>>9192133

There are millions more.

These are people who have specific issues with the IPCC's conclusions on climate change not the overall theory of climate change.
>Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
>Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
>Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
>Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Evolution is just as flawed as AGW.

Actually kind of valid, the theory of evolution is spawned from what amounts to a pseudoscientific formalisation of previous inheritance concepts + some original ideas (Darwinism, then other developments such as neodarwinism). While these are not relevant to present-day evolution and are indeed ignored, as they are inhibitors to further development more than anything. Though they are now ignored/dismissed, they were still a part of the path that led to present evolution. Of course present evolution is more about studying the mechanisms of DNA and related things, so it's hard to now refute it from that point, as it ignores the heart of it and grasps at now-unused strings. It still makes you think of all the scientific canon that arrived from similar paths. Perhaps approaching from a clean slate and removing the heap of interconnected developments in many areas, is beneficial. To approach freshly.

Not the same mirroring. The Theory of Evolution is completely separate from Darwinism and Neodarwinism, even the state of the Theory of Evolution as it was 20 years ago. Actually their legitimacy (both in content and methodology) is unanimously denied. In addition, to adhere to them is to compromise the truthfulness of the Theory of Evolution, it moves beyond the concepts and restraints of its predecessors. With reality and specificity contradicting insubstantial pet "theories" yet again.

>These scientists have published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.
>all died fairly recently
the conspiracy is real

>Veeky Forums will call Freeman Dyson a brainlet
top WEW

"Darwinism" is simply the creationists' bugaboo word for the theory of evolution. Look at the statement they signed:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

If you don't think this is integral to evolutionary theory than you are delusional. Own up to your (anti-)intellectual kinship.

Freeman Dyson is basically the textbook example of the old wingnut scientist pissing on fields he has no knowledge in.

Would you trust a biologist to have a reasonable, informed opinion on theoretical quantum physics?

Why would you expect a geologist to have a reasonable, informed opinion on climate science?

97% of scientists are in agreement on the existence of global warming
97% of scientists are also in agreement that the oil companies should pay for it and this shouldn't be used as a way to extort taxation from the people.

>"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life
>If you don't think this is integral to evolutionary theory than you are delusional
its not

are you a troll?
have a convenient info graph that states many different views on evolution
nobody denies the reality of NS, just its relevance to evolution. its called natural selection, not natural evolution.
random mutation has long been known to be a marginal factor in the production of evolutionary novelties
>"Darwinism" is simply the creationists' bugaboo word for the theory of evolution
wrong.

You do realize that if the oil companies pay for it that just means the price of oil goes up right? There is no way to divert the cost of climate change from the source of demand, consumers.

First nowhere have you shown that natural selection and random mutation are unintegral, in reality or in the opinion of most biologists. You're just pretending to know what you're talking about. Second, you are being pedantic by implying that those who signed the list are supporting alternative synthesis evolution and not creationism. Third, if it were true that the signers support alternative synthesis, then this does not defend AGW deniers as none have offered a working scientific alternative to explain the climate.

What would you remove?

If you can create a Wikipedia list of scientists who claim global warming is fake, then that means they are in the tiny minority

A pretty short list really.
Bunch of physicists and astrophysicists in there as though they mean anything on this topic.

So he's a right wing Kurzweil?

>physicists and astrophysicists
>Why would you expect a geologist to have a reasonable, informed opinion on climate science?

well I trust Donald Trump, he wouldnt lie to us, and he says global warming is a hoax, he will make America great again and wont bow down to jewish marxist "mainstream science" (=religion)

>Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
it's not like he's an outright denying cook.

Man made global warming has been proven to be a myth.

The real cause of global warming is aliens. The reptiles are trying to heat up the planet to be more hospitable because they're cold blooded.

>"well I trust Donald Trump, he wouldnt lie to us, and he says global warming is a hoax, he will make America great again and wont bow down to jewish marxist "mainstream science" (=religion)"
I can't tell if you're ironic or not. Is that a bad sign Veeky Forums ?

>I can't tell if you're ironic or not. Is that a bad sign Veeky Forums ?
Why would you think it's ironic?

because it makes you sound retarded?

>retarded
Why the ableism?

oh wait my bad.your not him.freindly flame fire oh god what have i done?WHY?

i can say that.im also retarded.