Creationists and Global Warming Deniers

[CDarwin]

I promise I'm not trying to make a point with this. I'm just curious as to how you feel the scientific community should treat these two groups that oppose basically what it as a body is saying. Now obviously there are some global warming deniers (or anthropogenic global warming, or whatever semantic games you want to play) and even a few Creationists on this site, so perhaps you're going to have a different opinion than us drones, and I'd be interested to hear those too.

 

Is denying the scientific consensus on the origins and development of life and the universe analogous to denying the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change? Is one position more valid than the other? Does either group serve any more valid function than the other?

[foodchain]

I promise I'm not trying to make a point with this. I'm just curious as to how you feel the scientific community should treat these two groups that oppose basically what it as a body is saying. Now obviously there are some global warming deniers (or anthropogenic global warming, or whatever semantic games you want to play) and even a few Creationists on this site, so perhaps you're going to have a different opinion than us drones, and I'd be interested to hear those too.

 

Is denying the scientific consensus on the origins and development of life and the universe analogous to denying the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change? Is one position more valid than the other? Does either group serve any more valid function than the other?

 

A creationist I would say holds somewhat an absolute opinion that all things are created by or done by or controlled by a super natural thing or a god. So anything contrary to this is damaging to such a worldview and typically is met with either hostility or base hatred really. Al Gore if memory serves claims to be a religious man, but he is not an extremist, in which a creationist really is an extremist religious type. If you will notice any detail lacking 100% factual empirical representation of reality is instantly sucked into this extremist vacuum and used for any nefarious ends to reach a goal for some agenda which is basically god did it or is doing it.

 

To add in one more aspect to such, its why I am weary of the military anymore. Who wants to fight for an officer or a president that thinks you will die and go to heaven, he or she might not be to careful with your life, but its just subjective on my part, or such a view is.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Where is this echoing bollocsk coming from?

 

On the contrary, the followers of the modern day faith in manmade global warming are the religious types! They believe the claims without question or scrutiny because they are unable to interpret data, models and general draw conclusions of their own. See a pattern?

 

The suggestion that the scientifically cautious to flash-in-the-pan claims are creationist analogies is the pot calling the kettle black in the extreme.

[foodchain]

Where is this echoing bollocsk coming from?

 

On the contrary, the followers of the modern day faith in manmade global warming are the religious types! They believe the claims without question or scrutiny because they are unable to interpret data, models and general draw conclusions of their own. See a pattern?

 

The suggestion that the scientifically cautious to flash-in-the-pan claims are creationist analogies is the pot calling the kettle black in the extreme.

 

How so? I mean you made a claim, I just want to know how you say that. When you say graph, do you mean some people just sat in a room and made a graph from nothing? I mean from what I understand graphs that pertain to global warming happen to come from the collection of physical evidence in many ways, not just someone playing with numbers after all.

 

Faith is devoid of anything other then that. Some people can have faith and not become irrational to the point of extremes, creationists just don’t happen to be in that boat because well, the earth is a little bit older then say 2000 years to start, nor is it flat and we happen to be decedents of other living things, not just beings here in a “poof“ of magic.

 

I think the reality of GW in regards to science is pretty darn sound anymore, or not some subjective philosophy waiting to be painted by whatever whims someone currently has. I mean I wont put someone down for thinking thunder is thors work, but in reality we have data to show otherwise to a certain and comfortable extent that thunder is not thors doing to say the least.

 

I don’t find it shocking though. I mean with all the support evolution has you still have presidents elected by the masses of some advanced country trying to legally ban it to a certain degree, so none of its shocking. See, I like science, you can think whatever the heck you want, but you have to prove it, so that sort of means coming to terms with reality over time for humanity, hopefully.

 

Lastly though, why is GW a faith as you would have it?

[Geodude]

Where is this echoing bollocsk coming from?

 

On the contrary, the followers of the modern day faith in manmade global warming are the religious types! They believe the claims without question or scrutiny because they are unable to interpret data, models and general draw conclusions of their own. See a pattern?

 

The suggestion that the scientifically cautious to flash-in-the-pan claims are creationist analogies is the pot calling the kettle black in the extreme.

 

LOL, the same could be said about you. We deniers at least look at the data BEFORE we say with certainty that it is bunk.

[ghstofmaxwll]

 

Lastly though, why is GW a faith as you would have it?

 

Because it is based chiefly on the assertions built up by so called authority figures. While it has a modicum of actual scientific validity, there are so many variables in planetary climate(thats not to mention peaks in photosphere activity), that only a faith type can jump to any conclusion that we are undoubtedly the cause of the current trend of planetary temperature increase.

 

LOL, the same could be said about you. We deniers at least look at the data BEFORE we say with certainty that it is bunk.

 

You have really gotten confused dude. My support of global warming claims in the other thread were parody.

[foodchain]

Because it is based chiefly on the assertions built up by so called authority figures. While it has a modicum of actual scientific validity, there are so many variables in planetary climate(thats not to mention peaks in photosphere activity), that only a faith type can jump to any conclusion that we are undoubtedly the cause of the current trend of planetary temperature increase.

 

While that could be a possible avenue of corruption the science behind global warming is anything but conserved to a figures of scientific authority, nor is the data really. It also has the backing of numerous prestigious and recognized scientific bodies or organizations. The data is open source really, so I don’t see how its something as a product of a few.

 

As for your variables remark. I don’t know about that one either. I mean I think every single variable has been accounted for that leads to the temperature of our planet save for the fact maybe the moon is a eight of an inch farther away. I just don’t know how small of detail you want basically. No, I don’t think global warming models account for every possible reality, such as if some kind of giant fungal bloom is taking part in some place of the planet or if some giant change/shift of microbe life has occurred in the earths crust, and on that I give you credit for a solid point. I think what current models based on data can show though is a direct correlation to human behavior and related impact environmentally speaking in regards to greenhouse gas concentrations trapping more energy in the earths environments subsequently increasing its temp. I think this is so cut and dry anymore that science is really past that point and now is on the point of how to adequately combat such.

 

There is nothing yet found on earth that can account for the sudden and growing CO2 concentration found in naturally occurring "records" such as ice cores. This spike coincides with the industrial revolution and continues on along the progression of such. The subsequent variation in temp also follows along with this. For all the ruckus and the fact that GW study is widespread in science, why cannot all of these people find that hidden variable if it indeed did exist? I guess what I am asking then is what is the cutoff to adequate information in your opinion that supports GW in context or relation to human behavior? I mean if the IPCC is so horribly off, it must really say something about the ability of science more then anything else then.

 

Again not to say it does not, but why not as to its discovery, and why the clear relationship between human behavior, CO2 growth and temp variation then?

[ghstofmaxwll]

Its not about there being any cut-off where I will believe wholeheartedly that we are causing global warming, its about how certain we can ever be that we are causing it by the little we know today on 29th Oct 2007. As I have said before : I dont deny there is compelling pointers for man altering our climate, I just resent the claim that one factual cause can be drawn for the current phase of global temperature rise.

 

If you would open up to other possibilities, maybe we can understand our climate more, and also direct some of the panic resources towards more apparent environmental pursuits i.e. oceanic pollution and destruction of rainforest's(which ultimately keep the balance of 80% N + 20% O + small amount of co2 in the air we breathe).

[iNow]

I see many similarities in creationists and global warming deniers. I appreciate healthy skepticism, and it's good to challenge data. However, when those challenges fail and the data holds to be accurate and replicable, yet you still hold your old ideas and refuse to accept it, that's just retarded.

 

That's how I see creationists and global warming deniers. A special form of retarded.

 

 

I also want to apologize to all of those out there who are (or know someone who is) mentally handicapped. It's rude of me to lump creationists and global warming deniers into a group of people who already have enough challenges to overcome on their own.

[Mr Skeptic]

I promise I'm not trying to make a point with this.

 

Of course not.

 

I'm just curious as to how you feel the scientific community should treat these two groups that oppose basically what it as a body is saying.

 

Kill them all, of course. Failing that, start a thread to call them names. Conveniently ignoring that they hold different axioms than yours, and you have not offered any evidence that your axioms are true. Different axioms, BTW, almost demand different logical conclusions.

 

Now obviously there are some global warming deniers (or anthropogenic global warming, or whatever semantic games you want to play) and even a few Creationists on this site, so perhaps you're going to have a different opinion than us drones, and I'd be interested to hear those too.

 

Well, "interested" and "hear" have some meanings too, but let's not get into semantics.

 

Is denying the scientific consensus on the origins and development of life and the universe analogous to denying the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change?

 

Yes. However, I note that you have lumped "creationists" with "global warming deniers". These groups are not analogous, as "creationists" are associated with a specific belief. They assert, and it cannot be proven either way, that God was responsible for our creation.

 

"global warming deniers", on the other hand, are associated with a lack of a specific belief. Unless you meant the "global warming is bunk" folks.

 

Is one position more valid than the other?

 

I think that there is less evidence for global warming (compared to evolution), the evidence there is is harder to see, and showing that global warming will be disastrous is harder yet. And the tv meteorologists makes lots of public mistakes, so the climatologists are viewed with more suspicion.

 

Does either group serve any more valid function than the other?

 

No.

 

---

 

Also, are you lumping the doubtful with the deniers?

[ghstofmaxwll]

I see many similarities in creationists and global warming deniers. I appreciate healthy skepticism, and it's good to challenge data. However, when those challenges fail and the data holds to be accurate and replicable, yet you still hold your old ideas and refuse to accept it, that's just retarded.

 

That's how I see creationists and global warming deniers. A special form of retarded.

 

 

I also want to apologize to all of those out there who are (or know someone who is) mentally handicapped. It's rude of me to lump creationists and global warming deniers into a group of people who already have enough challenges to overcome on their own.

 

Look in the mirror, spastic.

 

Duhhhb wave you hand about your wrist rapidly and listen

 

 

 

"no one is saying no to your wank!", we just dont want to copy you.

[iNow]

These groups are not analogous, as "creationists" are associated with a specific belief. They assert, and it cannot be proven either way, that God was responsible for our creation.

They assert far more than just "God did it," but I appreciate your point.

[CDarwin]

Kill them all, of course. Failing that, start a thread to call them names. Conveniently ignoring that they hold different axioms than yours, and you have not offered any evidence that your axioms are true. Different axioms, BTW, almost demand different logical conclusions.

 

Do you deny that there is a scientific consensus on both evolution and anthropogenic global warming? That's the only basis I'm working from on this thread.

 

By the way, I haven't call anyone anything unless you consider it an insult to one group or the other to suggest a comparison between them, in which case you're rejecting the someone's axiom without offering any evidence your axiom is true.

 

Well, "interested" and "hear" have some meanings too, but let's not get into semantics.

 

This isn't a debate about evolution or global warming. This is a discussion about how the groups that oppose those ideas relate to the public and larger scientific community. Why on earth wouldn't I be interested in what the members of either of these groups have to say about their own role and that of the other?

 

Yes. However, I note that you have lumped "creationists" with "global warming deniers". These groups are not analogous, as "creationists" are associated with a specific belief. They assert, and it cannot be proven either way, that God was responsible for our creation.

 

"global warming deniers", on the other hand, are associated with a lack of a specific belief. Unless you meant the "global warming is bunk" folks.

 

 

 

I think that there is less evidence for global warming (compared to evolution), the evidence there is is harder to see, and showing that global warming will be disastrous is harder yet. And the tv meteorologists makes lots of public mistakes, so the climatologists are viewed with more suspicion.

 

I'm not doing the lumping, I'm asking if there should be a lumping. Otherwise, valid point. That's the sort of response I was going for when I made the thread.

 

Though, Creationism doesn't refer simply to those who believe that God was important in the creation of the universe. It refers specifically to those who deny those elements and findings of science which conflict with their belief as to how God played a part in that creation. In it's most extreme form (YEC) that's just about everything, whereas in ID it's mostly specific denials of explanations of things like the evolution of the eye, or of the validity specific lines of evidence.

 

So both Creationists and GB deniers are engaged in some sort of denial.

 

Also, are you lumping the doubtful with the deniers?

 

I'm talking mostly about the movements here, so active denial.

[Mr Skeptic]

By the way, I haven't call anyone anything unless you consider it an insult to one group or the other to suggest a comparison between them, in which case you're rejecting the someone's axiom without offering any evidence your axiom is true.

 

Well, some people would be insulted by the comparison. But I was expecting this thread to be full of comments along the lines of iNow's, like it would on most sites. Foreseeable even if you didn't intend it. I suppose I should retract that, since it didn't happen.

 

Though, Creationism doesn't refer simply to those who believe that God was important in the creation of the universe. It refers specifically to those who deny those elements and findings of science which conflict with their belief as to how God played a part in that creation. In it's most extreme form (YEC) that's just about everything, whereas in ID it's mostly specific denials of explanations of things like the evolution of the eye, or of the validity specific lines of evidence.

 

I wasn't sure how specific you wanted to be, so that was the only belief I pointed out, since it is shared by all of them.

 

So both Creationists and GB deniers are engaged in some sort of denial.

 

Isn't everyone? Both sides will occasionally say, "The other guy is wrong, but I don't have time/patience to look at his data/methods." Obviously, one guy is wrong but neither of them can tell which is which.

 

Also, I believe the deniers are mostly rational people who are working from an extra axiom or two. A conspiracy theorist, for example, has good reason to discard a whole lot of data and even more opinion. Likewise, someone who notices how biased people are about a subject (note how likely some subjects are to lead to name calling) might also consider data and opinions suspect. More specific ideas like "God exists" and "The earth is big and we are small" and myriad others are also possible.

 

Someone believing one of the above statements means they will view the same data differently and therefore logically reach different conclusions. In this, they are perfectly rational. Logic never guarantees that you start from true premises, only that if you do, you will reach a true conclusion. To convince them their conclusion is wrong, you may need to convince them their other premise (which they probably didn't tell you) is also wrong, or a *lot* of data from sources they consider reliable.

 

Combine this with the fact that people seldom change their beliefs once they made up their minds, and you have deniers who are nevertheless quite rational in other areas.

 

I'm talking mostly about the movements here, so active denial.

 

Good.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Regarding CDarwin.

 

No one is denying the evidence(well im not any way), its a caution as to the validity of the evidence against a possible coincidental rise in global temperatures.

 

Would you be raving about global warming if we were in the midst of a decline in temperatures? Are you making a cause fit the effect more than the effect fitting the cause?

 

What if global temperatures start to decline in the next decade to a comparable magnitude? Will you still be raving then?

 

Do you understand why context is important, and why its important to remeber that statistical climbs dont alter the odds of future trends in anyway i.e. the sharp upward gradient of a graph doesn't predict future climb any more than future decline?

 

Do you understand how such things as evolution is stronger because it is predictive, and has been verified after the fact to be right countless times?

 

OK our very home is of extreme importance and we cant take any chances no matter what, but do you have to make a mockery of the scientific method by claiming facts at the drop of the hat alike the intelligent design community?

[CDarwin]

Regarding CDarwin.

 

No one is denying the evidence

 

Denying the consensus position.

[waitforufo]

Most Christian denominations summarize their orthodoxy with the Nicene Creed. This creed begins with:

 

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.”

 

This statement of faith is at the beginning of the creed for two reasons. One, the creed is laid out in chronological order. Creation happened first. Two, it is of primary in theological importance. All that is, comes from God.

 

The above statement of faith does not restrict a believer form accepting scientific laws or theories. Only a bigot would suggest otherwise. In fact, the above statement of faith requires the believer to accept all truth revealed by reason because it provides understanding about the creator. Those ignorant of this fact should perhaps read Kepler or Newton. Many of the greatest scientists in history have made the pledge of faith above.

 

This forum topic is nothing but a bigoted ad hominem attack on both religious believers and global warming skeptics. Shame.

[Mr Skeptic]

Denying the consensus position.

 

A million lemmings can't be wrong!!!!!

[CDarwin]

This forum topic is nothing but a bigoted ad hominem attack on both religious believers and global warming skeptics. Shame.

Wtf? How does that possibly make sense?

 

*sigh*

 

You know I had intended this thread to become a challenging discussion on the way the scientific community deals with these two movements that sit in opposition to it's consensus position, and perhaps on whether or not these movements contribute. I see people are just too defensive about these issues for that to be possible.

 

Fine, fine, everybody lay your spins back down and return to your homes. Dispassionate discussion is impossible.

[Mr Skeptic]

This forum topic is nothing but a bigoted ad hominem attack on both religious believers and global warming skeptics. Shame.

 

He did clarify that this is about deniers, not doubters.

 

Wtf? How does that possibly make sense?

 

*sigh*

 

You know I had intended this thread to become a challenging discussion on the way the scientific community deals with these two movements that sit in opposition to it's consensus position, and perhaps on whether or not these movements contribute. I see people are just too defensive about these issues for that to be possible.

 

Fine, fine, everybody lay your spins back down and return to your homes. Dispassionate discussion is impossible.

 

Your name doesn't exactly say "unbiased" either.

[iNow]

Since some areas of the planet are actually cooling, you can head off a lot of unecessary disagreement by referring to it as "Global Climate Change" instead of global warming.

 

 

 

Well, some people would be insulted by the comparison. But I was expecting this thread to be full of comments along the lines of iNow's, like it would on most sites.

Which part, the statement about healthy skepticism, the part about challenging data being a good thing, or the apology to mentally handicapped individuals for lumping creationists and GW deniers into their bucket?

[ghstofmaxwll]

Since some areas of the planet are actually cooling, you can head off a lot of unecessary disagreement by referring to it as "Global Climate Change" instead of global warming.

Maybe we should just call it global Hadley cell change then. i.e. natural climate redistribution.

[iNow]

Maybe we should just call it global Hadley cell change then. i.e. natural climate redistribution.

 

But then we'd be mistaken.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Theres one good thing about this panic, we may learn loads of additional climate cycle processes. Maybe this will enable us to artificially prevent natural population reductions and extinctions. Thats if your faith proves to be wrong of course.

[Phi for All]

I think science should ignore both groups. Creationism defines itself in terms science is unprepared to measure. GW deniers attempt to reinterpret what science has measured and experimented with to get a different answer. Both groups are misusing what science is trying to offer them in order to create a False Dilemma.