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

perhaps YOU should learn the similarities:

again, I say: if you can't predict the 'climate' in a month, I don't believe you can predict the 'climate' in a hundred years.

 

Nope. The Maunder Minimum ended in the early 18th century.

A few may speculate such, but at least so far it looks like a fairly typical Gleissberg cycle minimum. We saw this at the beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries, too.

 

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT ALERT.

I love how your side has nothing but logical fallacies.

 

(reply to original thread)


I believe in evolution, and in God. There's no contradiction.


Global warming is real scientific fact; it's the cause (human? natural? other?) that's debatable.
Because global warming is happening, lots of catastrophic environmental events are occurring. Coral reefs are dying, ice caps are melting, etc. etc.
Thus, at the moment, the most logical path is to ignore WHY global warming is happening and ask HOW we can slow it.

Yes?

 

explain what you mean?

you said:

so which I replied:

it would be as much a logical fallacy to say that if A caused B in the past then it can't possibly repeat itself, isn't it?


strawman argument:

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

how did I misrepresent your post?

 

So please tell us what others are MORE convincing

 

Oh! Dear! where does one start?

A) Milankovitch cycles - more than a word a real explanation
B) changing CO2 levels - SUV's and Dinosaurs are not the only things that produce CO2
C) "They never answer" sorry but there are whole library shelves of books answering this question - even before it became a darling of the scientifically ignorant
D) land that used to be an inland sea - the whole science of geology has just passed you by hasn't it? Google is your friend
e) Ignorance is NOT bliss - but exposing your own ignorance on the internet seems to be a past time of some

 

You are not getting it - consider - the weather is the grain of sand the climate is the beach

 

wow...and you call me ignorant? how would you build a beach if you didn't know about sand?

but whatever

I didn't realize this thread was just a circle jerk...you guys enjoy posturing and strutting all by yourselves.

I still don't believe in man made climate change and I still believe in evolution. Funny little cartoons and snickers aren't overly convincing proof of your intoelechual supeereoretee.

 

You post the words but you do not understand the meaning of the sentences.
I can tell you that the average temperature in July in NJ in 100 years will be between 61F and 85F. That is climate. I cannot tell you the temperature on July 4, 2111. That is weather.
I can tell you the average precipitation in July, 2030 will be 4.8". That is climate. I cannot tell you if it will rain on July4, 2030. That is weather.
See the difference?

 

Wile Evolution seems a long provable moot point vs Creationism to make a comparison between creationists and Global Warming crowd is well...a reach.
Global warming has been hurt with the cooking of stats to agree with findings and has been outed yet warming is happening..is it man made or caused. There is much debate here. to view there is none is well a creationist view of Global warming...it is because the bible of global warming says it is so.

 

And yet the claims that stats were cooked, climategate, etc are from blogs, written by people who have less understanding of science than your average primary school student.

 

What is that supposed to mean? What stats and what findings?

 

It would seem that, until you realize that one of the world's leading global warming skeptics, Dr. Roy Spencer, is also a creationist.

It's been touted, but never been "outed". Here we are 2 years after the release of those hacked emails, and deniers still can't point to one single datum in any peer-reviewed journal that's false or fraudulent. Not one number. Anywhere.

That's not a scandal, it's a fake outrage.

 

Not only that, but, despite many a denier accusation of fraud, no climate researcher has been charged with fraud despite Inhofe's threat and to do so. And IF Inhofe had any evidence of fraud, he would (*)(*)(*)(*) well have followed through. And yet the same people who claim to adhere to the Constitution continually suggest guilty until proven innocent.

 

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{shrugs}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

How else am I to describe posts that are so lacking in scientific fundamentals? You proved you have not even done a cursory read of the plethora of information out there let alone think beyond the sound bites that Glen Beck has fed you

 

Yep, the 18th century comes just before the 19th.

 

The ones that don't involve human activity.

 

if my little questioning of your 'faith' throws you into such a tizzy, how can I believe you on anything? You obviously have no real trust in your own arguments or you wouldn't have to resort to cartoons and snickers. You are just like religious people that get hyserical when you ask them the most simple questions, you show your own insecurities when you can't take a little skepticism.

and how exactly do you think that your attitude will ever win the day for you? Would you buy a car from someone that treated you like that? Of course not. You want me to change my complete lifestyle, not because you can convince me, but just because you 'say so'.

well that's not good enough. Convince me. If you truly believe in something, you should be able to. You say I am easily led...well LEAD me then. If your science is so right, so infallible then how can it not win the day?

 

you would think so but the AGW crowd is so bent on being "right" we can't get anything done.

to me, rather than fight over the cause, we should focus on real world solutions and innovation. We have shown we can overcome many obstacles, I believe if we put the effort in and took the politicians out, we could come up with ways to counteract or adapt to the warming.

 

the point is you STILL can not tell me exactly anything...you are making things up. Averages of future events are just speculations.

 

see this is where we will never meet.

rolling dice is a provable, repeatable experience...you can prove or disprove your idea of the odds over and over but you STILL will not be able to say definitely that you will roll three THIS TIME.

and you are wanting me to change my lifestyle because sometime in the future you think that maybe there will be a problem.

 

perhaps you remember a man named Al Gore? a company named "Solyndra"?? Maybe the scientists themselves aren't making money hand over fist but the politicians and the 'green jobs' corporations are.

8000 people showed up in Copenhagen for the Climate Change event there...how much 'carbon' did THEY use for their private jets and high dollar parties?

thanks for the comparison to gambling...the politicians are gambling we will be silly enough to buy their tripe.

 

going back to the 'no one is getting rich off of man made global warming'..

this is from a blog, yes, but I would appreciate some feedback as to why it's not true, proof that it's not true, etc..

 

I see you don't understand the difference between predicting the next roll and predicting a trend.