Again, I’m struck by the similarity between the techniques of global warming deniers and creationists; they both use cherry-picked data, they both make outrageous claims couched in pseudo-scientific language that sounds convincing to gullible people, they both compile lists of skeptical “scientists” that turn out to be packed with ringers, frauds, and people who never signed in the first place, and they both use quote mining.As I have indicated before, I am just not sure this is true. I think this for the following reasons:
- I know of very few creationists who write about an area in which they practice. The classic example of this is, obviously The Genesis Flood, written by a hydraulics engineer and a pastor—neither of whom had the slightest amount of geological or biological training. That trend continues to this day. Ken Ham, the charismatic leader of Answers in Genesis has no science training other than that which one must get in school. His training is, in fact, in the pastorship. The scientists he employs (John Whitmore, Jason Lisle, Terry Mortensen, David Menton) have degrees from creationist colleges and their science articles are never published in mainstream science journals because their research and evaluations are suspect. This is true with the ICR as well. When they attempt to produce something approaching mainstream science (The RATE Project), their arguments are prone to wild speculation and misinterpretation of scientific literature and procedures.
- While the Dissent from Darwinism list that the Discovery Institute hawks has very few scientists that actually practice in fields that are relevant to evolutionary studies, the Global Warming Petition Project is chock full of climatologists, meteorologists, geophysicists, astronomers and environmental scientists, who all other things being equal, ought to know what they are talking about. It should be noted, however that eSkeptic does not agree, based on complaints similar to those listed above for the Dissent from Darwinism list. Having said that, there are others who are not convinced that the anthropogenic model best explains the data and have the credentials to argue persuasively.