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

For Freak's SAKE FORGET AL GORE!! He is at most peripheral to the debate, he is an ex politician from America end of story

And he doe NOT have the whole scientific community chained to a hot lab bench in his basement cranking up the lightning for Igor

 

And is that any worse than the blatant confirmation bias shown by anyone who utters "Al GOre Did IT!!"

 

Nice Ad Hom - hey! I am always up for a science based debate

Rarely get one but I can always hope

 

No - the AGW deniers are a very small and increasingly insignificant annoyance.

They may not be exactly the same people as the anti-evolution nutters - but there is probably a significant overlap. They all suffer from the same delusional belief that only they understand the truth - and the entire scientific community is just a huge conspiracy against them.

 

do you really expect anyone to try to have a science based debate with someone whose kneejerk reaction to a slight objection is to post mockery and cartoons? That is not a mature, science debate...it is grade school.

maybe if you so want a science based debate, you should look at your own attitude and posts.

 

actually, it is the AGW crowd that believes with religious like fervor that THEY alone know the "truth" and insist that everyone must believe exactly like them and anyone that doesn't is somehow less intelligent and "insignificant".

And frankly, that attitude seems to be a bit alarming...if you heard that Christians were planning to push thru requirements that all people in the United States must adhere to a set standard of morality, with draconian laws requiring the complete change of lifestyle of every man, woman and child must follow, wouldn't YOU be fighting it? And if they sneered at you and said "you are ignorant and totally insignificant"...wouldn't you be insulted and angered?

 

you CAN'T take Al Gore out of this. If not for him and his fake documentary, half of you wouldn't even believe in AGW yourselves.

and no one here has said he has the 'whole scientific community chained to a hot lab bench in his basement cranking up the lightning for Igor". That's just more of your juvenile mockery.

AGW proponents are completely tied up with politicians, it is your side that has turned to politics to push thru your agenda, just because we are now finding out how corrupt those politicians are, and how they have greedily twisted things to enrich themselves, you decide they don't really represent the AGW side?

good luck trying to distance yourself.

 

Hmmm - Starts with an Ad Hom and ends in hyperbole

What it does not contain is one shred of fact in relation to the science underpinning climate change

 

Typical American narrow world view - Al Gore is virtually unknown outside of America

As for promoting the c=science of climate change - yes he did do that but it was only one documentary after all. What the denialists with their conspiracy theories fail consistently to explain is how this is a global conspiracy

 

It was really only American's that seem to have become aware of AGW through Al Gore. It was kind of exciting to see America start to move on an issue this big. The world got excited about what Al Gore was saying only because of the reaction he was getting from Americans. It looked as though you would act, and we were all ready to jump on board. But you fizzled out and Gore has become irrelevant again. No one is looking to the USA for leadership on this issue anymore, and therefore we don't care about Al Gore. It will be China that leads the world on this, it could have been America but 2008 pretty much killed that off.

If Al Gore represents the AGW side of the debate, then the Koch brothers are the other side.

Al Gore was just a politician campaigning about an environmental issue, nothing more.

I don't believe that I know "the truth", I simply go along with what our scientific experts and institutions tell us the problem is, and then what our economists tell us the best solution is. When I see the Right in America and now Australia rejecting science I find it depressing. I see the far right campaigning to teach creationism in science classes alongside the big bang and evolution theories. I see them campaigning against vaccinations, calling left wing parties evil communists and or terrorists and all sorts of other stupid crap. And then they campaign against AGW and talking about world wide international conspiracies encompassing hundreds of thousands of scientists and peer reviewed papers, thousands of government officials from all over the world, etc, etc. And I'm pretty comfortable that I'm on the right side of the debate.

I wish the issue was bipartisan. It used to be in Australia (officially it still is, but unofficially everyone knows it's not), it is in most of Europe. But in America, because you are so deeply entrenched in partisan politics it's a straight 50/50 DEM/GOP split.

 

to even out your reading, may I suggest you also read
"Climate Change Denial" by Washington and Cook,
"Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway,
"The Warming Papers" edited by Archer and Pierrehumbert(for the history),
"Elementary Climate Physics (2005)" by F.W. Taylor (for the science).

 

"You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts. "

I, former physics major, have spent hours learning about the science and 99.99% percent of the deniers have their science wrong.

We do not know "the truth" but we can evaluate the evidence. When opinions are fact and evidenced based, religion has nothing to do with it. When the facts are wrong and there is no evidenced supporting opinions, that is religion. The conclusions of 97% of the climate scientists are based on facts, theories and evidence. The conclusions of 97% of the deniers are based on fallacies, lies, and an incorrect understanding of the science.

I did not watch Al Gore's movie. I do not base my opinion on what Al Gore states. I decided to learn about climate science not because of Gore's movie but because I read the 2007 IPCC report. If Gore never existed, it would in no way change by acceptance of the evidence or change my interest in the science.

Well stated!

 

Where did you get that figure from?

 

I only listed the ones I could remember yesterday.

I've read Climate Change Denial and The Warming Papers.

I've also read many other books on the subject, many of them in favour of AGW.

So far, however, there's not enough convincing, credible evidence that global climate change is caused or affected by human activity.

 

AGW deniers may be like evolution deniers, but the AGW belivers remind me of Bigfoot researchers. No matter how sincere they may be in their beliefs, there is enough evidence for fakery and hoaxing to cast significant doubt on AGW. Too many people with a financial stake in AGW. Too many people with a political agenda in AGW. Too many people who would impose draconian laws and regulations that would devastate world economies, and degrade the living standards of millions of humans. Too many alternative explanations for climate change that has happened over and over for millions of years.
Personally, I'm more worried about an asteroid impact. That's instant, massive destruction, and something we might be able to do something about.

 

You really need to read my posts more carefully.

I don't have a "religion": I simply do not subscribe to the AGW theory. Simple as that. I'm not pushing any one alternative theory: I'm just letting people know that they exist and the evidence they offer is far more convincing.

My mind is still open on the subject, as I have repeated several times
(I understand that open-mindedness scares you).

If any credible, convincing evidence in support of AGW is ever presented I may very well change my mind and accept human activity as the most likely cause of global climate change. At the moment though, AGW is the least credible of all theories.

 

LOL "bad time".

Your posts have been amusing and at times just plain hilarious: I welcome input from the equally hilarious deciples of AGW. Can't wait to see what they "google".

LOL

 

Aren't we all getting this wrong and upside down?

The "experts", "scientists", "physicists" all produce data in the favor of whoever pays for them. And those who pay for them are the investors who want to make money on this AGW game. The AGW is an excellent tool to channel investment trends and to create new markets, carbon tax being a good example. I say, don't diss AGW. Your future may very well depend on it (i.e. if you care about your capital gains and retirement portfolio).

 

WTF?!?!?!

I - like most people my age learnt about AGW in high school science back in the 1970s and 80s. Long, long before any one had heard of some nobody seppo politician.

 

No. People accept AGW because it is documented, argued and explained in the scientific literature.

The few sad denier remnants that still listen to the shock jocks need to learn to accept this

This is not a faith we are discussing.

We are talking about a scientific theory that has been accepted by virtually the entire scientific community and has had results and evidence published in the scientific literature for decades.


The people who ignore this in favour of conspiracy theories spread by shock-jocks and energy companies are "ignorant and totally insignificant". If these people are "insulted and angered" by this - they need to grow up and stop being so gullible. Get over this juvenile delusional belief that only they understand the truth - and the entire scientific community is just a huge conspiracy against them.

 

Yeah right. Cos there is no money in coal or oil. No one ever made a quid out of that stuff.

 

So which bit do you find least credible?:

We know what greenhouse gasses do. Right?
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Right?
We know the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased over the past century. Right?
We know that this increase is due to anthropogenic activities. Right?
We Know that there has been an observed increase in global temperature. Right?
We know that this has been accompanied by an observed decrease in glacial mass and ice caps, and increase in sea level. Right?
We know that there has been an observed decrease in the amount of outgoing radiation from earth at exactly the same frequencies as those that are absorbed by CO2. Right?
We know that there are no other observable phenomena that may be responsible for the observed increase in global temperature. Right?

So where exactly is does your doubt lie?
Scepticism implies you want evidence. There is plenty of evidence. To ignore it makes you a denier.

 

• 
  
  Heh!
  
  You do understand don't you that volcanos don't actually put more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activities?
  
  I wonder how many other basic facts Mr Plimer got wrong in that book!
  
  Try reading something that is actually supported by the scientific literature. Not the non peer-reviewed opinions of energy company employees
  (Plimer is a director of four mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland's Ivanhoe Mines,CBH Resources, Kefi Minerals and Australia-based coal gas company, Ormil Energy)
  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer
  
  I am sure he is a fine geologist and has published many excellent scientific works in his field. But I wonder why he chose to go the populist book route for these particular "scientific" observations of his - rather than the usual avenues of publication of scientific papers? I am sure a sceptical person such as yourself also asked these questions Uncle.

 

Well I have read both sides of the argument and the physics convinces me that AGW is real and could be catastrophic. I think because I do understand the physics involved, I am more like to spot the misinformation in the deniers' books and web sites. For example, when the deniers state the the sun is the cause because other planets are warming, I know that is BS. Energy output from the sun follows the inverse square law so that any decrease in the sun's output would have insignificant effects on Mars, Pluto or the other outer planets and moons. When deniers scream "saturation", I know that the Beer-Lambert Law is only 1/2 of the effect. I know that "proof" is a mathematical and legal term, not a concept used in science. Many more examples of understanding the physics results in seeing the BS the denier crowd passes off as "science".

I have also spent a lot of time at sites like Watts, CO2science. In the years of reading about climate change I have noticed the amount of lies and misinformation coming from the deniers far exceeds any misinformation from the AGW sites. When the AGW sites make a mistake, they usually acknowledge it. I have yet to see one correction on Watts, CO2science or Morono's site.

 

Yeah sure, but if some players start creating a new and competing market out of thin air using the power of simple legislation, then every coal/oil guy'd better jump on that new wagon or else they lose. It all may be just a hype BUT enough to put away the non-participants. A little bit like the 1990's telecom boom.