Climate-change deniers take a lesson from anti-evolution activists

The similarities between the anti-evolution movement and climate change-denial seem to get more numerous by the day. The latest is that South Dakota???s state legislature called for a ???balanced??? approach to teaching about climate change in schools. But it???s pretty obvious from the get-go that they are abusing notions of fairness to advance a rather unbalanced view of the enduring scientific consensus on climate change. "Carbon dioxide," the resolution declares, "is not a pollutant." Someone should tell that to the Supreme Court -- that bastion of unhinged earthy-crunchy types -- which instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to find that carbon dioxide is just that. South Dakota schools, the resolution continues, should instruct their students that, "global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact," and that a number of factors, including "astrological" (!!) ones can "effect [sic] world weather phenomena." In any scientific inquiry, a healthy sense of doubt is important, particularly when it comes to predicting very precise climate outcomes resulting from very complicated earth systems. But it???s the big picture that really matters -- and the big picture is pretty concerning, with worryingly high probabilities of serious, if not finely predictable, consequences if we do nothing. Even many global warming deniers won???t dispute that the earth???s climate is changing, often arguing instead about what???s to blame. And on that second point, the arguments they make often revolve around small-bore distractions, such as the ???Climategate??? e-mail controversy or the recent questions over very particular predictions in the International Panel on Climate Change???s groundbreaking 2007 climate report. The South Dakota legislature???s resolution is full of these, such as its insistence that things other can greenhouse emissions can affect world weather phenomena, including, apparently, star signs. That???s no argument that rising levels of carbon in a finely-balanced atmosphere won???t affect the climate. It???s just a smokescreen meant to confuse South Dakota???s students into doubting the science more than the small chance it???s wrong warrants. Maybe, though, the state???s children should study this. In English class, on how not to construct an honest argument.