How can people believe in Evolution AND Global Warming?

Question

According to Evolution the natural world is so dynamic that human beings, with all their immense, virtually unfathomable complexities, came to exist by a random, rapid, linear ascension from a puddle of chemical ooze.

Yet, according to Global Warming (now being re-marketed as "Climate Change") the natural world is so static that smoking a cigarette will destroy the planet.

The people who believe in one of these tend to believe in both of these. Hello???

The number of people on this planet walking around in a state of perpetual contradicton is mind-boggling.

When did common sense die?

Answer 1

Easy:  These people believe anything the men in white coats tell them.

They argue scientists are much smarter than they are, so the white coats must be correct.  Smart people can't be wrong, can they?

I support the theory both are natural processes.  There is as much data to support AGW as there is to support Intelligent Design.

Answer 2

You obviously have no common sense.   One cigarette will destroy the planet?   Thats a first.    Rapid ascension?    4 billion years isn't too rapid to me.

Answer 3

What you're doing is making Evolution static. Just because one species is able to evolve drastically over a period time doens't mean that every other creature has the ability to do the same. Species change because they need to change. Global warming, however, has nothing to do with any form of life whatsoever. It may very well become a very different world after a while. Some species may survive, others might not.

Unless, of course, nonliving things find away to adapt too!

Answer 4

I'd say the probable reason is that people are most willing to accept bad news. Essentially this means that even though there is not substantial evidence to support alarmist theories, people are willing to accept it because it brings something else to blame humanity for.

Another obvious reason is the accessibility of multiple arguments about anthropogenic climate change. 'Global Warming' has become a political tool, it is a simple method of getting votes. By showing that you are for the planet, you gain instant support from supporters of theories of anthropogenic climate change.

People are generally unwillingly to do further investigation from what is readily available to them. Common sense died on the 14th of September 2006, the release date of "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. The fact that Al Gore has practically no scientific expertise and basically flunked science at university seems to be of little consequence to believers of global warming. Any other problems with the anthropogenic climate change theory? Here's my standard argument against calls to action.

As a skeptic, I look to scientifically verified and supported data and review it. Asking me to not post facts contradicts the entire point of asking this question. I fully appreciate "what god gave us" and I'm simply trying to show through analysis and data review that anthropogenic climate change is fallacy.

I endorse the 1500 year cycle, which is a proven climate theory, after tracking thermal fluctuations over history, that documents that natural variations in temperature occur approximately every 1500 years. When mean temperature increase is caused by these fluctuations there is a release of CO2 from the oceans, which hold an estimated 95% of the sum CO2 on the planet.

There is then a consequent increase in atmospheric CO2 levels as CO2 rises with the water vapor, but CO2 increases do not seem to directly impact on temperature. In fact, to find the valid conclusion you must inverse this theory, i.e. temperature increases have a direct impact upon atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact, the strongest greenhouse gas (although the effect it has is minimal) is water vapor, which retains more heat than carbon dioxide.

As for sea level rise due to icecap/berg melting, this theory can be disproved by an extremely simple scientific experiment. You simply place ice cubes in a glass, measure the water level, allow the ice cubes to melt, and stumble upon the following conclusion: the water level remains the same. The effect of thermosteric heating upon the oceans would have effect, if the temperature were currently rising.

The warmest decade on record over the past 80 years was the 1930's, which also held 4 of the top 10 warmest years on record for the past 80 years.

Obviously, due to smaller population sizes and decreased technological innovation anthropogenic CO2 release was minimal in comparison to todays levels, from which it could be concluded that there is in fact no correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases.

A final point, CO2 layering in the atmosphere is similar to the layering of black paint against a window, it has a diminishing effect. The first layer of paint will block sunlight to a total of 85%. The next layer might make the sum blockage 95%, the next 97% and so on. The effect is dramatically diminishing, and so will have less and less effect as time passes.

But this fact is rendered irrelevant when you realize that CO2 increase has no effect upon mean temperature. One of my major concerns about this issue is its transformation from a scientific and an objective issue to a political and subjective, sentimental issue.

When reviewing data scientifically it is key to remain objective and stick to the facts. The inability of the general populace to differentiate fact from propaganda is a major concern for me. It is these reasons, amongst others that make me a skeptic of global warming.

Answer 5

Your description of evolution (if you prefer that term) is like something from a Snake-Handling Pentecostal tent minister in the 1930's.  It really has no points in common with modern science.  Your description of Global Warming is at best, a non sequitor.

The Bush Administration chose to rename Global Warming to Climate Change.  They did this to make it seem less threatening.  Sort of paint a happy face  on mass extinction.  The environmentalists of the 70's had renamed the Greenhouse Effect to Global Warming, in an effort to make it more understandable to more people.  Pretty much the opposite of what Bush intended.  So it's not so much a matter of re-marketing as it is de-marketing.  It's just part of his war on science and privatization of Big Brother.

Yes most people who believe Global Warming is a fact of life believe evolution is a fact of life.  The reason for that is that they understand both things.  That derives from the classes in chemistry, physics, mathematics, logic, biology, etc. they took, not from common sense, which was the way people sought to understand things during the Bronze Age.

When people talk about how they "think for themselves"  what they mean is they never studied it, they make it up as they go along.  Because this invariably places them at odds with the people who know something about it they only listen to other people like themselves, or people who use such people for their own benefit.

I'm trying my best to figure out what in the world skin cancer rates have to do with any of this, and I'm sure in the end I won't.  Skin cancer rates should be going down because the problem with the ozone hole that science discovered in the 1970's was dealt with as the scientists recommended and the hole is closing at the rate they predicted (hoped for is probably more accurate.

Answer 6

Your statements are breathtakingly ignorant. Evolution happens across vast, incomprehensibly long spans of time. Life forms adapt to environmental changes gradually. The time since the industrial revolution is as if an instant in geological terms. Nothing can evolve significantly in 100 years. Humans haven't changed significantly for at least 50,000 and possibly over 100,000 years. Try to wrap your mind around how long 3 million thousand years is. That is three million one thousand year periods. That's how long life has had to get where it is today. The earth is about 5 million thousand years old. So for 2 million thousand years nothing happened.

Answer 7

no. humans just happened to evolve the way we are. if we had an extra arm would you know any different? no, because that would be the new norm. now on to global warming. smoking a cigarette wont destroy the planet but it is killing you but i guess that's your choice. the carbon emitted by the cigarette is mostly balanced by the carbon sequested by the growing plant.

edit

skin Cancer has nothing to do with GW. but your sources show the marvels of science. the rates of skin cancer are actuly going up espeshaly in south america and australa and new zeland but thats not just due to the ozone hole but to other factors too.

"We analyzed the NMSC skin cancer mortality data"

Answer 8

Look I don't believe in evolution and no smoking one cigarette will not destroy the habitat but there are certain things which if we do not act now in 50 years time we will not have and soon when the ozone layer does get destroyed because of the pollution and which it will we will need certain technology or we will all burn because which I have studied this for 3 years now and the UV rays from the sun will pretty much burn us to crisp

Answer 9

Did you know that in the United States, Scotland and England that rates of skin cancer are declining and have been declining since 1993?  Just thought I would throw that bit of information in there....   Oh, I forgot to mention West Germany as well...

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs...

http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Cancer...

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/964647...

However, that doesn't meet the alarmist's propoganda ads, so I guess Gore and company should do something to bring those scientists aboard too.

Answer 10

you can believe in both because obviously before humans existed there was no extra carbon dioxide being added into the atmosphere. now fossil fuels are constantly being burned and more and more carbon dioxide is being released from all over the world so obviously its going to affect the atmosphere. Knowing that, there is no reason that people shouldn't also believe in evolution. oh and by the way evolution was NOT rapid!!!!

Answer 11

Your logic fails you. Both evolution and Global Warming are dynamic. And, they are both science. Listen, if you don't like science, go back to the stone age, because everything you now have is because of science. It's a bit hypocritical to "dis" science, but then use it for your benefit.

I am a religious person, but I believe god created the beginnings of the universe and allowed it to evolve into his design. But that is another topic.

Answer 12

You don't have to believe in a ridiculously extreme version of those theories to believe in them both.  It really diminishes from the point you're trying to make when you bias your statement like that.  You can believe in global warming without believing that the tiniest act from man will destroy the earth.

Answer 13

Common sense died when we found out the earth is not flat and it does not revolve around the sun.We need science tell us what is going on. In case you have not heard, the trilobites and dinosaurs had a little problem with our static planet. It jumped up and bit them in the ***.So what you are saying is; the geologist, the fossil record and the satellite pix are all as doctored as Enron's books and the windmill manufactures are trying to corner the energy market ????when you say your mind is boggled. I believe you.

Answer 14

Not all people believe in both. I do believe in  global warming , well to the point that I know humans are causing so much damage to the earh, from distroying forests to using up other natural reouses.  It is a fact that our climate is changing , it has done it before and will do it many times after we are gone. Though I highly do not believe in Evolution- i mean really i did not come from no d**n ape, if we so called evolved from them then why did the rest of them not evlove. Thought i am confliced , i do believe in science , and im not religous( and i cant spell) i do how ever believe that the earth was created by a higher being.

Answer 15

I think you forget a few important parameters. Time and quantity!

Evolution takes thousands of years and global warming is happening too fast for evolution to do its thing. Depending on how much we manage to limit our emissions a few or many species won't get the time they need to adapt and evolve with the changes. The species which are most adaptable will survive the best. (Human beeings are very adaptable, but when time becomes tough for the plants and animals we eat, it will be very difficult to feed more than 6 billion people.)

Cigarettes doesn't contribute to global warming unless you smoke some kind of fossil fuel (but I've never heard of that and it doesn't sound tasty. LOL)

When it comes to things that do use fossil fuel, like cars, that's where the quantities matters. Nature can handle a few cars, but not the huge amount of emissions people are releasing all over the planet.

Edit to Cindy: Cancer??? What has that got to do with global warming??? If you're thinking of the hole in the Ozone layer they are two completely separate issues. You're just proving how ignorant you are on this subject.

Answer 16

Rhetoric is so fascinating.  You can easily string some words together into a grammatically correct sentence.  Actually making sense is more difficult.  To wit.  Common nonsense is apparently alive and well.

Answer 17

It's astonishing to me that you fail to understand both evolution and global warming, yet you have a strong, incorrect opinion about both.

The planet will be fine, at least until either the sun burns out or we blow it up.  But regardless of how much we s***w with it otherwise, it will end up in a state of equilibrium and everything will be absolutely ok.

Except we might s***w it up enough that we can't live off it anymore.  So we might all die, and I guess that would be bad.  And the equilibrium?  It might be a few million years before anything even as sentient as Bill O'Rielly turns up, let alone any apes.

Answer 18

Most people believe what is fed to them at an early age, regardless.

Most of the people who claim to believe in Evolution have no idea what evolutionary theory is about.  The same can be said for everyone who claims not to believe in evolution.

Now we come to Global Warming.  You have an increasingly large number of people raised to "be aware of Mother Earth" or some similar idea.  The believe that every crisis must be solved, every wrong righted, and everyone must play fair.  They were sheltered as children and were taught that self-esteem was more important than pride in accomplishments.

Combine these two, and you have people who will gladly believe anything that is told them as long as it comes from someone claiming to "care" about something.  The DHMO example applies even more today than it did 30 years ago.  You tell someone a barrel full of half truths, appeal to their heart and not their head, and they will be sold for life.

There are still people that can be conned with the DHMO joke, and the ones that are the most angry about it are the ones that were conned by it.  Wait till Global Warming is shown to be a con.  All the pro AGW people will do a 180 so fast their shoes will smoke, and then the spin of "I was never actually a believer" will be even louder than the Global Cooling scientists were when they switched over to Global Waming.