Are most climate change deniers also creationists?

Interesting question. I wonder if most creationists actually believe in manmade GHG driven climate change, given that both require an unquestioning mind and suppose mankind has special status.

i could say maximum politicians say it to get votes from their human beings. it would desire to be according to an awareness of technology. The scientific technique is predicated on the potential to reproduce effects from an test. no person is able to reproducing the creation of earth. no person has been able to offer existence from something non-residing. So, there would properly be no scientific reality of ways the earth became formed. those is information helping countless positions, yet no longer you will reproduce a time earlier existence. (The time device argument does not artwork on the grounds which you won't have the capacity to bypass decrease back to a time earlier existence on the grounds which you a residing situation could be there.) An awareness of technology would additionally impact one's thought of climate replace. a scientific definition of climate seems at ameliorations in climate over long classes of time. it may be no longer elementary to instruct whether what we experiencing now's a common fluctuation interior the climate development or is it a real replace. we are interior the middle of it. Wait some hundred years and we are able to be attentive to. can we've precise climate comments from hundreds of years in the past? the two a variety of positions require faith no remember which area you're taking. Neither would properly be shown right this moment one way or yet another.

Although I personally believe that the Earth is billions of years old and that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor, creationists are, by definition, people who take the Bible literally. The Bible which creationists believe in forbids idolatry. Worship of oil, coal and SUVs is blatant idolatry.Even though many many creationists may be skeptical of global warming because they do not have all of the facts, someone who is sincere in their belief in creationism could not be a real denialist. Senator James Inhofe, Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and George W Bush do not actually believe in creationism but claim to because creationism is what their audiences want to hear.

"Are most warmers left wing elitist snobs? Apply your answer to this question to your own."

"Warmers" care about those who are most hurt by global warming. Denialists only care about themselves,their gas guzzling SUVs, and the wealthy who could build dikes when sea levels rise.

Who are the elitist snobs?

"You ask BB “can you name one climate scientist, global warming activist, or pro-environment politician who thinks the earth is flat?” I would answer yes, if you can find one that believes in Spontaneous generation, Equivocal generation, Abiogenesis or Biopoesis."

Why wait for someone to produce examples of those scientists to produce an example of a scientist who is a flat-earther? Could it be because you have no such examples?

"Is it because, deep down, you know that AGW is a religion and a cult and that you really can't have a logical overlap with Christians?"

I will answer that question. Christians are to love the Lord their God with all their heart, all their soul, all their mind and all their strength. Protecting the creation honors the creator. (God did create the Earth, just not in the manner that creationists claim.) Christians are also to love their fellow human beings as themselves. It is Christian to protect everyone's life support system.

Creationism or intelligent design makes much more sense then Spontaneous generation, Equivocal generation, Abiogenesis or Biopoesis, the so called scientific studies that produced the ridiculous notion that life on Earth somehow arose from inanimate matter. Then evolved from that Spontaneously generated primordial sludge or soup to you.

At any rate, that mythological occurrence would have taken a much warmer globe then we have right now. It is a known fact that life flourished most during the very warm periods and that most major extinctions occurred during the longer ice ages and the warmer interglacial periods.

You ask BB “can you name one climate scientist, global warming activist, or pro-environment politician who thinks the earth is flat?” I would answer yes, if you can find one that believes in Spontaneous generation, Equivocal generation, Abiogenesis or Biopoesis, Anthropogenic Global Warming. Then I believe that they could argue in favor of a flat earth and produce, to their satisfaction, more bogus science to prove that it is true.

It's all in the money and the power that is available.

Well, this one isn't. I just don't quite understand how anyone can objectively look at the science, data and methodological archiving, and historical data and still come to the conclusion that man has squat to do with the climate. But there is big money in trying to "prove" it.

It reminds me very much of the sort of pseudoscientific nonsense that passed for research during the thrities through the sixties as regards marijuana.

It is interesting that you seem to think there are no creationists which are alarmists. Why is that? Why do you think no people that believe that God created the universe believe that humans are causing catastrophic warming? Is it because, deep down, you know that AGW is a religion and a cult and that you really can't have a logical overlap with Christians? I am not saying that is true, just wondering what your thought processes are. Just for the record, I am not a creationist, and I am not a denier. I am a scientists that is skeptical that humans are causing significant warming.

I was contemplating giving Dana a thumbsdown but decided he was close enough.

As others have noted, no. Most deniers are not also creationists, but most creationists are deniers.

@ David:

<<<Nor are the people you derisively call "deniers" actually denying climate change.>>>

Wow, the guy who freely labels all proponents of AGW as "Gorebots", "warmistas" and "ecomarxists" is complaining about the word "denier".

68% of republicans told a Gallup poll a couple years ago that they do not believe in any form of evolution. Rush Limbaugh has said that anyone who believes in "Darwinism" is corrupt. Glenn Beck is a flamboyant creationist who sides with Ben Stein and his anti-evolution nonsense crockumentary and calls Darwin "the father of racism".

So yes, since most deniers are conservatives who have are coming from an anti-science anti-government perspective, it should be obvious that most deniers are creationists.

You're logic much like AGW theory is infallible don't concern yourself with factual information?

This question comes up a lot and the empirical evidence is too strong to dismiss as coincidence. Just look at their smug angle on the natural world. They think Man is predestined for glory no matter what; except for "acts of God," which they see as supernatural rather than facets of nature.

AGW-denial falls in line with the whole Creationist attitude of human dominion over the planet. Some have referred to it as Creationisn 2.0. They see nature as the servant of Man, not the keeper, but science has shown the opposite to be true. We wouldn't last a day if nature ceased to function but it would recover nicely in our absence.

These four deniers are confirmed Creationists, and they are too famous to ignore as flukes.

George W. Bush

James Inhofe

Sarah Palin

Rush Limbaugh

It's true that Bush acquiesced to man-made global warming after much prodding, but it was probably just for show. Zealots against environmental regulations are invariably Creatards.