The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: miraje who wrote (18437)	12/15/2007 1:43:57 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (4) of 36921

Boy you are dense. The argument goes like this: 1) Scientists look at the totality of data, and develop theories which are based on underlying science (physics, chemistry, etc) resulting in the best fit to the most data, and which also provide projections that can be used to test the theories utility and accuracy. 2) There are typically many "holes" in complex scientific theories such as atmospheric science, or evolutionary biology. 3) Some individuals focus on the "holes" and claim this invalidates the overall theory. Thats it in a nutshell. The AGW bashers and creationists do it exactly the same way. If either wanted to rise to the level of "science" they could work on #1. Unfortunately, neither group has any interest in that. Which is why they don't do good science. What you focused on is an interesting sideline. That the majority of creationists are also AGW bashers. I suspect that is a religious link, but it does not greatly concern me. It might also simply be that they are used to a particularly sloppy line of reasoning in one field and care it over to the other. Got me.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next