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

I wasn't addressing you.

if the shoe doesnt' fit don't use a shoehorn to try to force it on.

 

I am stating facts.

 

the body of evidence, froma range of scientific disciplines, is that AGW is real.

I would like to see evidence to the contrary, but there is nothing that can stand up to scrutiny that has been posted here, or published elsewhere.

 

I assumed you were addressing me as you quoted this post.

 

Yes it is real; no one denies this, as far as I know. The disagreements are about it's origin--man-made versus natural.

Ludwik Kowalski
.

 

I was saying AGW is real.

there are a variety of factors that contribute to climate change, and this is well known.

what scientists have been studying in recent decades is the contribution of HUMAN activity to the current changes in climate (hence anthropogenic global warming).

where there is disagreement, it is over the likely impact of the change - for example - how many metres will the sea level rise be by the end of the century, and what are the likely impacts on various ecosystems etc.

most scientists from a range of disciplines are already identifying impacts - especially on marine species, but also in other areas.

the rate of warming we are seeing is much more rapid than a natural cycle - and therefore poses a huge risk to many species on the planet.

 

I might agree that there is a possibility that some men/women contribute to to global warming, maybe to the point of catching the very air on fire. For example that crooked, fear mongering, deceiving, Lear jetting, criminal Al Gore is dam near flammable he is so full of hot air and BS gas ...

Rev A

 

More fear mongering from the AGW zealots.

Alarmist posts such as these do no favours for the disciples of the AGW religion.

 

If no one is denying human influence on warming, then why so much criticism of CRU and surface temperature records? Neither one is evidence for or against human influence.

 

Many people are denying human influence on warming.

AGW is a flawed religion.

 

Sorry. The above should be "If no one is denying warming, then why so much criticism of CRU and surface temperature records? Neither one is evidence for or against human influence."

 

Where have I been rude to you?

And here's the proof of the pudding: why are creationists and climate deniers alike in their thinking? Because both believe without evidence, and both falsely call the evidence-based opposing viewpoint a "religion". Psychologists call that projection.

And what name have I called you?

Was it "killer bees"?
Was it "zealots"?

And if the science isn't standing on its own, why do 97% of climate scientists support the consensus? That's about the same as the percentage of biologists who support evolution.

 

Evolution is a fact.

Global warming is a fact, but the belief that humans are responsible is a myth.

We're not in the same camp. Not at all.

 

That living things evolve is the fact of evolution. The mechanism that causes it is the theory of evolution.

That the earth is warming is the fact of global warming. That human activities are mostly to blame is the theory of global warming. Both evolutionary theory and global warming theory are extremely well supported by a mountain of scientific evidence. And both are denied by those who don't like to deal with evidence.

Sure you are. Creationists can't explain the data. And neither can you. In both cases, they're hoping for a miracle to come along and relieve them of the burden of doing science.

 

I think he meant no one who is reasonably well informed and honest denies human influence on warming.

 

There are other parallels as well.

1. Some creationists (not all) deny that evolution even occurs. Some climate deniers (not all) deny that the Earth is warming.

2. Different creationists have different ideas. There is no single overarching "theory" of creationism that all creationists subscribe to. Some creationists are young-earthers, some are old earthers, some are Intelligent Designers, etc.

In the same way, different deniers have different ideas. There is no single overarching "theory" of climate denial that all deniers subscribe to. Some deniers are "it's clouds", some are "it's sensitivity," some are "it's cosmic rays."

3. Creationists ideas have been debunked over and over again, but creationists don't care: they just keep repeating the same old debunked points all over again. There is no real effort to engage the mind and debate the evidence. Deniers use exactly the same strategy: ignore the debunking, disengage the mind, and just keep repeating the talking points.

 

Really? Hasn't the Earth warmed and cooled over its estimated 4.5 BILLION years of life? There is 0 basis for your statement.

 

yes.

and often you will see the same people who argue the climate change denial pov will be arguing ID or creationism on another subforum.

in general, they don't seem to understand some really basic scientific concepts .... and the meaning of certain terms when used in a scientific context (eg they think "theory" means "idea".)

 

What exactly is a "climate denier"?

I've never seen anyone, anywhere deny that 'climate' exists.

'AGW sceptic' is the term you're probably looking for.

 

Any links to these people, and their posts?

 

of course not, when you have a superiority complex, small things like quoting posts are unnecessary, we (being less honest and not being capable of understanding the complexities of science) are supposed to simply tug our forelocks, dip our heads and say 'yassum! you'se sure rite. I done no NUTTING 'bout them theroees' and turn over all our money and lives to her...

they think they can run our lives better than we can.

 

Yes, but AGW disciples overlook that fact.

The AGW zealots look at things from a human perspective and they subsequently believe that 200 years is a very long time when it comes to climate change (it's twice the age that humans live to and thus they believe it to be a long time in regards to climate change too).

It's their inabilty to think beyond the human perspective that hampers their "science" and renders much of their "evidence" unconvincing.

 

No darlin' they are waiting for Mummy to stop nagging them and clean up thier mess for them

It is the same with a five year old - they think if they whine enough they do not have to do the work

And do I have some sad news for them!!

 

Hmmmmm - why do I have this recurring picture of a little kid having a tanty because he has been asked to clean his bedroom. I mean the excuses are the same anyway - "'Twasn't me - I didn't do it" "I dunno who did it - must have been the dinosaur in the window!!" and of course "Billy (China) does not have to clean up HIS bedroom (reduce carbon emissions)"

Honestly can we have an ADULT discussion about this?


Challenge the science - PLEASE!! But do so with some integrity. State what you think is an acceptable alternative hypothesis and see if we can either show where it has already been researched or where the information in relation to that hypothesis fits into the overall conceptual framework underpinning what is happening to the climate

 

Science is how we try to make sense of our surroundings. By all means, let's study climate but, how in the heck did studying the climate become a global industry?

Maybe these fools think if they can keep sucking grant money that sooner or later they WILL be able to control the climate. Win/Win.....for them