Does anyone else see a simliary between global warming deniers and creationists?

Question

They both disregard the overwhelming scientific consensus.
They both ignore all evidence contrary to their belief.
They both lack any papers in peer reviewed journals.
They both quote mine experts opposed to them for any statements that taken out of context appear skeptical of the consensus.
They both rely on a public misunderstanding of science.
They both use the media to sensationalize the fictitious "debate" in the scientific community.
They both use lists of experts opposed to their viewpoint to attempt to change public opinion.

I could go on....

Perhaps I should have mentioned I'm a biologist looking at the AGW debate.

Dana, never thought of that, both reek of corporate interests.

Sam, take a biology course, evolution is fact.

Rick, the fact you said evolution is only a theory shows you known absolutely nothing about science.

jd61, so many points...
You're right evidence matters, not consensus. but I don't have the time to go through the evidence myself, so I put my trust into the experts who spend their life studying the climate.
None of the link provided are PEER REVIEWED. That is what matters in science. Media reports mean nothing., especially if they're from people with vested interest in the subject.
Opponents of AGW use the media to spread their view rather than use the appropriate scientific channels. Yes the media itself realizes the problem, yet they give these fringe scientists airtime.

Answer 1

Yes, they're fairly similar. An even closer similarity is the denial of anthropogenic global warming to the denial of the link between smoking and lung cancer. In both cases, big industries fund junk science research to try and prove there is no link and fund billions of dollars into a campaign to create public doubt.

In fact, many of the scientists who claimed (and continue to claim) there is no link between smoking and lung cancer also claim that humans are not causing global warming, such as Fred Singer.

Answer 2

Here's were you are going wrong:
Consensus:
The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Evidence:
Many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe.

Peer reviewed journals:
Either your very ignorant or just lying:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/20/senate-report-over-400-scientists-dispute-manmade-global-warming
http://www.physorg.com/news116996704.html
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm....There is plenty more!!!

Mine experts; I really don't know what you mean, but maybe this will help:
This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists that are skeptics. Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Also ever hear of the The Heidelberg Appeal?: http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html

The public misunderstanding of man-made global warming and the using of the media:
I should quit responding right now because you are definitely ignorant or are just a flat out liar..but I won't because I want other people to read this.
The media... from CNN with their Planet in Peril to NBC"s turning off the studio lights (except for their sponsors big *** tv screen in the background) during a football half time show sums it up as far as media and public misunderstanding. ABC has cartoons on Saturday that tells kids that global warming is catastrophic. So give me a break!!!

Using experts: (you quoted) They both use lists of experts opposed to their viewpoint to attempt to change public opinion.
What the hell is that? Why would they use experts to oppose their viewpoints?
I think your so torn up of the fact that this man-made global warming thing is a hoax that you can't think straight

P.S. Please GO ON!!!! and show me the scientific facts that man is causing the earth to warm. not like (Bob the builder of alarmism from the gospel of wikpedia)

Answer 3

No, I guess I don't see it. What I see is a bunch of Marxist using global climate change hysteria to promote their collectivist goals. Like ignoring millions of years of fossil evidence the global climate change fanatics ignore millions of years of geological evidence that the climate is constantly changing, and is many more times likely to drift into another ice age than a run away warming trend.

They also seem to be unaware of simple facts like that around 1000 years ago it was obviously warmer than it is right now. And that all of the previous climate changes occured without the internal combustion engines or modern industrial activity. They apparently also don't realize that one naturally occuring event, like a volcanic eruption is more than capable or producing more CO2 than all of the activities of mankind since the begining of mankind.

Do our industrial activities effect the global climate. Probably. In a measurable way, more than likely not. Certainly not to any real scientific certainty.

Time will tell who is right. If the global warming alarmist are right every year should be hotter than the last. But wait its gotten cooler for the last 3 to 4 years and the hottest year on record was in the 1930's. So who is objectively looking at the facts and who is daming the non-believers as infidels.

Answer 4

Not only that, but I would also guess that those believing in creationism also doesn't believe in AGW.

That should be a good indication for people who says that global warming is a religion. In my opinion it's the other way around. Global warming denial is much more linked to religious fanaticism. (Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with *sound* beliefs.)

If anyone knows of someone believing in Creationism and also supporting the AGW theory, it would be very interesting to know. I think it will be very hard to find.

EDIT to Bob:

You're absolutely right, I mean New Earth Creationists. Thanks for pointing that out for me.

Answer 5

I agree. But it seems to me that they get used to not trusting science based on one, and the distrust just carries on through for the Global Warming aspect. They have a general distrust of science, which to them tries to say God doesn't exist...therefor it can't be trusted to tell me the temperature of the planet...

Why they feel happy trusting that gravity will pull them to earth, and take aspirin for a headache is what confuses me...

Answer 6

Turn around what you said:
"They both rely on a public misunderstanding of science."
Do you understand that Evolution is only a "Theory"?

I doubt you understand science - otherwise you could comprehend this:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life13.htm
" Despite incredible odds, and seemingly insurmountable problems, spontaneous generation is taught as a fact from grammar school to university."

Answer 7

Yes. I'd add a propensity to poke at fringe details that aren't crucial and claim that they invalidate the major conclusions.

jd61- There's vast amount of compelling evidence.

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced the above and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

The Oregon Petition is a hoax.

http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/global-warming-oism-petition.aspx?D=71&Pg=1
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

INGELAD - Depends on your definition of Creationism. I can see Old Earth Creationists accepting the reality of man made global warming very easily. Like this guy:

http://www.reasons.org/

You're probably right about New Earth Creationists.

ROADKILL - Marxists like this?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

Answer 8

Science is ok when used properly.. It's proven global warming and evolution wrong, so I don't have a problem with it.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that evolutionists and environmentalists tend to refuse the immense evidence proving them wrong, saying their theory "still needs work."

I think Darwin was pretty cool. He came up and told everyone he was wrong. But then he died.

Answer 9

You have hit on something. It does sound like the "Monkey Trials" when Evolution was put to the test against 'Creationism' in a courtroom.

Answer 10

i completely agree, both groups don't trust science and will only pay attention to evidence that agrees with there beliefs.