Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level

I invested a great deal of time discussing Wmscott's ideas with him in 2002 and 2003. Now that he has resumed discussion on these topics I feel I have to comment on this: Anyone who thinks this is an accurate characterization of the earlier discussion should read these messages from Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II:

• Message 132
  ​
  From me, this message characterizes the diatom evidence specifically (no replication, no peer-reviewed sources) and the debate generally, as well as noting Wmscott's failure to persuade other Creationists.
  ​
• Message 131
  ​
  From Bill Birkeland, characterizes the inherent uncertainty in ascribing a marine origin to Wmscott's diatoms.
  ​
• Message 108
  ​
  From me, more background about human distribution of diatomaceous material, and some suggestions to Wmscott in the context of helping him develop his evidence for a technical paper. Also includes my reply to Wmscott's bizarre claim that I had made a diatom identification that supported his views.

That thread also includes Wmscott's expression of his intention more than a year ago to submit a technical paper on his findings on diatoms to a peer reviewed journal. One of the serious problems with consideration of Wmscott's evidence is that it had been gathered, examined and analyzed by only himself, and so had not stood up to peer review or replication, so it would be relevant to hear the outcome of this effort.Wmscott's book is self-published.I post this message only to correct the record. Wmscott would be correct if had stated that nothing in the prior discussion had caused him to change his views, but it is definitely inaccurate to characterize those he was debating with as flummoxed and unable "to account for" his evidence and arguments.--Percy

It's a pulley problem. The wheel is actually a pulley. The cord is wrapped around the pulley, and from the free end of the cord hangs a block. As the block falls and pulls the cord, the wheel rotates faster and faster. The question asks for the velicity of the block just as it hits the floor.Here's the problem statement from Crash again: Crash only presented the problem to you because you said this: But you didn't even recognize it as a pulley problem, let alone provide a solution.Anyone who devotes a considerable proportion of his life to something, as "jerk scientists" do to science, are bound to become pretty good at it. Crash was trying to make the point that scientists actually know some stuff (a lot of stuff, actually) that you don't about science.There's no harm in not knowing something. Most of us know almost nothing about everything. But I think Crash's attention was caught by the incongruity of your statement given the level of knowledge demonstrated in your posts so far.--Percy

Hi, Wmscott!No one faults you for having insufficient time for research.Where we fault you is in your expectation that we should give serious consideration to your evidence which has seen no peer review or replication.I, personally, still fault you for initially hiding the fact that you were the author of the book you were promoting, and for not mentioning that it was self-published. This is not the way to establish the trust that might have helped you promote your views. I don't want to hear your rationalizations again. The only thing that would satisfy me is an acknowledgment of your error and a promise and committment to do better in the future by making scrupulous honesty your goal.When making disclosures there are always questions about what one should and shouldn't include. You answer this conumdrum by asking yourself, "Am I building an impression in people's minds that is contrary to the truth?" In the case of your promotion of your book, the question you should have asked yourself was, "Does this review give the impression it was written by someone who read the book and found it worthwhile, rather than that it was written by the author?"And in the case of self-publishing the book, you should have asked yourself, "If I don't mention it, will people assume my book was published through traditional channels, thereby lending it greater credibility in their minds than if they knew it was self-published?"--Percy

Crash has already made his point, so there's no reason for you to continue trying to solve this problem.Crash's point was not that scientists are smarter than you, but that they have received training. That's why the jerk physics major who perhaps can't find his way from the cafeteria to his office can solve the problem in a minute and you won't be able to solve it in your lifetime, unless you look up the equations in a book or on the Internet. If you like puzzles then keep working at it, but be forewarned that the derivations for rotational energy equations are far from simple.This thread is more geology than physics, but the same principles hold. Geologists receive training. They know a great deal about how various forces shape the earth. And you can share in this knowledge simply by reading an elementary geology book, and then you'll be able to propose scenarios that are consistent with both the evidence and with the forces and timeframes necessary to produce that evidence.--Percy