Are deniers in the evolution and global warming camps the same people?

They seem to use the exact same dumb arguments and logical fallacies.

You know, science doesn't know everything (duh, as a comedian I heard said, if it thought it knew everything it'd stop).

How can you know that, were you alive 2000 years ago? A million years ago?

The Bible doesn't mention it so it can't be true.

Quote mining isn't lying, it's taking the nugget of truth out of all the worthless slag.

I read it in a blog so scientists must be wrong.

I'm beginning to think that people who aren't intelligent enough to understand science end up in the denying camps, using all the dumb arguments that they can find on the net, not even realising that they're stupid arguments that have been refuted time and time again.

 

No, I wouldn't be so naive to assume there is only one "camp". People aren't dismissive of Science....but most Americans anyway--- understand how power corrupts.

Truthfully...it is easier to see the blatant corruption within the Global Warming . And yes....there are people who know man-made global warming is a hoax but stand by the concept of evolution.

A grand example of that would be Neal Boorz---a libertarian radio personality. He's pro-choice, anti-fundamental Christian, believes whole-heartedly in Evolution as fact.

But regardless of all his faults--- he knows the Global Warming Hoax for the hoax it is.

 

well, evolution is a fact............... (the process is not perfected within the scientific community, just like gravity aint, but the fact is evolution is a fact, factually speaking of course, in fact.)


Does the earth go thru pole reversals about every 600k-700k years?

Would the earth capture more energy from the sun, if the magnetosphere was having field reductions based on the anomalies? When the reversal is at its point of turning over, is there a period with little to no magnetosphere in many areas?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akBvr_ZUCro&feature=related"]Magnetic Poles Shifting - YouTube[/ame]

 

Evolution has a wealth of evidence to support it. Anthropological Global Warming doesn't. Drawing a causal relationship from mankind's influence on climate and the natural processes of the planet isn't exactly easy. Carrying out studies is nice and all but carrying out experiments is the nail in the coffin, of which is extremely difficult to do regarding anthropological global warming over long periods of time. Not to mention global warming is a political machine the science has been corrupted and can no longer be trusted without heavy scrutiny.

 

Just because some climatologist publishes a paper supporting AGW doesn't mean it's true. We don't appeal to authority in the sciences, well at least not the physicists.

 

ill agree there.........



ie... the second law of thermodynamics and thereof plancks constant is a joke

 

Quite possibly. Both will use anything to believe, and demand absolute certainty to disbelieve.

In other words, they completely lack a standard of evidence.

 

We don't appeal to pure ignorance either.

 

He would be one of the exceptions to the rule.

Most AGW denialists think AlGore has all the scientists chained to a hot lab bench in his basement cranking up the lightning to charge up Igor

But I have to admit that most creationists specialise in a particular form of stupid

 

Actually the research is pointing towards a form of intellectual laziness. They simply believe harder if someone they identify with is also a proponent of the same ideology.

Which is why being a "Christian" is so important in American politics - and completely unimportant in Australian politics (except we are bloody suspicious of anyone too religious)

Al Gore got the main message across to a lot of people but as far as the American right were concerned you could not have chosen a worse representative

 

Good post.

 

Must be a bit embarrassing then because a hell of a lot of the research has been done by physicists

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

 

((((((((((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))))))))))))))

Okay explain to dumb old me

Where is the hoax and exactly how is it being perpetrated?

 

No one is denying climate change drawing the causal relationship that mankind has a significant play in it is a whole other story.

 

That is true. There is a bit of fear as well. There are divine punishments for those who questions their faith.

 

Evolution has a wealth of evidence to support it. SO much it may as well be considered to be a law. global warming on the other hand is drawing the conclusion thatbecause the ozone is depleting and the polar caps are melting mankind must have something ot do with it. While Greenhouse gases are mst certainly a cause something we do have to consider is that the earth heats and cools all the time. An excellent example is with the Ice age.

 

What would the plausible alternate hypothesis be? The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in laboratory, and emissions of GHG's like CO2 and methane have gone up as a direct result of human action (increased fossil fuel use and agricultural use of ruminant animals, respectively.) At the same time, global average temperatures are on a dramatic rise which has not been repeated in the past. I suppose we COULD all stop eating beef and mutton for a decade and see if the temperature goes down....

What's more, the sun is still reaching its solar minimum, so it can't be a solar cycle.

 

Evolution is not a law - scientific laws are in no way superior or inferior to scientific theories. Laws are meant to explain hard facts - i.e. the law of gravity predicts that an object of X mass will be attracted to an object of Y mass by the amount of Z force when it is A distance from the other object. Theories are meant to predict HOW that force works.

In other words, laws explain what happens. Theories explain why and how. That is why there is both a LAW and THEORY of gravity. In other words, if you take a law, prove it works, and add a why, you have a scientific theory.

 

So because you cant think of an alternative hypothesis and CO2 have been rising along with the global average temperature therefore there exists no other possible causal relationship? That's not science.

 

It is my understanding that there is not a difference in application between "law" and "theory". The only difference being the time frame of which X may have been discovered, i.e. older sciences may describe something as a law while more recent discoveries in science stick with phrasing it as "theory".

I could be wrong though.

 

No, what you are putting forth is not "science" but then neither is sitting back and saying "Well it must be something but duh! I dunno"

Science is about setting up hypothesis and testing them right?

Do you not think alternative theories have not been explored?

And again I will ask - what alternative explanation do you have that will fit the observed facts with climate change?

 

It's not my job to provide an alternate explanation. You clearly do not understand the grit of drawing causal relationships as they are extremely difficult to do. There are many alternative theories, there always has and will be not to AGW specifically but to all topics in the sciences. What I do know is the complexity involved with a theory like AGW which makes coming to causal relationships even more difficult. Stating mankind is "causing" global warming is a very large leap which would require evidence that rules out all other possibilities. Not to mention "to what degree" does man have on climate change, is it the sole cause or are there multiple events that have been attributing to this change. Claiming that climate change is mutually exclusive to mankind is fraudulent science.

 

People can sit here and post links showing how the global "average" temperature has been increasing over time proportional to the growth of civilization but this does not necessarily mean that the growth of civilization is the "cause" of global warming as this automatically assumes there are no other variables involved. To assume such a thing is absurd taken into account there are no sufficient controls in an experiment like this.

 

So you have nothing but the supposition that something else must have caused it. Thank you for your contribution, we'll get back to you.

 

So, how stupid do you thing the scientific community is? For that matter how stupid do you think we are? Though on second thought don't answer that

This is better than a conspiracy theory - at least in those you attribute the other side with SOME intelligence.


Do you NOT think that someone somewhere would have investigated the alternative explanations - you know the ones you cannot name but are sure are there?