Is it fair to compare AGW contrarians with creationists?

Question

Why or why not?

Additional Details

Just so I'm clear, Tomcat, you think it's not fair because Texas used to be its own country and Rick Perry is an "agricultural scientist"?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Capt Sardonic, do you find it at all ironic that many creationists say that evolution is just an educated guess which can't be tested and/or replicated, and those who believe in evolution do so because of blind faith?

Interesting dichotomy, andy. Basically you think it is unfair to compare you with yourself.

"The better comparison is with alarmists and creationists. They both don't care about scientific evidence and their beliefs are based on faith. Alarmists are generally anti-human and anti-capitalist socialists who would cause much harm if ever given any power so I don't like comparing them to people with sound morals like creationists tend to be.."
So you compare alarmists and creationists, then say you don't like comparing them? OK.

"I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but it is closer than the pagans associated with the opposition."
These are some truly bizarre responses. Now the argument is that virtually every scientist in every field related to evolution is a pagan? Well, you certainly aren't a follower. That is the first time I've heard that argument!

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Ahh... Captain T2 your absurd judgments never end.

Here's an idea, do a little research about the pillars of the scientific process and how ideas are accepted into theory.

Debate is a fundamental necessity in the progress of science. Do you wish for debate to end? Because at this immediate moment evidence suggests a certain hypothesis should scientists stop looking, stop researching, stop being skeptical? Should all scientists accept what is perceived by the public as common knowledge?

Remember it was a contrarian who claimed the earth revolved around the sun and it was a contrarian who claimed that species evolve.

It was faulty science and public opinion that led to the popularity of Eugenics and the idea that formula is better for babies than breast milk.

Assuming that the current state of scientific knowledge is as good as it gets is similar to thinking the bible is the ultimate source of knowledge, so in my opinion, "contrarianism" is the best thing possible. Debate makes science better, criticism makes science better, doubt makes science better.

Blind agreement does not.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

What an incredibly lenghty non-answer full of baseless suppositions. Kudos. Guess I'll go back to watching MSNBC and blindly agreeing with whatever you assume I am blindly agreeing with (which obviously must be the case, because if I disagree with you it MUST be because I am blind).

Answer 2

no

Answer 3

Nope, we just don't put up with liberal junkscience trying to run our lives down here in Texas, we used to be our own country you know?

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapita…

EDIT:

Contrarins come in all shapes and sizes but the belief in the theory of creationism would not rank high in a survey of skeptics, so no, not a fair comparison, but... fairness is a strange word in this context. Since my theory on global warming is better than the CO2 based Venus model that Hansen brought with him.

Answer 4

Of course it is. Both are ideologically driven with believes based on nothing other than faith. Regardless of how obviously illogical their beliefs may be, they ignore any sound science which contradicts their beliefs.
There is a fine example found in one recent question - http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind… The question was asked and answers were given backed up by references, yet the asker chose an answer based on ideology and stated "Funny how many people are thoroughly brainwashed by global warming".
Both AGW deniers and creationists rely on others to do the thinking for them and they both tend to fall on the same side of the political spectrum.
Comparing the two is very fair.

Answer 5

Not really. There is a little evidence that the contrarians can cite, at least if you are willing to take a short-sighted view. That puts them one-up on the creationists.

Answer 6

no.
it would be more reasonable to compare those who attribute magical warming property's to atmospheric co2 to creationists.
both "could" be right but both require blind faith in an untestable hypothesis.

Answer 7

No, two totally different rationals behind each. The AGW contrarians look into the science and information given by scientists and then reject bad scientific data as just that. The current AGW scientists have ignored historical fact, good scientific practices, and other key elements to give weight to their theories. Creationists especially die hard ones don't believe in evolution since there is no conclusive link between species. Other Creationists like myself believe that a Higher Power started the ball rolling not just blind dumb luck.

Answer 8

It would be an honor. I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but it is closer than the pagans associated with the opposition. But I'm not an AGW contrarian. I'm a thinker, not a follower. I'm a hawk, not a pigeon.

Answer 9

The better comparison is with alarmists and creationists. They both don't care about scientific evidence and their beliefs are based on faith. Alarmists are generally anti-human and anti-capitalist socialists who would cause much harm if ever given any power so I don't like comparing them to people with sound morals like creationists tend to be..