Global warming

[CapelDodger]

Nobody [in the pro-Science camp] is afraid of new ideas. We are tired of the old ones, constantly rehashed in face of all the evidence and previous discussion.

Endorsed by me as modified, which I'm pretty sure reflects the spirit of it. Same old same old with the occasional fleeting new act, such as 1934 which is "big" on the "scene" right now, I gather.

There people who are terrified by new ideas, let alone new realities. I'm not talking alarm here, I'm talking deeply-felt existential threat. There are ideological convictions that cannot accomodate AGW, a relatively new idea. Some people's very identities are rooted in such cults.

We more blessed individuals welcome new ideas; some are stimulating, some we can demolish as an intellectual exercise, it's all good. There just aren't enough new ideas. Old ideas in a new coat don't cut it.

 

[mhaze]

I'm actually a city boy. I don't find Alaska or the Irkutsk at all alluring. Some people, though, regard them as home and like them the way they are. You may think they can be improved, but it's not really your call, is it?

I recommend you sound out local opinion first. A lot of these folk carry rifles, you know, and you won't see them coming ... Don't bother to duck, apparently if you hear the shot it missed .

I have not met an Alaskan who did not like the check he got from his state for his part of the oil drills producing up there; and who would not like that to be a bigger check. Last I heard it was about $1500 per year. So I think they'd like my plan.

Alaska is worth visiting in the good season. In the winter, it is rough.

Of course if we agree with your view, that may be improving. Now there are some others who think it may be warming up pretty soon.


Hansen full exposed - admits to being an alarmist!

"Huge sea level rises are coming - unless we act now!"

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19526141.600-huge-sea-level-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html

Direct quote from Hansen (bold is mine) -

I find it almost inconceivable that "business as usual" climate change will not result in a rise in sea level measured in metres within a century. Am I the only scientist who thinks so?


Well, Gore agrees, but he is no scientist. The IPCC doesn't agree. And he's been a bad boy, Mr. Hansen has. He was out talking to reporters when he should have been double and triple checking his arithmetic.

Now, CP, I know Gore's a bit of an embarrassment for your team. I agree with that. I'd like to see him go away, too. In fact, maybe a bit of house cleaning is in order? Maybe a few others should go also?

 

[CapelDodger]

I also have lots of excelent reasons to reduce Global dependence on fossil fuel:
- It would turn Hugo Chavez into the small dictator he is , instead of the biggest social-imperialist force in South America.

Chavez is bigger man than Bushbaby, and just as elected. He even surfed a coup, which 'Murricans seem too pussy to contemplate, let alone launch. What would it take? Seriously? You people go on and on about the Second Amendment, you can afford to be armed to to the teeth, and yet ... nothing. Schwarzeneger? Pussy. California would have seceded by now otherwise.

Venezuela's regional energy-influence isn't subject to global demand. South America is ripe for endogenous growth, just as the US used to be.

(It's quite nostalgic to see "socialist-imperialist" again, I meet so few Trotskyists these days.)

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175241,00.html "Rolling Stone calls NASA scientist James Hansen the “Paul Revere” of global warming as it was Hansen who famously sounded the alarm about global warming in his 1988 testimony before Congress. But Dr. Hansen’s predictions of global temperature increases have also been famously wrong. While Dr. Hansen predicted a 0.34 degrees Centigrade rise in average global temperatures during the 1990s, actual surface temperatures rose by only one-third as much (0.11 degrees Centigrade) and lower atmosphere temperatures actually declined. ... snip ... Dr. Robert Watson is extolled as “The Messenger” by Rolling Stone. Watson is lauded for leading the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in concluding that humans have already warmed the planet and that the Earth’s temperature will rise by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. But as pointed out in this column previously, the sort of crystal ball climate modeling that the IPCC report relies on has never been validated against historical temperatures, so it’s difficult to take its predictions of future temperatures too seriously. Moreover, global warming theory and its climate models say that atmospheric temperature increases should be 30 percent greater than surface temperature increases, but they’re not -- they’re actually less. As chairman of the IPCC, Watson was responsible for propagating the myth that only 1 or 2 percent of scientists did not believe humans were responsible for global warming. Watson, of course, overlooked at least 17,000 scientists who signed a petition cautioning against global warming alarmism – a petition compiled with the assistance of former National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Dr. Frederick Seitz."

I was talking about scientists who are actually researching the area. Like I said, you wouldn't want a gynacologist doing your heart transplant. This is the age of specialisation, it is very difficult for scientists or practitioners in areas that are not experts in a related field to offer more than an informed guess. Those actively researching the area mostly agree, it's warming, and something needs to be done to prevent massive change to the climate.

 

[mhaze]

I was talking about scientists who are actually researching the area. Like I said, you wouldn't want a gynacologist doing your heart transplant. This is the age of specialisation, it is very difficult for scientists or practitioners in areas that are not experts in a related field to offer more than an informed guess. Those actively researching the area mostly agree, it's warming, and something needs to be done to prevent massive change to the climate.

But isn't it correct that the very scientists who agree it is warming are not competent to discuss whether "something needs to be done to prevent massive change to the climate"? We've noted the cautions of Armstrong in this respect - that the IPCC doesn't do good forecasting.

The "something must be done" assertion goes not just into business and economics for validation - something has a risk reward payoff - but it goes for implementation, into engineering. Climatologists in a rare case may understand the engineering method and how to "actually get things done". But that would be a rare case. I certainly would not take the advise of climatologists on any such thing. For the economics, this is the "mitigation vs. adaptation" question.

One thing I've been trying to get across is the intrinsic fallacy of the "something's got to be done" argument....

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm on record (yes, JREF Forums do count as "record", be afraid, be very afraid ...) as staking my intellectual reputation on the world being warmer than today in 2012.

That just leaves me confused then. "warmer than today in 2012"???

If you meant "warmer in 2012 than today", I wouldn't disagree.

But how much warmer? And is a little warmer necessarily bad.

Heck, go out on the limb and tell us how you think today and 2050 will compare. Or 2100. Because that's when it really matters. But unfortunately, the farther one goes out, the more the uncertainty grows. As was pointed out in one of the articles I linked above, the leaders of this movement can't even get predictions ten years in the future correct. So should we be precipitously enacting draconian tax measures? They might do much more harm than good.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have not met an Alaskan who did not like the check he got from his state for his part of the oil drills producing up there; and who would not like that to be a bigger check. Last I heard it was about $1500 per year. So I think they'd like my plan.

That sort of thinking can get you into trouble.

$1500 a year? How cheap do you think these people are? Of course they like it, but how do they like the other stuff that's been going in recently, the climate-induced stuff? The oil footprint is tiny, but the climate impact is everywhere.

Alaska is worth visiting in the good season. In the winter, it is rough.

Siberia is worth visiting in the good season. In the summer, you get bitten to distraction by hungry bugs with a deadline.

"Good" is a relative term.

Of course if we agree with your view, that may be improving. Now there are some others who think it may be warming up pretty soon.

In Alaska people have been watching their houses tilt quite alarmingly as permafrost melts, and have been thinking "Here's that warming those guys were talking about". AGW is no longer a prediction, it's going on.

Hansen full exposed - admits to being an alarmist!

Churchill was called an alarmist in the 30's. And he was trying to alarm people about something he (and quite a few others) had reasonably concluded was alarming.

Hansen (and quite a few others) have reasonably concluded that what's in store for the human race is alarming. Have you considered the possibility that he (and quite a few others) are right?

Churchill (and quite a few others) were proved right, but rather late in the day.

Direct quote from Hansen (bold is mine) -

I find it almost inconceivable that "business as usual" climate change will not result in a rise in sea level measured in metres within a century. Am I the only scientist who thinks so?

I rather doubt Hansen is alone. I doubt you have any good reason to think he's wrong.

Well, Gore agrees, but he is no scientist.

Were I uncharitable, I'd take that as the reason you think think Hansen's wrong. This fixation you have with Al Gore threatens to make you a laughing-stock, over time.

The IPCC doesn't agree.

Nobody gives a toss about Al Gore, the IPCC, or Kyoto. Present company excepted.

And he's been a bad boy, Mr. Hansen has. He was out talking to reporters when he should have been double and triple checking his arithmetic.

Is that the chorus from 1934?

Now, CP, I know Gore's a bit of an embarrassment for your team. I agree with that. I'd like to see him go away, too. In fact, maybe a bit of house cleaning is in order? Maybe a few others should go also?

You wouldn't like to make him go away at all. He's your refuge. The button marked "applause" that you grew up with.

We in the pro-Science camp care nothing for Al Gore, or the IPCC, or Kyoto. We're in it for Science. We are partisans for Science. Science has never let us down, it's done well by us in many, many ways, and we're up for defending it.

Can we help it if we sometimes enjoy it ?

 

[BeAChooser]

I was talking about scientists who are actually researching the area.

How do you know that a great many of these people aren't researching the area or qualified to weigh in on the topic?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

 

[CapelDodger]

That just leaves me confused then. "warmer than today in 2012"???

If you'd checked the record you wouldn't be confused.

If you meant "warmer in 2012 than today", I wouldn't disagree.

2012 global average greater than 2007 global average. And greater than 1998 global average.

But how much warmer?

At least as much as it'll get warmer in the following five years, up to 2017. Same stake, same odds.

And is a little warmer necessarily bad.

We'll find out, won't we? Each of us by our own judgement.

A little warmer, followed by a little bit more, then another bit ... that's as close to inevitably bad for the vast majority of people as to brook no argument.

Heck, go out on the limb and tell us how you think today and 2050 will compare. Or 2100. Because that's when it really matters. But unfortunately, the farther one goes out, the more the uncertainty grows. As was pointed out in one of the articles I linked above, the leaders of this movement can't even get predictions ten years in the future correct. So should we be precipitously enacting draconian tax measures? They might do much more harm than good.

Tell me more of these draconian tax measures. I keep hearing about them, but it's all terribly vague. They're kind of floating out there like bogey-men or Freemasons, but they can't be pinned down. mhaze knows something of them but ain't telling (scared off, probably); are you of sterner stuff? Will you give it up for the greater good? We'll appreciate the sacrifice.

I don't bet outside my probable lifespan, what's the point of that? I've staked my intellectual reputation against nothing, it's a potlach sort-of-thing, Over five years, which I can reasonably hope to see out.

Care to do the same on the other side? Which is not to concede that your intellectual reputation is worth a pinch of <Rule 8> or, indeed, anything at all.


By "the leaders of this movement" I assume you're referring to Hansen and the lie that the Hansen et al model predicted a 0.3C global warming during the 90's. Where are you getting this crap from? You're clearly not making up the lie yourself, it's far too unoriginal.

 

[CapelDodger]

How do you know that a great many of these people aren't researching the area or qualified to weigh in on the topic?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

We can tell. Trust us .

The Big Picture (now available in HD for subscribers), as modelled perfectly by the analogue system we call "home", skates over such distractions as Kyoto, Exxon, the UN, Mann et al , InterNet-recruited Petitions, yadda-yadda ...

Anybody that gets out much can see that the climate is changing, wherever they are.

 

[mhaze]

In Alaska people have been watching their houses tilt quite alarmingly as permafrost melts, and have been thinking "Here's that warming those guys were talking about". AGW is no longer a prediction, it's going on.

Hansen full exposed - admits to being an alarmist!

Well, I don't want to talk in the abstract about Alaska, which is an outstanding, amazing frontier. but my prior note about the Aleut who was looking forward to sipping his pina coladas, that is pretty accurate, IMHO.

Now please note regarding Hansen - He's the one saying he's alone, not I (although I'll be happy to confirm it). Send him an email. By all means, let him know there are others. I just pasted the article here because it looked interesting and pertinent.

Churchill was called an alarmist in the 30's. And he was trying to alarm people about something he (and quite a few others) had reasonably concluded was alarming.

Hansen (and quite a few others) have reasonably concluded that what's in store for the human race is alarming. Have you considered the possibility that he (and quite a few others) are right?

Churchill (and quite a few others) were proved right, but rather late in the day.

But I'm an alarmist on the subject of the serious damage global warming alarmists can cause. Churchilll (.... same logic applies).

Concerning the issues of taxation, carbon credits and the entire sordid mess of non functional, proven worthless penalty systems to "change people's behavior" in the desperate attempt to create that radical green environmentalist's world, here is a serious and interesting study.

Study and model for global warming mitigation by Dr. Nordhaus.

a new study revealed that severe global warming reduction policies sought by GW activists would cost two to three times the benefits they would achieve. Yale University's Sterling Professor of Economics William Nordhaus, probably the world's foremost authority on the economic effects of climate change and climate policy, released the study July 24. The study assumes the reality of manmade warming and the IPCC's projections of the climate effects of rising greenhouse gases, then projects the economic effects of those climatic changes, and then projects the climate and economic effects of various policies proposed to reduce climate change.
​

Go here

then here and click on A, 1. for the downloadable paper (260+ pp) or download and run the model with your own parameters. I think that's what it said, will try it later. Basically....the people pay $27 trillion in taxes/higher costs, get $13 trillion in benefits.

Now that's if everything works exactly as the holy AGW script says. 100% GW caused by CO2.

If you think a risk factor must be assigned to that, say 20-40% GW caused by CO2 (rest by aerosols, land use, etc), then your numbers become....

20% $27 trillion, $2.6 trillion in benefits
40% $27 trillion spent, $5.2 trillion in benefits

That's only with assigned risk factor to one issue. And there are numerous issues to which they could be assigned.

It'd be a mistake to just shrug this kind of modeling off as being "anti-AGW". Same true for Armstrong as previously mentioned in this thread and others.

 

[BeAChooser]

Tell me more of these draconian tax measures. I keep hearing about them, but it's all terribly vague. They're kind of floating out there like bogey-men or Freemasons, but they can't be pinned down.

This specific enough for you?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/08/08/dingells_tax_plan_targeting_gas_mansions/6309/ " ANN ARBOR, Mich., Aug. 8 (UPI) -- U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., unveiled his plan to fight global warming this week through additional taxes on both gasoline and large U.S. homes. The Detroit Free Press said Wednesday the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman wants to end a mortgage tax deduction given to estates larger than 3,000 square feet and create a 50-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax under his environmental plan."

You realize, don't you, that Dingell is the House Energy Chairman?

I don't bet outside my probable lifespan, what's the point of that?

But isn't that exactly what the global warlarmists are insisting we must do? Act now to save the earth for future generations?

 

[Locri]

*sigh* as much as I like discussion, this is why I tend not to get sucked into stuff like this... I never have the time to reply to as much stuff and in as much depth as I want to.

Anyway, I'll hit what I can ^_^

The IPCC is a massive literature review, probably the largest ever undertaken. As such it simply reflects scientific opinion on climate change and acts as a single point for accessing all the major literature relevant to the topic. It’s one sided because the source literature is one sided.

Go back to the first page in this thread where it’s explained:

1) CO2 does allow visible light to pass through untouched.
2) CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of the thermal radiation emitted when that visible light hits the earth
3) Those frequencies are in bands and locations where that thermal radiation would have otherwise escaped into space
4) We are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere
5) Thermodynamics tells us this must result in higher surface temperatures.

There is very little room to dispute any of this, so at best you can argue the degree or warming not the warming itself. We can observe warming actually taking place and the degree of warming is in good agreement with the predictions being made. This is just about as rock solid a case as you will get in any scientific endeavor. Yes there is always the possibility it will be overturned, but that’s the case with any science.

Going into something that I STILL don't understand that hasn't been explained to me is if CO2 always results in higher temperatures when it increases (as you seem to be saying, yes?) and increasing the overall temperature which releases even more CO2 from the vast oceans, why is it that it doesn't get stuck in a perpetual positive heat->CO2->heat cycle? Also, if the chart referenced later on in this topic is correct that the CO2 has been an order of magnitude higher in the past with similar temperatures, that still doesn't make sense.

Further, with the 800 year lag if CO2 always acted the way you describe in the environment it doesn't make sense that we'd see periods of high CO2 with low temperatures.

Considering that the Earth has been around for several billion years and hasn't gotten fried yet, it only seems logical that there are some natural processes that allow the Earth to stay cool even if the CO2 is high as it has in some past instances. Which is why I keep saying it's ridiculous to ignore the past 6 billion years.

What McIntyre is really looking for is the look over the shoulder of every researcher whose results he doesn’t agree with and to tell them how to conduct their research. He’s looking to make a nuisance of himself. The code Hansen is using can apparently be replicated with “two pages in MatLab” which is nothing. A decade ago as an undergraduate I had bi-weekly projects that required as much.

In that case, you should fully understand that some slight errors in code can create massive issues with output if you aren't careful enough. There are entire volumes of publications dedicated to training programmers how to keep bugs out of code and yet buggy code is still written all the time. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for code.

The aether was shot down by experimental evidence and a sound competing theory. The lesson to take away here isn’t that “science has been wrong in the past so we shouldn’t trust it” but rather that the way to refute a scientific theory is to come up with a better explanation and to properly document its superiority.

I would completely agree... my point isn't that we shouldn't trust science but that mistakes have been made in the past and therefore we can't just shout "scientific consensus" and use that as a valid argument.

 

[rockoon]

Perhaps an apology is in order.

Accepted.

Then you can contrast the CO2Science summary

Yes.. ok, we can contrast a summary of an entire paper..

with the final statements of the authors

..with a small portion of the paper.. a sentence that isnt even about the content of the paper but instead about further content of the data that goes unaddressed by the paper.

Really.. does that sound like a valid thing to do? Doesnt' that sound more umm... ohhh.... cherry picking?

The paper, taken in its entirety, declares Antarctica to be a likely sink of H2O.

You just cherry picked the final sentence. Why? Why not instead quote the final paragraph? Is it because the final paragraph states quite clearly that their findings is that Antarctica is a sink of water?

Really, this thread has turned into something of a train wreck, hasn't it?

Its turned into a big source of misinformation, and you just added to it by cherry picking. Thanks for the contribution.

FWIW, I tracked the citation through PubMed, and the related links there suggest to me that BeAChooser is cherry-picking. Which was varwoche was pointing out - a more recent reference by Wingham & Shepherd contradicts the citation above.

Seems that you are the one guilty of cherry picking.

 

[BeAChooser]

We can tell. Trust us

You misrepresented what those folks are saying. They are not saying "we can tell". They are saying *we can NOT tell" (i.e., your evidence is not sufficiently convincing", due to the uncertainties in the models, the data, and what we don't understand yet about the physics. And the folks saying "trust us" are the ones trying to tax us before we know these things.

Anybody that gets out much can see that the climate is changing, wherever they are.

Perhaps, but the issue is WHY it is changing. If increasing CO2 is not the real reason or at least not responsible for the majority of the change, then what Dingel and Al Gore want may just waste resources that will be needed to adapt to the change or stop it by other means.

 

[rockoon]

Odin help me. It's a good idea to actually read what's been posted before launching into yet another fact-challenged tirade. Here again, formatting added:


* I concede there is one more possibility -- maybe it's BeAChooser who spun the facts. Since I'm disinterested in consuming information via propagandists such as CO2 Science, either you or BeAChooser will need to sort it out. Add: Dakotajudo did the legwork (thanks!) and no surprise, the spin is courtesy of CO2 Science.

Your second sentence of the post I responded to clearly indicates that you knew full well that two of the authors of the paper had authored a later paper by themselves with different results. You infact demanded that this person admit this very specifically which is proof that you already knew full well that the summary was infact accurate.

Hence, your first sentence is nothing but an asinine attack on the creadability of an accurate summary of the paper thinly veiled by your "second alternative."

The fact that you used this asinine attack as an excuse to ignore all his other sources just shows us that you arent at all interrested in the truth.

I welcome you to retract your dyspeptic tirade, breath not held.

Once you retract your dishonesty and asinine tactics, I might consider being nicer to you in the future.

 

[Locri]

(On a comparison to Evolution)

Yes, and an old one at that. The comparison fares very well.

You know... maybe you are right, let me think about this:

Evolution talks of natural processes that take place over the several billion years on the existence of the Earth with somewhat self balancing aspects built into it and a fairly high tolerance for a dynamically changing environment. Evolution, while simple in basic concept is amazingly complex and is still not entirely understood but we uncover more each day and fit the pieces in.

Creationism on the other hand ignores evidence of the 4.5 billion or so years and posits that some intelligent being created something new in the very recent past (well, technically according to them the ONLY past that matters) and has little tolerance for change as everything has to be exactly as they say otherwise it's just flat out wrong. Creationism tends to simplify all the factors because the only real answer is that said intelligent being designed it to be like that and that's that. Nevermind those pesky little details of the vastly complex system we live in, right?

Gosh darn it, I think you are right.

On to other things

There people who are terrified by new ideas, let alone new realities. I'm not talking alarm here, I'm talking deeply-felt existential threat. There are ideological convictions that cannot accomodate AGW, a relatively new idea. Some people's very identities are rooted in such cults.

That is an interesting observation. I was thinking along similar lines too, but with an opposite conclusion... I find that many people seem to think of the world as a very static place that was basically built for us (again, humans have such huge egos) and therefore if anything is going to change it, it better damn well be us, shouldn't it? I've heard AGW believers that have said things along similar lines (although thankfully not on this board and not from any scientifically inclined people).

But isn't it correct that the very scientists who agree it is warming are not competent to discuss whether "something needs to be done to prevent massive change to the climate"? We've noted the cautions of Armstrong in this respect - that the IPCC doesn't do good forecasting.

I feel this is another one of those sad cases of double standards. If you are a scientist (not involved in climate related studies) for AGW, it's great that you agree and you are just this wonderful person that adds to that "scientific consensus", but if you disagree then your opinion obviously doesn't matter because you don't know what you are talking about.

Let us not forget that good old Einstein was basically a hobbyist scientist for a good portion of his life. Working in a Patent office doesn't really qualify you to make amazing physics discovers, but being a genius helps

Anybody that gets out much can see that the climate is changing, wherever they are.

Absolutely, the climate will always be changing... that's the beauty of it.

...but walking outside and noticing the climate is changing still doesn't prove that we did it. I'm just skeptical though

Geez... I'm going away for the weekend, I hate to see just how much stuff I'll have to catch up after that

 

[varwoche]

Your second sentence of the post I responded to clearly indicates that you knew full well that two of the authors of the paper had authored a later paper by themselves with different results. You infact demanded that this person admit this very specifically which is proof that you already knew full well that the summary was infact accurate.

I have no idea what this gibberish means. I do know, however, that your disjointed blather is not contributing to readers' knowledge about the science being discussed. I welcome you to stay on topic.

Hence, your first sentence is nothing but an asinine attack on the creadability of an accurate summary of the paper thinly veiled by your "second alternative." The fact that you used this asinine attack as an excuse to ignore all his other sources just shows us that you arent at all interrested in the truth. Once you retract your dishonesty and asinine tactics, I might consider being nicer to you in the future.

Ditto.

 

[rockoon]

I have no idea what this gibberish means.

Are you unwilling or unable to see your dishonesty?

I will now quote you, to make it clear:

I'll take a look at your other cites once you acknowledge that your first cite has been refuted by the authors themselves. Fair enough? (I won't waste my time on your other CO2 Science cite though, for obvious reasons.)

That is the admission that you knew full well that your first sentence was asinine. You already clearly knew that the authors did infact do an "about face" as you like to call it, and that the abstract cited was infact accurate.

This is what I saw:

A) I saw you not liking the large number of cites he had on the subject in question, and as a response you tried to discredit the first cite with a dishonest and asinine statement about the abstract somehow being misrepresented.

B) I saw you then demand that the poster "admit" that his first cite was inaccurate, or else you would not consider any of the other cites, even when you full well knew that the first cite was infact accurate.

I do know, however, that your disjointed blather is not contributing to readers' knowledge about the science being discussed. I welcome you to stay on topic.

Ditto.

Currently I am contributing to the knowledge in this thread by policing a dishonest jerk. Thats you, buddy.

 

[Megalodon]

(On a comparison to Evolution)
You know... maybe you are right, let me think about this:

Evolution talks of natural processes that take place over the several billion years on the existence of the Earth with somewhat self balancing aspects built into it and a fairly high tolerance for a dynamically changing environment. Evolution, while simple in basic concept is amazingly complex and is still not entirely understood but we uncover more each day and fit the pieces in.

Creationism on the other hand ignores evidence of the 4.5 billion or so years and posits that some intelligent being created something new in the very recent past (well, technically according to them the ONLY past that matters) and has little tolerance for change as everything has to be exactly as they say otherwise it's just flat out wrong. Creationism tends to simplify all the factors because the only real answer is that said intelligent being designed it to be like that and that's that. Nevermind those pesky little details of the vastly complex system we live in, right?

Gosh darn it, I think you are right.

Try it like this:

A comparison between creationists and global warmer deniers

Both their hypothesis goes against scientific consensus
They both deny this scientific consensus
They both have articles in journals
They both lack articles in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals
They both have a persecution complex
They are both funded by specific interest groups
They both cherrypick their data to suit their hypothesis
They both rave like maniacs when confronted with the facts
They both have more influence in the White House than real scientists

BTW, since you didn't bother identifying the flavour of creationist you decided to use (YEC), I also didn't bother identifying the flavour I used (IDots)

Wait a minute...