<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span><br></span></div><div><br></div><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Arial" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight:bold;"></span></b></font>Ted wrote:<br><br>"This reminds me of the pseudo-scientific arguments against<br>anthropogenic global warming promoted aggressively in media, Internet<br>etc. that also convince many that climate science is fundamentally<br>flawed, as represented by the US National Academy of Sciences, or the<br>Goddard Institute for Space Studies, both of which present a large<br>body of compelling peer reviewed science, that indicates a very high<br>probability humans are dramatically altering Earth's climate, the<br>magnitude of which will
continue to increase as long as human CO2<br>emissions continue to increase atmospheric CO2 level.<br><br>There appears to be some connection in the manner of thinking of many<br>religious fundamentalists who insist both evolution and anthropogenic<br>global warming are scientifically flawed theories."<br><br>There is a big difference between the evolution vs. intelligent design and anthopogenic global warming vs. natural global warming debates. The main difference is that intelligent design doesn't even satisfy the criteria for being a scientific hypothesis. It's not falsifiable, so it's not even really a debate. Global warming "denial", on the other hand, is the null hypothesis for anthropogenic global warming. It's what we assume is true until the AGW folks have managed to prove their hypotheses. <br><br>Paul<br><br></div></div></div></body></html>