It’s what they do.
So, if you say that 1+1=5, and I disagree, then I am a “denier”.
In this case, of course, the deniers are saying that 1+1=5.
I suppose you would have called Copernicus a denier for not believing the universe revolved around the earth?
Copernicus affirmed that the Earth went around the Sun. The deniers, of course, said that was ridiculous. Even made lists of scholars who denied ti.
And when Gallileo found confirming evidence of it, with his telescope, they refused to look. Deniers haven’t changed much, um?
Nor has anyone been dumb enough to call them that. They do have the evidence, after all.
They have a set of facts (not always correct, as proven by incorrect temperature readings Al Gore used to in his movie.)
I posted the two sets of data here in a graph. At the resolution of your screen, you can’t tell them apart. You’ll have to do better than that.
(Stuff about Al Gore)
This isn’t really about the science for you, is it?
Also, we can’t even predict the weather a month out, yet we are supposed to believe that the models used by the “man-made global warming” crowd can predict earth temperatures years out.
So far, it’s been pretty good. You could always take my bet. I bet that the average for the next five years will be higher than for the last five, as of Jan. 07. Nobody seems to want to call me on it.
They also like to avoid certain topics which negatively impact their perspective. For example, why do they avoid talking about the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars?
No one cares, because Mars is currently closer to the Sun than average. It’s not unexpected. Pluto is currently colder than it has been in a while. For the opposite reason.
Perhaps because they can’t blame it on human activity.
Of course. But it doesn’t help the deniers, does it?
Basically, they have taken information, and drawn conclusions that are easily debatable, because of the number of assumptions they had to make, and the number of variables involved.
And yet they’ve been accurately predicting the rise in global temperatures. You want to say they’re just lucky?
Whoops…I thought that looked odd when I wrote it
Last time I took a look at the list, it was a miniscule fraction. And most of those “lists of climatologists” includes lawyers, ministers, etc.
I would disagree
It’s fact. Your list, for example, touts over 30,000 scientists. How many of them climatologists? 40. Add those with related degrees:
I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
The rest in whatever. Out of tens of thousands of climatologists, meteorologists, and atmospheric scientists, they got 495 deniers. Isn’t that a tip-off in itself?
In the sense that it is well-documented, and is mainly argued against for emotional and religious reasons.
No, in the sense that it takes faith to believe it. No fossil record of a missing link exists last time I checked.
“Missing link” is a folk term. But there are many, many transitional species. Would you like to test your belief that they don’t exist?
(I refer to Macroevolution, not microevolution)
The first directly observed macroevolution was about 1904.
Of course, science does not deal in proof. It merely collects enough evidence to make denial perverse. That is where global warming and evolutionary theory are, right now.
Yep, right up there with the “earth is at the center of the universe” and “the earth is flat” crowd.
Sounds like someone didn’t listen in science class, um?
And if you dare present facts to the contrary you are labeled a “denier”, which will soon have the same stigma as being labeled a “racist”.
Sounds a bit paranoid to me. I keep getting the impression, that you’re more concerned with political correctness than the facts.
I’ve often wondered why creationists use “religion” as an accusation. It confirms my feeling that they lack the faith to accept God, and hope to get science to do it for them. Trust God more, and you will hate science less.
Who is a “creationist”?
I’m a “intelligent design” person myself
New name, same old ideology. Dover settled that issue.