En klimatförvillande satirtecknares alster slår lite fel
Det här kan vara det starkaste argumentet klimatförvillarna uppbådat hittills. Eller inte.
Tecknaren har i och för sig en poäng – det finns en stark vetenskaplig konsensus om antropogent orsakade klimatförändringar samtidigt som antalet icke-troende bland forskare är mycket större än bland allmänheten. Bloggaren Jerry Coyne på Why Evolution Is True sammanfattar.
Surveying American scientists as a whole, regardless of status, a different Pew poll showed that only 33% admitted belief in God, with 41% of scientists being atheists or agnostics. (The rest either didn’t answer, didn’t know, or believed in a “universal spirit or a higher power.”) Among the general public, on the other hand, belief in God ran at 83% and nonbelief at a mere 4%. In other words, the average scientist is ten times as likely to be an atheist or an agnostic than is the average American.
The degree of scientists’ nonbelief goes up with their professional status. [Elaine] Ecklund’s earlier work found that 62% of scientists working at “elite” universities were atheists or agnostics, with only 33% professing belief in God. And, considering members of America’s most elite scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences, we find that only 7% believe in a personal God while 93% are atheists or agnostics about a personal God. (In contrast, 68% of Americans—nearly ten times the percentage of scientists—believe in a personal God.)
Coyne sammanfattar även problemet med satirteckningen, om nu någon missat den.
There are of course two ways to interpret this cartoon. This would be my read if I didn’t know who drew it:
- The Pope notes that scientists overwhelmingly accept that global warming is caused by human activity.
- Scientists tend to be right about such issues.
- Therefore, scientists are probably also right in claiming that there is no God.
But of course it’s Ramirez, and what he really means is this: scientists are fallible, and are clearly wrong about both global warming and God. In that sense it’s a bad political cartoon, for its meaning reverses itself depending on your view of science.