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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (876949)	7/31/2015 7:17:17 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 1570721

" Christian Creationism vs. the scientific method and atheism" Bless you, my son. I really needed a line like that.... Fact v Faith I've used some of my holiday time to read Jerry Coyne's latest book, Fact v Faith. His premise is that science and religion are mutually incompatible. That's not to say there are no religious people accepting the findings of science or scientists who are religious. Science finds things out and religion doesn't, according to Coyne. I bought the book at the local Barnes & Noble. The science section was one row of shelves. By contrast, the religion section was at least three times the size. This is a religious area. There are plenty of fish stickers in evidence on the cars and many churches. The local newspaper had a four page section labelled religion at the weekend. I found no books on climate change in Barnes & Noble. But there is a chunk on climate change in Coyne's book in which he links climate science denial to religion. I don't know exact figures but there is a voluble section of the denialati who are religious. Roy Spencer is. Lord Monckton is a Catholic. Many others have signed the phoney theological Cornwall Alliance proclamation. According to Coyne, there is a strong proportion of the conservative religious in the States who, when confronted by a scientific result that contradicts their religious beliefs, they will deny the scientific finding. Climate change denial shows that pattern. Some of these prominent deniers are intelligent people yet they undergo mental contortions to maintain their denial. In the meantime science progresses, makes new discoveries, refines what is already known and understood. Coyne's thesis seems sound and he produces strong evidence in its favour. Coyne also demolishes the idea that science, or any of its branches, is religion too, based on faith in reason or the regularity of the Universe. He points out that the term is used as something of an insult. So my rhetorical point when confronted by that slur will be to ask the other person if they are religious and, when they say yes, ask if they think so little of their religion that they equate it with the science they despise. For those that might be thinking of reading the book, do so. It is determined and, in places, strident. But it is never less than evidence based. And it is very readable too. Buy it here amazon.co.uk ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.com

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (876949)	7/31/2015 7:29:46 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570721

As I have posted here before, scientific evidence of AGW is essentially nonexistent. We know that the Warmist crowd are devoid of any understanding of the very statistics on which they rely. The so called "peer review" process for the journals who print most of the Warmist nonsense has been totally discredited, the proxies are mostly useless, and the fraud and corruption have been proved time and again. The "science" boils down to a public relations campaign.