30. EL asks:

    So William, the reason for your skepticism, I take it, is that you think the scientists are actually lying about the data – not that the science is unsound, right?

    I have no reason to believe anyone whom I have no personal experience of. That doesn’t mean they are lying or wrong, and I’m not accusing anyone of lying or error – it just means I am skeptical of all claims by just about everyone outside of my personal experience. I’m doubly skeptical of claims made by anyone that is part of large, powerful, influential institutions, businesses and organizations.

    It’s been my experience that most people lie and big institutions manipulate and deceive for certain agendas on pretty large scales.

  31. William J. Murray:

    You’re right. Nothing can persuade me to believe that AGW is real.

    It must be a lonely burden on you knowing that you’re the smartest man in the world and that no scientific evidence can ever show your ignorance driven personal opinions to be wrong.

  32. William J. Murray:

    It’s been my experience that most people lie and big institutions manipulate and deceive for certain agendas on pretty large scales.

    It’s been my experience that willfully ignorant yet arrogant fools lie to themselves about how big institutions manipulate and deceive for certain agendas. This self-deception is usually done to protect their gasbag egos.

  33. William J. Murray:
    EL asks:

    I have no reason to believe anyone whom I have no personal experience of. That doesn’t mean they are lying or wrong, and I’m not accusing anyone of lying or error – it just means I am skeptical of all claims by just about everyone outside of my personal experience.I’m doubly skeptical of claims made by anyone that is part of large, powerful, influential institutions, businesses and organizations.

    It’s been my experience that most people lie and big institutions manipulate and deceive for certain agendas on pretty large scales.

    And there are big institutions on with vested interest on the denier side (bigger, I’d have said – companies don’t get much bigger than oil companies).

    So why pick the AGW to be skeptical of?

    If someone says to you: there’s a hurricane coming, and another says; nah, it’s just hurricane deniers, and both are untrustworthy, what’s the rational response? Which story costs more to disbelieve, if right?

  34. Adapa: It must be a lonely burden on you knowing that you’re the smartest man in the world and that no scientific evidence can ever show your ignorance driven personal opinions to be wrong.

    I think he’s referring to his general views about belief – that his beliefs are not based on evidence but on choice.

  35. Lizzie:

    And there are big institutions on with vested interest on the denier side (bigger, I’d have said – companies don’t get much bigger than oil companies).

    So why pick the AGW to be skeptical of?

    Exactly. William’s skepticism is decidedly… selective.

  36. William J. Murray: EL,

    I think scientists, in a significant measure, get the results they intend to get.

    Well, no. The job would be a lot easier if this were true.

    Not that scientists, and scientific methodology, are immune from bias. But so much scientific methodology is designed specifically to eliminate it.

    As we have discussed in reference to psi experiments, which are notorious for not taking those steps.

  37. If AGW was unreal, or it didn’t matter if AGW was real, reduction in fossil fuel usage would still matter. All this anti-science blether about AGW misses the fundamental point that there are still valid reasons to stop burning the stuff at present rates.

  38. William J. Murray,

    I’m doubly skeptical of claims made by anyone that is part of large, powerful, influential institutions, businesses and organizations.

    Anti-AGW agitation is indeed the triumph of the little guy against BigCorp. Every reason to be skeptical of what those large, self-interested organisations have to say about it. Oh, wait …

  39. So why pick the AGW to be skeptical of?

    I didn’t “pick” it, per se.. I said I’m skeptical of both sides. I’m skeptical to some degree of every assertion other than “I experience”.

    If someone says to you: there’s a hurricane coming, and another says; nah, it’s just hurricane deniers, and both are untrustworthy, what’s the rational response? Which story costs more to disbelieve, if right?

    Depends on who is telling me and what my experience is regarding what they are telling me. I’ve heard lots of stories from many sources about serious issues and problems lincluding several “doomsday” scenarios, most of which were supposed to occur long ago. I’m highly skeptical of all catastrophic, doomsday-type claims regardless of where they come from.

  40. EL said:

    Well, no.

    Yes, EL. That is, in fact, what I think.

    But so much scientific methodology is designed specifically to eliminate it.

    No, it’s not – at least, it’s not designed to eliminate the kind of intention influence I’m talking about: intention as a fundamental force that directly affects arrangements of outcomes.

  41. EL said:

    I think he’s referring to his general views about belief – that his beliefs are not based on evidence but on choice.

    Yes. I’ve said repeatedly here that I don’t base any of my views on scientific evidence, and that “belief”, in my perspective, only means that I act as if something is true without holding that thing as factually true. If that changes (and my views are subject to change), I’ll be sure and let everyone here know 🙂

  42. Although I’d point out that the entire purpose of “doomsday scenarios” is so that people can take action to avoid it.

    There was serious concern about horse-poo levels in London, at the turn of the century. That was avoided, and now we have CO2 level concern instead. All through my youth I was fearful of total nuclear war. It is at least partly because people had modeled that prospect that it is now far less likely.

    Prospective models of chaotic systems are not like predictive models in the rest of science, because they cannot be run with controls. All we can do is run simulations under different assumptions. The better the evidence base for the assumption, the more credible will be the projection. And sadly, the evidence base for climate projects is looking pretty good. Contrary to your assertion, there are plenty of climate change models that have turned out to match subsequent data all too well. As I said, it looks as though the models have tended to under-estimate the the rate of sea-ice loss and sea-level rise, but over-estimate surface temperature rise. I do not find the last thing terribly reassuring in the circs. It just tells us that more of the energy is going into the ocean than the models predicted.

  43. Adapa said:

    It must be a lonely burden on you knowing that you’re the smartest man in the world and that no scientific evidence can ever show your ignorance driven personal opinions to be wrong.

    I don’t care if my views are factually correct, and I don’t claim them to be factually correct. I only care if my views appear to me to help me to (1) be a good person and (2) enjoy life in terms of how I define those things. I only believe (act as if true) those things that appear to facilitate

    I’ve long ago given up on the notion that I can discern any “truths” about reality other than “I experience”. What I can do, however, is manage to some degree what I think and do empirically, and adjust what I think and do on the basis of empirical results, examine the patterns of results and produce models that appear to work for me.

    It’s worked out really well for me since I’ve developed this skeptical/empirical method of living. That doesn’t mean it is true; it doesn’t even mean it would work for others. It might all very well be coincidence and/or delusion; but if it is, so what? I still experience what I experience.

Leave a Reply