Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,653 Year: 4,910/9,624 Month: 258/427 Week: 4/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
Inactive Member

Message 360 of 517 (603772)
02-07-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by subbie
02-05-2011 8:38 PM

Re: RAZD's evidence topic
Hi subbie,
First let me say I have enjoyed reading your posts over the last almost 5 years and consider you to be intelligent and thoughtful.
I do not post here very often, but that is because I can read very fast but I can not type. So I have read everything of RAZD's and the atheist's discussions over the last year or more.
For me to comment requires me to use my two index fingers while looking at the keyboard and then check the screen to make sure it is correct.
That takes time, which sometimes I do not have a lot of.
RAZD is a prolific writer, I had to think long and hard about going into a debate with him. I decided to do it and would spend the time typing. I do not think I could handle two people.
Subbie if you and RAZD came to my house and sat down over a couple of beers I'd kick your ass and his too, or at least have you both leave thinking "maybe my position isn't completely correct".
Beers over my dining room table is not the format here, so I'd prefer to do this with just RAZD.
Thanks for your interest and good post.
Edited by petrophysics1, : typo, God what a surprise!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by subbie, posted 02-05-2011 8:38 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by subbie, posted 02-07-2011 3:55 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 444 of 517 (672560)
09-09-2012 12:56 PM

Climategate Email Quotes on Dendrochronology, Ice Cores, and Coral Dating
Percy perhaps this will help you out.
The proxy being talked about in the emails is using dendrochronology, corals and ice cores to determine temperature.
The OP thinks it's about dating, it's not.
What exactly is the problem? Well the guys who wrote the emails want to fuck with the dendrochronology, coral, and ice core data so that it matches their preconceived idea that AGW is true.
Their problem is the d,c &ic data does not match their massaged, perhaps made up recent temp data.
So let's throw the d,c & ic under the bus to save our grant money otherwise we will have to go out and get a job in the private sector where we will be expected to produce results.
Put this in RAZD's dating thread it will last about one post.
You could stick it in the "GW is a scam" thread, be great ammo for foreveryoung.
Or maybe with a modification in the OP put it in "Is it Science" forum. How ethical are scientists when their livelyhood and research is being funded by political/government organizations?
Hope that helped.
P.S. In over 35 years working as a geologist I haven't seen a problem with d,c or ic data for use to determine either dates or temp/climate. It matches the historical record very well.
AGW is another story.
Edited by petrophysics1, : Add P.S.

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2012 1:11 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024