Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bob8

Global Warming And Creationism

Recommended Posts

Unlike many, I do not believe that people who believe in creationism/ID etc can simply be dismissed as stupid, however I do believe they are misguided. What often surprises me is that there are many people who believe in evolution and think creationists are stupid, yet disbelieve in man made global warming.

To me it seems it is the same reasoning behind both;

i) The scientists have not thought of stuff that me and my mate came up with in ten minutes.

ii) It is a big conspiracy of a number of academics.

Is there anyone who would be able to explain the difference in reasoning a bit further.

This is not intended as a rude post, merely having the respect to be direct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlike many, I do not believe that people who believe in creationism/ID etc can simply be dismissed as stupid, however I do believe they are misguided. What often surprises me is that there are many people who believe in evolution and think creationists are stupid, yet disbelieve in man made global warming.

To me it seems it is the same reasoning behind both;

i) The scientists have not thought of stuff that me and my mate came up with in ten minutes.

ii) It is a big conspiracy of a number of academics.

Is there anyone who would be able to explain the difference in reasoning a bit further.

This is not intended as a rude post, merely having the respect to be direct.

There are a large number of scientists who are quite rightly sceptical of manmade global warming.

Anyway, with global temperatures falling, the global warming believers still seem stuck in their fantasy computer models rather than looking at the real world data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a large number of scientists who are quite rightly sceptical of manmade global warming.

Anyway, with global temperatures falling, the global warming believers still seem stuck in their fantasy computer models rather than looking at the real world data.

This is directly comparable to a creationist arguement, that many scientists do not believe in evolution and that belief in evolution is not shown by the real world.

May I ask if you believe in evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a firm believer in evolution.

I'm still waiting for the apes to take over the World, however...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skinty

Oooh this is a thread that's going to go rapidly downhill.

May I congratulate the OP on a brilliant way of bringing together two of the most provocative and persistent subjects together in one elegant post.

Before I run for cover may I just add ...

The BNP are creationists who deny man-made global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oooh this is a thread that's going to go rapidly downhill.

May I congratulate the OP on a brilliant way of bringing together two of the most provocative and persistent subjects together in one elegant post.

Before I run for cover may I just add ...

The BNP are creationists who deny man-made global warming.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an atheist. I decided long ago not to waste my time on pondering whether there was some sort of creative force behind the development of the universe and life as we will never know the answer. The gods of the various religions are the inventions of men. The idea that God wants women to wear a burkha or that people should participate in the cannibalistic symbolism of Holy Communion is absurd!

Re Global warming: The evidence fits the theory between about 1975 an 2000 - since then man-made CO2 emissions have continued to rise but global average air temperatures have not - check the Met. Office graphs if you don't believe it.

Through history, climate change is largely caused by known cyclic variations in the Sun's strength and the Earth's orbit round the Sun and a combination of those cycles. The most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapour, CO2 is only a small component of greenhouse gases. The vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, it's estimated that burning fossil fuels only adds between 0.2% and 0.3% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially this post is the other one. Here it is that simple reading of a few facts has uncovered information that people whose job it is have not done. It is rather like the saying about how all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs or cutting hair.

There are not any notable climate scientists who disagree with man-made warming, which is interesting as debate and disagreement is a huge part of the role of a scientist. Clearly, these people will have taken cycles of the sun into account. The sun cycle refutation of man made global warming is like saying the fire cannot be warming the house, as it is afternoon.

I will clarify my situation here, I am a scientist will a bioloogical background. I am therefore qualified to dismiss creationism against people talking out of their hole. However, most people (reasonably enough) have only alimited understanding of evolution and aer essentially happy to accept the experts rather than people crying conspiracy theories. However, the same people will then cry conspiract theories with regard to climate change and ignore all the experts.

Again, apologies if I seem blunt. I do not think the people I argue against are fools, I find myself genuinely not understanding and it is a thread about my ignorance, for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essentially this post is the other one. Here it is that simple reading of a few facts has uncovered information that people whose job it is have not done. It is rather like the saying about how all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs or cutting hair.

There are not any notable climate scientists who disagree with man-made warming, which is interesting as debate and disagreement is a huge part of the role of a scientist. Clearly, these people will have taken cycles of the sun into account. The sun cycle refutation of man made global warming is like saying the fire cannot be warming the house, as it is afternoon.

I will clarify my situation here, I am a scientist will a bioloogical background. I am therefore qualified to dismiss creationism against people talking out of their hole. However, most people (reasonably enough) have only alimited understanding of evolution and aer essentially happy to accept the experts rather than people crying conspiracy theories. However, the same people will then cry conspiract theories with regard to climate change and ignore all the experts.

Again, apologies if I seem blunt. I do not think the people I argue against are fools, I find myself genuinely not understanding and it is a thread about my ignorance, for me.

The experts are themselves divided. I suggest reading The Chilling Stars to learn a bit more why people reject the manmade global warming fairytale. Hopefully it'll stop you trolling for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The experts are themselves divided. I suggest reading The Chilling Stars to learn a bit more why people reject the manmade global warming fairytale. Hopefully it'll stop you trolling for a while.

Now, come on. The experts are not really divided anymore than they are on evolution. I am sure you have good reasons to doubt global warming, but to say that you there is a divide in the scientific community is not true.

I accept though, that I might overstep the line into trolling. I would say the post was specifically for those who accpet evolution strongly, but reject global warming, when the reasoning seems identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, come on. The experts are not really divided anymore than they are on evolution. I am sure you have good reasons to doubt global warming, but to say that you there is a divide in the scientific community is not true.

I accept though, that I might overstep the line into trolling. I would say the post was specifically for those who accpet evolution strongly, but reject global warming, when the reasoning seems identical.

I have a very good reason to doubt global warming - the global temperature data. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low interest rates and the Welsh caused global warming. That is the uncomfortable truth.

Deny it at your peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Courtesy of Watts Up With That, and Quadrant Online

by Richard S. Lindzen on Quadrant Online

July 26, 2009

A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

excerpts:

For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).

…

Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean.

…

In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect.

…

And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

Read the complete essay with references at Quadrant Online

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, come on. The experts are not really divided anymore than they are on evolution. I am sure you have good reasons to doubt global warming, but to say that you there is a divide in the scientific community is not true.

I accept though, that I might overstep the line into trolling. I would say the post was specifically for those who accpet evolution strongly, but reject global warming, when the reasoning seems identical.

Your assertion that the experts are not divided on the global warming issue is based upon what research/data/support?

The experts *are* divided ... the experts that sit on the 'global warming eco-fascist' bent live on the popularist/sensationalist side of the fence (and it is the profitable side of the fence too ... that *may* have something to do with the popularity of land on that side too! ... :) )...

... they may be right that global change is a direct outcome of (only) human intervention ... but they are divided on numerous other sub-topics besides ...

Unsubstantiated sweeping statements on a forum such as this are rarely met with anything other than scorn. Sorry you got/get called a troll ... but it is a temptation that is hard to resist.

Aidanapword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your assertion that the experts are not divided on the global warming issue is based upon what research/data/support?

The experts *are* divided ... the experts that sit on the 'global warming eco-fascist' bent live on the popularist/sensationalist side of the fence (and it is the profitable side of the fence too ... that *may* have something to do with the popularity of land on that side too! ... :) )...

... they may be right that global change is a direct outcome of (only) human intervention ... but they are divided on numerous other sub-topics besides ...

Unsubstantiated sweeping statements on a forum such as this are rarely met with anything other than scorn. Sorry you got/get called a troll ... but it is a temptation that is hard to resist.

Aidanapword

Indeed, I was only referring to man made global warming generally, not on the exactness of it. Sorry for the laziness.

I would question which side has the money, that it is a big money conspiracy that the likes of Exxon and Shell cannot afford to keep up with does not make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, I was only referring to man made global warming generally, not on the exactness of it. Sorry for the laziness.

I would question which side has the money, that it is a big money conspiracy that the likes of Exxon and Shell cannot afford to keep up with does not make sense to me.

The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting in the US.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/clim...llow-the-money/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skinty
Low interest rates and the Welsh caused global warming. That is the uncomfortable truth.

You mean, low interest in their women folk and a build-up of emissions with their sheep? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, most people (reasonably enough) have only alimited understanding of evolution and aer essentially happy to accept the experts rather than people crying conspiracy theories. However, the same people will then cry conspiract theories with regard to climate change and ignore all the experts.

I don't recall anyone using the Theory of Evolution to tax me silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, I was only referring to man made global warming generally, not on the exactness of it. Sorry for the laziness.

I would question which side has the money, that it is a big money conspiracy that the likes of Exxon and Shell cannot afford to keep up with does not make sense to me.

My point is that numerous things are *far* from unequivocally accepted in the scientific community:

a ) that the earth's temperature patterns (as measured in last 20 - 70 years) diverge significantly from a natural pattern at all

- that is: that there is any kind of statistically significant 'never happened before on earth' warming going on at all

b ) (IF a ) ) that the earth's temperature patterns (as above) are diverging significantly because of man's presence

- that is: sunspots/cosmological change and/or any such oscillations showing a trend into chaos (that natural divergent order of the universe) VS a trend into chaos (radical irreversible change) because humans now outnumber their natural ecological balance (because we have the tech/medical to survive against natural odds)

b ) (IF b ) ) what it is about human presence/absence (in terms of behaviour/resource usage) that affects the warming/cooling/change/whatever in any significant manner

There's a difference between saying: 'He/she has money and hence he is selfish/evil' and saying 'He/she has money and hence has additional potential for selfishness/evil'.

And the guvnmnts are making a fortune (in terms of vote-buying rather than hard cash) out of all this. And there are a very significant number of folks who live a very cushy 'consulting' life out of all this too.

Single companies (or even oligopolies of oil companies) have little hope of bankrolling a 'conspiracy' the size of global vote buying. I do think there might be a lot of 'bandwagoning' going on. Consultants and job creationists (word chosen for topical effect), guvmnt lackies, lazy speechwriters and policy makers ... perhaps the oil companies did forge the path that the self-supporting medjia drivers ran with?

I *know* I have no support for this. But I have seen people sheopling heavily about less-reinforced things (ever been to a Milwall foottball match?).

Aindapaword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re Global warming: The evidence fits the theory between about 1975 an 2000 - since then man-made CO2 emissions have continued to rise but global average air temperatures have not - check the Met. Office graphs if you don't believe it.

Since climate is an average of the temperature over at least 20 years, this statement makes no sense..

Through history, climate change is largely caused by known cyclic variations in the Sun's strength

I suppose a request for this little thing called 'evidence' for this statement would be rude..

and the Earth's orbit round the Sun

Milancovitch cycles take a minimum of 22,000 years, IIRC. Different scale.

The most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapour, CO2 is only a small component of greenhouse gases.

Calculations put it as 60% water, 26% CO2, 4% other. However, water has a short equlibrium time (you may even have noticed the process yourself) and so can only react to change.

The vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, it's estimated that burning fossil fuels only adds between 0.2% and 0.3% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

The concentration has gone up from 280 to 380ppm because of human emissions and there is a great deal of isotopic evidence for this.

Why are you so confident that you are right and the vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong on this one theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean, low interest in their women folk and a build-up of emissions with their sheep? :unsure:

Shouldn't that be emissions in their sheep, Skinty?

:lol:

And the comment concerning Welsh ladies minds me to recall the joke about the two guys in a bar gradually becoming bladdered.

The leaderdog states "An' I'll tell you summat else, Mate! Only two good things ever came out of Wales: Rugby players an' loose women!"

Further along the bar is this huge very dark-haired guy who looks around and says;

"Ere, Boyo, I'll have you know my wife is Welsh!"

To which the other guy ,quick as a flash says;

"Really? What position does she play?"

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are not any notable climate scientists who disagree with man-made warming, which is interesting as debate and disagreement is a huge part of the role of a scientist.

Yes there are, it's just that they get blackballed for daring to challenge the 'truth'. Yes, there's a scientific explanation of how burning fossil fuels, by adding CO2 to the atmosphere could contribute to the greenhouse effect, preventing heat-loss from the Earth's atmosphere and there was statistical evidence over a short period of time around 1975-2000 that this might be happenning. But since then the correlation between the statistics has been less consistent. The recent climate change is entirely within the bounds of what has occurred over past centuries and millennia as a result of natural causes like sun cycles, variation in the Earth's orbit and volcanic activity.

The problem is that there is no way of isolating the natural causes of temperature variation from the equation when trying to determine how much humans have contributed. And if we have caused global warming, it's equally likely to be the left-over effect of using CFC's, which was predicted at the time of the ban, to reach its maximum a few decades later. Or indeed de-forestation of the rainforests could be the cause, by reducing amount of CO that is absorbed from the atmosphere.

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and that accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. One environmental site I found has a pie chart showing that CO2 accounts for 76% of greenhouse gases - conveniently leaving out water vapour! So CO2 actulally accounts for 3.75% of greenhouse gases.

But if, for argument's sake, we have caused global warming, the effect is likely to be self-limiting anyway, as the world uses up the oil, gas and coal at an ever-increasing rate. Until then we can just expect to see more ane more weather :lol:!

If someone can tell me how natural global warming can be isolated from the statistics, I might reduce my scepticism.

By the way, I am in the environmentalist camp - pro renewables, pro energy saving etc. but on the basis that we're using up finite resources at an ever-increasing rate. So although I'm sceptical about global warming, I'm in agreement with most of the policies aimed at reducing it because they would also reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not intended as a rude post, merely having the respect to be direct.

So, when did you stop beating your wife?

This is not intended as a rude question, merely having the respect to be direct.

</reductio ad absurdum>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlike many, I do not believe that people who believe in creationism/ID etc can simply be dismissed as stupid, however I do believe they are misguided. What often surprises me is that there are many people who believe in evolution and think creationists are stupid, yet disbelieve in man made global warming.

To me it seems it is the same reasoning behind both;

i) The scientists have not thought of stuff that me and my mate came up with in ten minutes.

ii) It is a big conspiracy of a number of academics.

Is there anyone who would be able to explain the difference in reasoning a bit further.

This is not intended as a rude post, merely having the respect to be direct.

The common thread is ulterior motive.

Some people want you to believe in god cos then they get free stuff from you.

Other people want you to believe in MMGW because then they get free stuff from you.

The common strand is the grabbing for the wallet. Suspicion is justified whenever you are being sold something that seems implausible but needs you to give up time and resources. Evolution, on the other hand isn't asking for taxes or a handout. Quite the reverse in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.