This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

bitbutter's Profile

bitbutter's Avatar Joined about 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by bitbutter

More Discussions by bitbutter

Latest Comments by bitbutter

Go to: The Godless Delusion

bitbutter's Avatar Jump to comment 78 by bitbutter

Just re-posting logicel's ask the atheists link that didn't work out earlier:

This page lists answers that handily address Kreeft's arguments.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:48:27 UTC | #490224

Go to: Armed forces bishop says sorry for praising Taliban

bitbutter's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by bitbutter

Richard Dawkins has said

As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers.

Dr Stephen Venner seems to understand this. His critics seem not to. On what grounds are they deciding which varieties of faith are deserving of respect?

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:33:00 UTC | #423401

Go to: Climate Change editorial

bitbutter's Avatar Jump to comment 303 by bitbutter

I agree with Steve Zara's comment that it's not the experts we should be placing our trust in, but the scientific method. At the moment I have doubts about whether the case for AGW is the r
result of proper application of this method.

@scot rafkin:

The details are available in peer reviewed literature. I'm fairly certain (but not positive) that you can download the raw data and process the data following the peer-reviewed procedure, or any other way you'd like.

Would it be possible, do you think, to find out from peer reviewed papers why the particular processing decisions shown in the link below were made?

(Maybe I will find out otherwise but its not clear to me at the moment that there's adequate accountability built into to the way this data is processed).

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:45:00 UTC | #422765

Go to: Climate Change editorial

bitbutter's Avatar Jump to comment 281 by bitbutter

Much of the case for catastrophic AGW seems to depend on temperature readings that have been processed, ostensibly to remove inhomogeneities. Are the details of this processing available, per station, for scrutiny?

I understand that computer climate models are also used heavily in making the case for strong AGW. Does anyone know whether the source code for these models is available for scrutiny?

My current skepticism about AGW relates to questions about exactly how open the workings and data used by those advancing the AGW scenarios are.

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:50:00 UTC | #422326

Go to: Hey, preacher – leave those kids alone

bitbutter's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by bitbutter


Is "Anarchist Child" a real issue in the UK?

I don't follow the question.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:23:00 UTC | #414564

More Comments by bitbutter