Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (18437)	12/15/2007 1:43:57 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to 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.

To: miraje who wrote (18437)	12/15/2007 2:03:56 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

I'll give you one concrete example of how you are similar to creationists. IIRC, you were one of the nitwits jumping up and down with glee here when McIntyre's correction to the temp record nudged 1934(?) to the hottest year (well, neglecting error bars anyway, LOL!). The response of the AGW basher crowd to that development was identical to the response of creationists to the recent (good) scientific work on soft tissue preservation in Dinosaurs. You should google and see how the goobers danced with glee after first "blood cells" and then some actual sequence data (although of a statistical nature) where obtained from 70 mya fossils. Please note that it has been almost dogma with the vast majority of scientists that such samples could not survive for that length of time. So... what does this mean? Here is proof positive, by the scientist’s own prior admission, that the dinos must be young! What do you think? That was one example I had in mind when asking Tim why he is so sure the earth is very old. What the scientists did show was NOT that dinos are young, but that under very special fossilization, and using very clever detection methods, we can in fact say a little about DNA/proteans of very ancient creatures. This is not how the goobers will see it, needless to say. An interesting aside, is that the statistical protean data did in fact help buttress the connection between birds and dinos. The creationists didn’t hype that part LOL! Evolution is full of many such surprises, and with each one, the goober press rushes out notices for the faithful, exhorting them that science is finally showing the bible to be true. With each little anomaly that McIntyre uncovers (or in more cases, outright nonsense that one of them publishes) the rightwing AGW basher crowd fills the blogsphere with claims of the impending collapse of AGW theory. Birds of a feather!