| Nirvana_Nut85 said: Well considering that scientific data is about as manipulated by the Elite as religions today I dont see how any of you can justify your answers when both are propagated. Look what they did with man made global warming for example. It came out in the media last year that the University that the U.N had hired had been manipulating the data they were providing to make it appear as if the Earth was getting warmer when in fact temperatures had been cooling in the past 10 years. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ (There's alot more sites to look into if you google "climate Gate") |
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.
Scientific data is not manipulated to the extent religion is, trust me. There is no peer review system for religious activities or any other system which accommodates direct sceptical enquiry. And religions have a massive self preservation agenda which just propagates the creating and spreading of lies, with no basis, for personal protection.
The majority of manipulation that happens scientific data comes after it has been published, largely by the media. You get the occasional bad egg who manipulates data, but if information that is false is not likely to hold up to sceptical enquiry and peer review, especially when the methodology and results are attacked.
...
Also, I'm sceptical about the extent of anthropogenic climate change as many people know, but I would suggest you look at some rebuttals to the arguments posed by many climate change sceptics. Anti anthropogenic climate change supporters have also frequently manipulated data, and been exposed too.
But quite frankly I can't bothered to take this particular argument up and it would be off topic. You can read/watch rebuttals for yourself if you like.
