Over recent years I have found arguments with both creationists and deniers of man-made climate change frustrating. I have found that typically both sets of people will take a piece of scientific evidence in favour of MMCC/evolution and through a wholly illogical train of thought end up with "scientific proof" that climate change doesn't exist or that Intelligent Design is a fact of life.
I know that my professional colleagues are just as frustrated by creationists' claims (the erroneous mindset is far more prevalent in the USA than in the UK), and many have reached the stage where they feel there is no point in arguing with them because creationists will not accept a logical scientific argument. How could they when they follow a literal interpretation of a book written 4,000 years ago in Aramaic, translated into Greek, translated into Latin and then translated into English, but refuse to entertain the possibility that something may have been lost in the translation?
But I digress. That is a debate for another day. On the tube one morning I was reading a few letters from fellow Londoners all objecting to green taxes, having to recycle etc etc. Sighing exasperatedly, I proclaimed to Paul (and probably most of the rearmost carriage on the Piccadilly Line) that "It's as bad as arguing with creationists!" "Honey," he replied. "It IS arguing with creationists."
And you know, he's got a point. If you believe that all the coal, oil and gas we're burning was laid down over no more than 6,000 years, rather than 300 million years, then effectively fossil fuels are a renewable source of energy. As we're only releasing 6,000 years of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere rather than millions of years' worth, then we can't be responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide, so we haven't caused any climate change, right? And if you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then those sea level and oxygen isotope curves going back hundreds of thousands of years mean nothing to you. It's all an artefact. The last glacial period ended 10,000 years ago - 4,000 years before the Earth was created. So all the usual evidence for MMCC is lost on them.
And when 46% of Americans, the country most responsible for belching out carbon dioxide, the country most responsible for the state the world is in, the country that will not be happy until it has drained all the oil from its national parks in Alaska, are creationists, what chance in hell do scientists stand of being able to persuade the USA to do its bit? They're already fighting a losing battle over here.
I know that my professional colleagues are just as frustrated by creationists' claims (the erroneous mindset is far more prevalent in the USA than in the UK), and many have reached the stage where they feel there is no point in arguing with them because creationists will not accept a logical scientific argument. How could they when they follow a literal interpretation of a book written 4,000 years ago in Aramaic, translated into Greek, translated into Latin and then translated into English, but refuse to entertain the possibility that something may have been lost in the translation?
But I digress. That is a debate for another day. On the tube one morning I was reading a few letters from fellow Londoners all objecting to green taxes, having to recycle etc etc. Sighing exasperatedly, I proclaimed to Paul (and probably most of the rearmost carriage on the Piccadilly Line) that "It's as bad as arguing with creationists!" "Honey," he replied. "It IS arguing with creationists."
And you know, he's got a point. If you believe that all the coal, oil and gas we're burning was laid down over no more than 6,000 years, rather than 300 million years, then effectively fossil fuels are a renewable source of energy. As we're only releasing 6,000 years of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere rather than millions of years' worth, then we can't be responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide, so we haven't caused any climate change, right? And if you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then those sea level and oxygen isotope curves going back hundreds of thousands of years mean nothing to you. It's all an artefact. The last glacial period ended 10,000 years ago - 4,000 years before the Earth was created. So all the usual evidence for MMCC is lost on them.
And when 46% of Americans, the country most responsible for belching out carbon dioxide, the country most responsible for the state the world is in, the country that will not be happy until it has drained all the oil from its national parks in Alaska, are creationists, what chance in hell do scientists stand of being able to persuade the USA to do its bit? They're already fighting a losing battle over here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment