However, the existence of evidence of active collusion, suppression and destruction of evidence, and out and out awful code with variable assignment without proper type conversion errors that effectively result in random number generation:
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html Do undermine the argument that we should all give over our entire economies to a bunch of Socialist Gaianist planners and a one-world government based on the results of said code, and the work of said "scientists", especially when the authors of this mess and those who promote them stand to take a (really large $$$) vig on the trading platforms mooted as the solution. In this case, it is the Climate Change crowd who are the Catholic Church enforcing orthodoxy and stifling dissent, not the climate change skeptics. The code review is where this particular constituency has expertise. Can we all stop with our religio-political barking at each other, and review the code. Even you true believers have something to gain from this, as better code, with more eyes on it, should generate more irrefutable evidence of your faith, assuming it is actual Science, as opposed to Socialist Gaianism wrapped in the shroud of Science (choice of "shroud" deliberate, as I see the current rise of "Environmentalism"; the religion; as being as anti-rational and likely to lead to a new dark age as the rise of Christianity was at the end of the Roman empire). -----Original Message----- From: funsec-boun...@linuxbox.org [mailto:funsec-boun...@linuxbox.org] On Behalf Of ch...@blask.org Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 5:26 AM To: RandallM; Drsolly Cc: funsec Subject: Re: [funsec] simple question --- On Fri, 12/4/09, Drsolly <drsol...@drsolly.com> wrote: > > If we have "fudged" climate, how much on "evolution" > evidence to fit theories? > > Possible? No. ;~) > You're right! And what about this god theory! Possible? In boating parlance this is called "cavitation": spinning your prop but goin' nowhere. If every complex issue is decided black or white based on whether there is any imperfection in anyone's data or process in considering it from any side of the issue, then it is very simple to conclude that there is no answer to anything and every opinion is of equal validity. In reality this just isn't the case. My opinion that the universe was created a minute ago with half of this comment written and my memories of 44 previous years already in place is completely defensible and cannot be disproven by any measurement or argument - but it is still complete malarkey not worthy of equal consideration. The question of evolution is extremely simple. Either the universe is what it looks like - 13.4B years old or so with galaxies and stars and planets and critters evolving from stage to stage - or it was created sometime more recently with whatever artifacts are seen to exist at that time (like bipedal mammalian cognition engines and quasars) and all evidence of their earlier states already in place by some extra-universal force which by any definition is a "deity". Everyone is free to believe the latter, but without religious convictions to back it up there isn't any other reason to do so. Without an external "Designer" the only option is to believe that in an empty field a breeding pair of humans spontaneously appeared out of thin air. On the topic of "evolutionary biologists/climatologists/nuclear physicists fake all this stuff to keep themselves employed" I only ask that this group consider the "you folks create viruses to keep yourselves employed, right?" question we have all been asked. The existence of a plausible motive does not a plausible theory make. -best -chris _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
