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

Some deniers deny the world is warming. TRUE.

"for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped." -- David Rose
“global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” -- Henrik Svensmark
"If you’re 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life." -- Mark Steyn

See? Some deniers do indeed say there is no global warming.

 

Works for me. But FYI, some prominent AGW skeptics call themselves deniers. Judith Curry, for example.

 

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/

 

AGW is an corporate, and UN etc engineered hoax, for the most part. Global warming is real, and has been a part of the earths natural history since we had climate and weather.

Rev A

 

and can you cite a reliable source to support this claim?

 

did he really post a link to some OTHER site?

 

ROTF...have an 'ADULT' discussion?

you want to have an adult discussion, when you can't go more than two posts without insulting and mocking those that don't agree with you?

what would be the point of debating the 'science' with you? Note you claim ALL 'science' for yourself "challenge the science'..We have a saying about trying to teach a pig to dance, it gets you no where and irritates the pig.

 

Yes, this is allowed - and in fact encouraged where it supports your argument

Unlike trolling which just means you log on to post unsupported drivel

 

And I have a saying - don't enter an arse kicking contest with an Echidna

I am up for it - I will stop the "insults", which fall under the category of "if the shoe fits wear it" and debate you on any point you would like.

 

I am not interested in 'debating' you on any point, there is no reason to. You are not going to change MY mind, I am not going to change yours.

THIS thread is titled: "Are deniers in the evolution and global warming camps the same people". I came in and ANSWERED that question, I have tried repeatedly to turn the conversation back to that topic...YOU have repeatedly tried to derail the thread into debating whether AGW is real or not...which one of us is 'trolling'??

 

the post he was answering was one implying that people HERE were in other subforum HERE discussing ID and creationism.

 

Really? May I remind you of your very first post on this thread then

http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-warming-camps-same-people-4.html#post4799023

 

yes, I should have put these two in the same post. This is the very next post, as you can see, I am addressing the OP not the science, but the public perception of the AGW argument.

 

No, you are not addressing the topic

You ARE insulting the members though - and trolling

But I am also up for a discussion on the psychology underpinning the "anti-science" ethic inherent in both deniers and creationists

 

if you truly believe that, there is a mechanism in place to take care of that...in the corner of every post there is a icon that will allow you to report that post. Please feel free to do so..I have reported this one, so PLEASE...report any post of mine you feel is off topic or insulting to a member.

 

Been there done that!! Also for trolling and flame baiting as indicated

Now we have established that we BOTH know what the report function is for we can get back on topic

Now do you truly want to discuss the psychology of denialism??

 

not with you, no. And why you continue to engage me when you believe I am 'trolling and flamebaiting' is beyond me.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. As I said before, you won't convince me, I won't convince you..there is no meeting ground.

and that is why the AGW religion is failing...

 

But we were to discuss the original concept of the thread were we not? It seems it is you not I that insist on dragging the conversation back to climate change

 

ok, let's take one of your examples here..

Professor Henrik Svensmark is a scientist:

Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI), a part of the Danish National Space Center. He previously headed the sun-climate group at DSRI. He held postdoctoral positions in physics at three other organizations: University of California, Berkeley, Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

now, as a layperson, how can you explain to me why his work should be dismissed out of hand?

and remember, most people have actual lives, and can't spend hours upon hours researching and reading in depth science reports even if they had the desire to do so.

please note, I am not debating his FINDINGS, only his credentials and how the public percieves them.

 

I don't think there is a problem with is credentials, and I also don't think his work was dismissed out of hand.

as is usually the case when research is published, it is reviewed by peers who critique the work. there have been several critiques which have stated that his theory is not substantiated by the evidence.

this from realclimate explains what some of the shortcomings are:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/

note, his theory is not dismissed entirely, however shortcomings are identified, and it is stated why the theory falls down.

usually, in th escientific process Svensmark and his colleagues will engage in further research and there will be further discussion. his findings most likely will continue to support that solar factors influence earth's temperature, even if they do not account for the current warming trend.

and it also appears highly likely that there will be other information gathered from his research, eg with respect to GCRs influence on clouds, and what implications there may be in relation to this. This may influence further research projects.

 

Because his opinion that "cooling has begun" is just that: his opinion, not his work. He has never published one peer-reviewed work to support that opinion.

So no, I'm not dismissing his work out of hand. But yes, I am dismissing his opinion out of hand, because it is unsupported by evidence.

 

I didn't read it that way at all.

 

but Cassandra just said he did.

 

Even in the wiki report you linked to it shows that far from being 'dismissed out of hand' his work has been given due consideration and some of this findings factored into the main body of knowledge that is climate science

 

As Cassandra told you, he has published research describing his hypotheses relating to the influence of solar activity and the possibility that cooling may ocur.

But as Poor Debater pointed out, he has not published any research which shows that the earth is cooling. That is merely his opinion based on his published hypotheses.

No one is dismissing his work out of hand. Just his opinion that the earth is cooling. That is currently unsupported by evidence. Because the earth is warming.