Rationalwiki Essays On Global Warming

Volume 3 of the Answers Research Journal ran through 2010.

Volume 3 articles[edit]

Those Enigmatic Neanderthals: What Are They Saying? Are We Listening?[edit]

Anne Habermehl, January 13, 2010

Yet another review-ish article about which of two fringe creationist theories explaining Neanderthals is better. This article argues for the view ignored even by creationists, that Neanderthals were humans who lived for hundreds of years. The distinctive look of Neanderthals died out when humans didn't live long enough to develop their Neanderthal characteristics. All in 4000 years! Along with the romp through "Was Homo erectus man or ape?", this silly article is all post hoc reasoning.

Enigmatic, indeed!

Numerical Simulation of Precipitation in Yosemite National Park with a Warm Ocean: A Pineapple Express Case Study[edit]

Larry Vardiman and Wesley Brewer, February 17, 2010

Hmmmm... Let's look at a big storm in 1996 and pretend it extrapolates to the massive Global flood. Ignoring that this probably contradicts Flood geology, this feasibility study has one sentence about creationism: "Glaciers thousands of feet thick could have readily developed during hundreds of years following the Genesis Flood." That's nice. Any evidence of the actual post-Flood period?

Untangling Uniformitarianism, Level 1: A Quest for Clarity[edit]

John K. Reed, March 17, 2010

A review of different definitions of uniformitarianism and a request for new nomenclature, with a little whining for good measure. There is not much here in terms of science (no physical evidence), being more of a philosophical piece on the basis of science.

Inherit the Wind: A Lesson in Distorting History[edit]

Jerry Bergman, March 31, 2010

An essay challenging the historical accuracy of the play Inherit the Wind, in what is supposed to be a science research journal. The article is a long rant that the play portrays creationists as stupid and ignorant, and complains that the play fails to mention eugenics. Despite there being a section titled "The Science Facts Irrelevant", the paper at no point discusses the facts of evolution or creation, even in the context of the play. What is actually surprising is how rarely the play is referred to during the article — quotes from the play and trial transcript are dwarfed by creationist quotes about the play.

Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis,Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin[edit]

Todd C. Wood, May 5, 2010

Baraminologist Todd C. Wood produces a paper that, assuming baraminology as true, does what the title says. The results look remarkably similar to those considered the case by standard science. Even other creationists don't like this paper.

A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming[edit]

Rod J. Martin, May 26, 2010

Use Genesis to justify your global warming denialism! Some quotes to indicate how idiotic this "article" is include the following:

  • "CO2 and O2 were created early in the Creation week. Neither of these gases evolved." (Who ever said gases "evolved?")
  • "The level of CO2 in our atmosphere could increase over 1,300% before reaching the current mine safety limit, and this level has been reduced to only 42% of the prior safe limit. Today’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is clearly safe for humans, and will be for over a thousand years at today’s rate of increase." (What does this have to do with global warming?)
  • "The earth is huge. We simply do not have a sufficient number of collection points (weather stations) to accurately determine earth’s average surface temperature."

(p.s. to the web editor: Writing carbon dioxide in your HTML version as CO2 does not help your first impression as a science journal.)

Geomorphology of Uluṟu, Australia[edit]

Ken Patrick, June 9, 2010

This student paper, from Cedarville University, is a good old "flood of the gaps" argument, which relies on the Australian desert being a tropical forest with a large lake in it in the last few thousand years. Pity that there is nothing in the local oral history about this forest and lake vanishing, or ever having been there at all.

Numerical Simulation of Precipitation in Yosemite National Park with a Warm Ocean: Deep Upper Low and Rex Blocking Pattern Case Studies[edit]

Larry Vardiman and Wesley Brewer, July 13, 2010

Same as before only this time they simulate two different storms with the program and then extrapolate to get the same result as before. Well it is nice to know that their off-the-shelf simulation program works.

Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism[edit]

Jerry Bergman, July 28, 2010

In this rather unoriginal piece, Jerry Bergman attempts to argue that belief in evolution implies atheism, quoting the "usual evils" of Richard Dawkins, Judge Jones and Stephen Jay Gould in the process. (Kenneth Miller is notably absent!.) The article lacks a connection between the ideas of evolution and religions, instead focusing on argumentum ad populum concerning the percentage of biologists who are atheists. The quotes mostly focus on the evolutionists' statements that evolution and religion are incompatible, but do not investigate the reasons they say they are. The only evidence considered is that it is difficult to argue for design when mutations are observed to be random and natural selection isn't entirely deterministic, all the while ignoring theistic evolution.

Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin: Discussion[edit]

letters from David N. Menton, Anne Habermehl, and David A. DeWitt, August 25, 2010

These letters scoff in disbelief that Todd C. Wood could propose that other hominids could be "human." The authors deny Wood's statistical measures, and use morphological comparisons to suggest that these three are definitely not human. The authors even admit to limitations to standard baraminology!

Three quotes sum up baraminology in general. From Anne Habelmehl:

“”Let me point out that we creationists can tell, merely from reading our Bible, that some fossils are human and some are not; we do not need statistical analysis to confirm this.

“”Historically, we creationists have rather made a laughingstock of ourselves among evolutionists in claiming that we can tell the difference between human and nonhuman fossils (Foley 2008), and this paper does nothing to reverse that situation.

And from David Menton:

“”Most importantly, the Bible believing creationist will be careful to confine himself to speculations that are consistent with God’s Word.

Todd Wood weighs in on his blog about these criticisms and two others (one at CMI and one at AIG):[1]

“”One thing is certain: all five of the sediba critics are absolutely, positively convinced that it isn't human, and their strong reactions to my work suggests that they view it as dangerous or even unchristian. What motivates these reactions? Fear? Insecurity? Perhaps more importantly, why is it so offensive just to suggest that sediba is human? If it's just a case of mistaken identity, who cares? What's the big deal? I'm totally serious about this, too. I must be missing something, and if you can explain it, I would be very grateful.

He later published a paper in the Journal of Creation Theology and Science with further analysis.[2]

Is the Sodium Chloride Level in the Oceans Evidence for Abiogenesis?[edit]

Jerry Bergman, September 1, 2010

Jerry Bergman's answer: No. Is it evidence against abiogenesis? No. Is it evidence for Young Earth Creationism? No, although he seems to think so, because "we live in a world created for us to meet our needs, thus nature was created to fit our requirements." Never mind that humans drink fresh water.

The Geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood Framework of History: 1. The pre-Flood Rocks[edit]

Andrew A. Snelling, September 8, 2010

Yawn. Really, Andy, this stuff again? OK, you've added a long review type article thing with dates of millions of years, and then shift back to the same-old radiohalo stuff, followed by the special pleading about accelerated radioistopic decay that magically occurred during the flood but didn't burn up everything. All that based on the your measurements on 10 rocks. While we appreciate data (hint: tell your other authors, you are senior editor after all), you're going to need to do better than that!

Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem[edit]

Jason Lisle, September 22, 2010
For a more detailed explanation, see anisotropic synchrony convention.

In his long anticipated[3][4] article, Jason Lisle finally presents his solution to the distant starlight problem. As analyzed at the Sensuous Curmudgeon,[5][6] Lisle changes an assumption in relativity about the speed of light, which may create problems with Maxwell's equations. The central point of his thesis is related to the idea of the one-way speed of light, which thought experiments would indicate is not possible to measure without synchronized clocks. The speed of light can only be measured on a loop: from a source, bounced off a mirror, and back to the source, with being the average speed of light over that path. However, Lisle propose that light comes in from the source instantaneously and is reflected back at speed , giving an average round trip speed of . This way we can see the light of distant objects instantaneously. This raises questions on why we see galaxies in various states of development, which Lisle explains with the creationist hypothesis that galaxies are created and destroyed in less than a few thousand years.[7]

It turns out Lisle had published the same idea under a pseudonym nine years ago, making one wonder about the originality of the idea.[8] Lisle also fails to cite the previous work done of this by W. Farrell Edwards in 1963 when he proposed anisotropic space and discussed its implication which he could have found, like we did, by looking it up on Wikipedia.[9] So much for creation science.

Meanwhile, Answers in Genesis publishes a mature response to criticism. Way to go!

Numerical Simulation of Precipitation in Yellowstone National Park with a Warm Ocean: Continuous Zonal Flow, Gulf of Alaska Low, and Plunging Western Low Case Studies[edit]

Larry Vardiman and Wesley Brewer, October 20, 2010

Summary: Just like Yosemite.

All three of these papers hinge on the same basic idea, if the sea surface temperature of the Pacific ocean off the coast of the continental US was above 30 degrees Celsius, there would be more than four times the amount of precipitation during certain storm events and glaciers would form in just a few hundred years. The question left unanswered, why would the Pacific Ocean's sea surface temperature be more than 15 degrees above the current average during and after a global flood?

The Geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood Framework of History: 2. The Flood Rocks[edit]

Andrew A. Snelling, December 15, 2010

For what is likely the final paper of the year, Snelling gives us a 44 page browser-hanger of an article with lots of colorful diagrams. It is an extensive description of the geology of Israel and surrounding countries, but little to nothing of it could not be found in more reliable scientific texts. Snelling states straight upfront "The sedimentary strata that cover most of Israel are an obvious record of the Genesis Flood", stating his conclusion in the first line of the abstract. The few take home point that can be sieved out of it are:

  • Dinosaur footprints are evidence for the flood, because dinosaurs would not "have lived shallow salty water where there was no food to eat". Obviously they were laid when they were treading water during the flood.
  • That "geologic processes which were occurring at catastrophic rates during the Flood are still operating today at a snail’s pace". Evidence for this include the decreasing power of post-flood volcanoes. The cited paper for this interesting tidbit examines the eruption of five volcanoes.

This paper is again nothing new or interesting in terms of evidence for a global flood. It is a discussion of geology, with the odd little bit about the flood already published elsewhere chucked in.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]


  1. ↑http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/08/sediba-bad-and-ugly.html
  2. ↑http://www.bryancore.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/download/3/8
  3. ↑"Research at Answers Research Journal," Jason Lisle's blog at AiG, 8 July 2010. Found at Internet Archive Wayback Machine, 8 July 2010 capture, accessed 1 July 2013.
  4. ↑"Pride and Prejudice," Jason Lisle's blog at AiG, 23 July 2010. Found at Internet Archive Wayback Machine,25 Oct 2010 capture, accessed 1 July 2013.
  5. ↑"Jason Lisle’s “Instant Starlight” Paper." The Sensuous Curmudgeon. 22 September 2010. Accessed 24 September 2010.
  6. ↑The Sensuous Curmedgeon has since written several more posts about Lisle's hypothesis: [1][2][3][4][5]
  7. ↑A more technical rebuttal can be found at Quantum Linearity: "Answers in Genesis Screws It up Again" Quantum Linearity. 2 October 2011. Accessed 28 May 2011.
  8. ↑"More on Lisle's starlight solution." Todd's Blog. 23 September 2010. Accessed 24 September 2010.
  9. ↑Edwards, W.F. (1963), "Special Relativity in Anisotropic Space", American Journal of Physics31, Issue 7, pp. 482

“”McPherson is not the opposite of a denialist. He is a denialist, albeit of a different stripe. To watch him at work and to watch Tony Watts is to watch birds of a feather. Not evidence-based policy but policy-based evidence. Not part of the solution. Part of the problem.

—Michael Tobis, climate scientist[1]

Guy McPherson is Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona. An author, blogger, and parallel universe version of Bjørn Lomborg, McPherson theorizes that runaway climate change constitutes a near-term humanextinction event primarily due to "the consequences of taking down more than 200 species each day: at some point, the species we take into the abyss is Homo sapiens".[2] McPherson first gained notoriety in the mid 2000s by predicting the end of civilization in under a decade due to peak oil, but as that failed to materialize he's switched gears to climate, and has gained a cultishly persistent following in the deep ecology/"doomer" fringe of the hard green movement. His blog is called Nature Bats Last.

According to McPherson, current climate data demonstrates that it is far too late to cut down on carbon emissions and mitigate the 40-year[3]global warming process; accelerating climate feedbacks could cause a global average temperature increase of between >1° and >6° Celsius. This could eventuate in humanity dying out by 2030 at the latest although as of 2016 he makes it clear that he considers 2030 as a conservative estimate and that it won't be "business as usual" many years before that date.[4] So apocalypse could begin within the next couple years or maybe the next couple years after that and so on. You decide. McPherson cites Paul Beckwith as saying that the earth could warm by 6°C in a decade and believes that a warming of 4° to 6° C will result in "a dead planet". He predicts an even greater rise but argues that anything more would be more than enough to do the worthless eaters in anyway.[5] This will amount to a recreation of the biotic disaster of the "Great Dying" when micro-organisms were the dominant form of life for many millions of years.[6]


Analysis of the data by knowledgeable science educators such as Scott K. Johnson[7] and working scientists such as Michael Tobis[8] shows that McPherson wildly distorts climate science — especially developments about methane emissions from the Arctic — to support his conclusions. They also refute his claims related to runaway climate "feedbacks" as, variously, "not fast enough", not meeting the technical description of positive feedbacks, or actually constituting negative feedbacks. Additionally, Tobis points out that some of McPherson's statements — such as one nonsensical prediction of chain nuclear meltdowns — have literally nothing to do with climate science.

McPherson also claims that the United States government, and virtually all high-profile scientists and activists (like James Hansen), know we are beyond the point of no return, but are purposefully making conservative predictions to mislead the public. He also claims that he was under surveillance by the NSA when he was teaching and was nearly assassinated to avoid spreading the truth.[9] Radio host Alex Smith explored the problematic reasoning and possible motivations behind McPherson's nihilistic views[10] and also researched dubious sources of the purported extinction date,[11] on the weekly Ecoshock program.

A quick review of any of the comments McPherson et al. make on critical articles, or the edit history of this very page, reveals that McPherson and his followers are quick to react to criticism with the predictable set of ad hominem attacks ("white male science," etc.) rather than with rational, peer-reviewed, or otherwise widely accepted scientific arguments. McPherson himself — again, see his apparent attempts at vandalism[12] — admits to cherry picking data that support his views.[13]


McPherson solicits donations from his followers,[14] which he uses in part to tour the world and give talks. On social media, he took on the role of grief counselor to help his followers emotionally cope with his claims of doom. A joint statement from several ex-followers summed this up as, "[McPherson] is in a position of authority with direct influence over the mental, emotional, and in some cases physical and monetary lives, of those who exist in a state of vulnerability."[15] In August of 2017 McPherson was accused of sexual harassment by several ex-followers, who claim that his counseling with women often includes sexual advances or abuse.[16]Deep Green Resistance, a radical deep ecology group, was disturbed after finding that he called one woman a "cum-gargling whore", and will no longer work with him.[17]

Fellow traveller[edit]

In an interview, both McPherson and Paul R. Ehrlich claimed that the world was losing its ecosystems in an unprecedented way. Ehrlich claims that our survival chances are at maximal 10% — McPherson calculates less than that. Ehrlich previously made failed predictions of global famine in the 1980s; that should give you a good indication of the reliability of McPherson's even more pessimistic outlook.


  • In 2007 McPherson predicted the USA's trucking industry would collapse by 2012 due to peak oil, quickly followed by the interstate highway system.[18]
  • In 2008 he predicted the end of civilization by 2018 due to peak oil, "If you're alive in a decade, it will be because you've figured out how to forage locally."[19]
  • In 2012 he predicted that global warming will kill much of humanity by 2020.[20]
  • In 2016 he predicted that humanity and most lifeforms will be extinct due to global warming by mid-2026.[21]
  • In 2017 he predicted that global temperatures would be 6 C above baseline in mid 2018 and that Earth would have no atmosphere by the 2050s. [22]


  • Ecology and Management of North American Savannas (1997)
  • Applied Ecology and Natural Resource Management (2003)
  • Changing Precipitation Regimes and Terrestrial Ecosystems: A North American Perspective (2003)
  • Killing the Natives: Has the American Dream Become a Nightmare? (2005)
  • Letters to a young academic: seeking teachable moments (2006)
  • Living with Fire: Fire Ecology and Policy for the Twenty-first Century (2008)
  • The Planner’s Guide to Natural Resource Conservation: The Science of Land Development Beyond the Metropolitan Fringe (2009)
  • Walking Away from Empire: A Personal Journey (2011)
  • Going Dark (2013)

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

  • Nature Bats Last, his website
  • [5] Interview Guy McPherson and Paul R. Ehrlich
  • [6] Gary (Inmendham) and Guy speak freely on doom.


  1. ↑McPherson’s Evidence That Doom Doom Doom by Michael Tobis (March 13, 2014) Planet 3.0 The future, considered seriously.
  2. ↑http://guymcpherson.com/2011/08/three-paths-to-near-term-human-extinction/
  3. ↑Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect. Skeptical Science.
  4. ↑[1] As stated explicitly in this 2016 interview.
  5. ↑Climate-change summary and update
  6. ↑[2] As stated in this 2016 lecture.
  7. ↑How Guy McPherson gets it wrong. Fractal Planet.
  8. ↑McPherson's Evidence That Doom Doom Doom. Planet 3.0
  9. ↑[3]
  10. ↑Human extinction? Not so much. Ecoshock.
  11. ↑Will Humans Go Extinct Soon? Ecoshock.
  12. ↑While many of the whitewashing or blanket deletion edits to this article have been by BoNs and without edit summaries, one very long tirade was written as if McPherson and User:NeartermExtinction are one and the same and the latter had also previously tried to whitewash this article.
  13. ↑See User:NeartermExtinction's long tirade: "I'm often accused of cherry picking the information in this ever-growing essay. I plead guilty, and explain myself in this essay posted 30 January 2014."
  14. ↑PLEASE DONATE HERE McPherson's donation page
  15. ↑STATEMENTDrama from within the McPherson cult
  16. ↑STATEMENTDrama from within the McPherson cult
  17. ↑Statement on Guy McPherson Deep Green Resistance disavows McPherson over his misogyny.
  18. ↑THE END OF CIVILIZATION AND THE EXTINCTION OF HUMANITY "And the trucks are going to stop within the next half-decade or so. Shortly thereafter, the interstate highway system will simply collapse."
  19. ↑End of the world as we know it "In a decade, unemployment will be approaching 100 percent, inflation will be running at 1,000 percent and central heating will be a pipe dream."
  20. ↑We’re Done "For those of us living in the interior of a large continent, much less on a rock-pile in the desert, I'd give us until 2020 at the latest."
  21. ↑Faster than Expected "As I've pointed out previously, I doubt there will be a human on Earth by mid-2026. Indeed, I doubt there will be complex life on this planet by then."
  22. ↑[4]

0 Replies to “Rationalwiki Essays On Global Warming”

Lascia un Commento

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *