Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Science vs. Religion

(click on the above image to enlarge)

These flow charts are not intended to belittle religion nor make a religion out of science. They simply illustrate the different ways the two systems are used to solve problems. They should not be confused. The founding fathers of the United States of America understood this and insisted that in government there must be a separation of Church and State. If religion rules, then we have a Theocracy, for example Iran. If the believers of global warming and man-induced climate change accept no debate, no questioning, and no testing of their theories, then it is not science and is much like a religion. If global warming advocates manipulate and motivate people, politicians and businesses through fear, intimidation, and misinformation, then certainly they are not being rational and scientific. What are the real motivations of the global warming environmentalists? It certainly can not be the truth they are seeking. What do you think?


my2cents said...

Those who advocate changes based on global warming fears say those fears are backed by strong scientific evidence.

So why then are so many refusing a continuous, open debate on the very science they profess to hold in such high esteem.

Peter said...

They refuse to debate because they know they will lose. The man-induced global warming theory can not stand up to an abundance of conflicting evidence, or even common sense. Much of this evidence you'll find if you examine this blog.

Because the environmentalists know they can not win a scientific debate they resort to using fear and emotion to manipulate and distract us from reality. Shame on them, and that is putting it mildly.

agscadd said...

Peter - I have been enjoying the rational scientific questioning aproach in the articles you have gathered. It is a shame that the general oppinion of those of us who find the global warming stuff, hype, is that we are simply blind dihard right wingers.

I've bookmarked your blog and will visit. If I come across information I think you would be interested in I'll pass it along.

Have you heard of or Bjorn Lomborg or read his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist"?

Peter said...

Thanks, that's what I'm trying to do is generate some rational scientific questioning. I'm a scientist, a geologist and that is how I was taught and learned to think. You begin by questioning things you see and hear. You develop a theory, you gather data, and test your theory. Then you try and convince others that your theory is correct. The others do their own testing with their own data, and if they agree, then maybe you're on to something and you proceed.

This is NOT what is going on with the theory that mankind is causing catastrophic global warming and extreme climate change. Global warming advocates are a huge conglomerate of climate "scientists", environmentalists, (and anyone can claim to be one), and a host of lawyers, business people, politicians and true believers.

They really do behave much like an extremist religious movement. They will allow no debate, they accept everything they're told as fact, they intimidate by ostracizing their opponents, and they manipulate the uneducated through fear and showmanship.
Scientists for the most part, are shy and humble people (in my opinion) who are not showmen and salesmen. We have to prove what we believe in or we lose credibility fast. The global warming believers are not even close to being honest scientists. It is more than a shame, it is tragic and dangerous to everyone.

And yes, I've read some things by Bjorn Lonborg and I'll try to post some of his material. No I haven't read his bood, but I look forward to it. From what I can tell the true believers have really raked him over the coals.

I've been called worse things than a "blind diehard right winger", and I know I'm none of those things, so I laught it off as a pathetic attempt to discredit someone who has the facts. Oh, we're skeptics......ohhh....like it is bad to be skeptical?

my2cents said...

There is no place in science for blind faith or an allegiance towards anything other than the scientific method. That method must be objective, without bias or influence. It is based on observations and experiments that have been well tested and verified. The techniques, procedures and results of scientific study are well documented for others to review, examine and investigate further. Science is never 'settled' or closed for debate.

It is the nature and obligation of good science to question. It is those who refuse to acknowledge the 'skeptics' who are blind.