Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

Are climate change deniers like creationists?

(Page 2 of 2)

Both groups willfully ignore mountains of firmly established scientific evidence. Both groups falsely portray the scientific community as divided over settled science. Both groups make spurious appeals to academic freedom, arguing that "both sides" of the debate should be presented as though they possess equal merit. And both groups derive most of their funding from privately funded think tanks, having scant presence in the science departments of accredited colleges and universities.

Skip to next paragraph

Recent posts

The motivations of those who deny climate change and who deny evolution are probably very different. But in some cases, it's the very same people who deny both phenomena. Here are just a few examples:

Steven Milloy, a prominent climate change denier and "junk science" contributor to Fox News, told the Cato Institute in 2007 that "[e]xplanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture."

Roy Spencer, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, author of the 2008 book "Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor," and the "official climatologist" of Rush Limbaugh's EIB network, wrote in 2005 that "intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism."

Actor and commentator Ben Stein, whose 2008 film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed claimed that belief in evolution led directly to the Nazi Holocaust, asserted on Fox News this year that "global warming is by no means proved."

And Arthur Robinson, the senior author of the Oregon Petition, that list of some 31,000 self-described scientists who deny the existence of convincing evidence of global warming, is also a signatory to the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" circulated by the Discovery Institute, the primary think tank promoting Intelligent Design theory.

The 1925 trial of John Scopes seems to have done little to change the minds of American creationists (it took another four decades for Tennessee's anti-evolution law to be repealed, and the debate over teaching evolutionary biology in public schools is still very much alive). Similarly, it's unlikely that a modern-day trial of climate science would be anything more than a tendentious circus.

But climate change, unlike evolution, is happening on a time scale that humans can directly observe. If the Chamber of Commerce has its way and action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is delayed, we can expect that the effects of these emissions will be widely felt and acknowledged by those who will inherit the climate.


Follow Eoin on Twitter

Read Comments

View reader comments | Comment on this story