re: #265 SixDegrees

So what you’re saying is that religion is less valid than science when examined on a scientific basis. A classic circular argument.

I’m saying it’s less valid period, for the reason stated, and it’s not science. As I look here into my empty coffee cup, believing that it’s full does not make it so, and that realization does not make me a scientist.

In fact, religion and science address two entirely different aspects of existence. Each is entirely valid within it’s own domain.

I think religion is bunk, and a holdover from our primitive past. I think of it as a precursor to actual science. I speculate that it rose out of early humans’ attempts to answer then-unanswerable questions, like where they came from (creation myths) and what caused terrifying stuff like thunder and lighting (angry gods).

It’s only when attempts are made to extend the scope of either into the other that problems arise.

Yeah. When you apply science to religion, religion starts to look like hokum. And when you apply religion to science, you get the mass hysteria which is AGW.

Regardless of how this is spun, the CRU scandal is huge, and cuts the legs out from under the entire AGW fraud. The evidence is clear, they were making shit up out of whole cloth, applying arbitrary multpliers to reduce data points they wanted reduced and increase the ones they wanted increased.

If this was valid science, it should withstand the scrutiny of the most vehement opponents. There is good reason the high priests at the CRU couldn’t let opponents see their data and methodologies. They knew it couldn’t stand up to scrutiny by anyone who wasn’t also a True Believer.