Rediscovery of Technology

You said that :

. To get the stratification in its present form, it had to be laid down in moving water/mud. A moving mud stream thousand miles long/wide and over 2000meters deep?

and

Likewise, unless there is a river a 1000 miles wide on a perfect gradient depositing uniform layers a thousand miles long... Oh wait, not even that "river" would work as it must be a mud slurry.

Yet the articles I quoted ( you may only be able to see the abstracts, but I had the full articles) were discussing the formation of the layering and formation of shale, such as oil shale, and the eventual formation fo the rock bed beneath them. the coal one was simply the area they were researching, as the group was funded to look at better identification of coal and oil shale deposits. The articles reference the ability of swamps to form shale, which along with the info i gave about some of the worlds largest swamps, showed it was a plausible way of creating layered formations In no way, shape or form did I sya this is what happened for the grand canyon, only that this is a viable and known method of forming layered sedimentary rocks, with clastic sorting.


You also said :

So, you have no idea what a varve is, how it lives, and its implications yet are posting! Bravo!

despite me never mentioning varves, or biology in any detail in my initial reply. Again, my reply was only to your bit about the requirement of the size of a moving water body of size able to form the layering. If there have been crossed wires, I apologise for any confusion I may have caused, however, I do find your attacks on my replies rather funny, as you seem to be consistently misreading them in a way that to me seems to be an attempt to say to yourself: "Look, everybody else who even slightly doesn't agree with me is wrong." Your points about varves, dn the formation of sandstone would be valid, if, and only if, I had said them. Again, if you thought I said this due to a laspe in communications, my apologies, but I didnt.

wastedfly wrote:
No geologist on this planet is going to try quoting an abstract about the lithification and bed orientation of organic matter into coal beds to describe the formation of stratified sandstone! Just you.

No geologist is ever going to claim sorting of clasts in a non moving environment. Sorting requires motion. No geologist on this planet denies this. Other than you it would seem. Go figure.

Keep digging your hole deeper with your fool tool.(posting button) Now it is becoming good entertainment. Please do continue.

More information on the US cooling trend.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/

smr, I enjoy your posts, and respect your intellect, but am dumfounded on just how contrary you are on virtually every topic (religion, UFOs, lost civilisations, and climate change, as samples).
It seems that you have an extraordinary ability to tunnel vision your research. There will be a world wide mountain of data and respected conclusions, yet you focus in on the 1% of like minded people's contrary views, on just about every topic.
I followed the attached link, and found the same guns for hire spinning the same made up data as always.

I'd agree that every senior scientist in an administration role is not going to minimise their findings, as they want to ensure funding continues to flow; but their overall conclusions have to be realistic as there is so much information available for others to check.

smr wrote:More information on the US cooling trend.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global ... id/604674/

My response to global warming.

A report from a single man, on a website that describes themselves as at least as right-wing as fox, and described by the NYT as the media business you need to see to have a hope of getting the GOP behind you. Yeah, real unbiased.
this is an opinion piece that lends nothing to the debate about global climate change. Its only newsworthy because of the guys job.

smr wrote:http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-myth-weather/2014/11/02/id/604674/

My response to global warming.

Spacekiwi wrote:A report from a single man, on a website that describes themselves as at least as right-wing as fox, and described by the NYT as the media business you need to see to have a hope of getting the GOP behind you. Yeah, real unbiased.
this is an opinion piece that lends nothing to the debate about global climate change. Its only newsworthy because of the guys job.

smr wrote:http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-myth-weather/2014/11/02/id/604674/

My response to global warming.

You may not like him or the website but he does have a couple of important and legitimate points.


1. "The government only gives money to scientists who will present their hypothesis. They don't have any choice; if you are going to get the money, you have to present their position. Those are the ones the government pays for. That doesn't make it right, that only means it's bought and paid for."


This is a legitimate problem. Actually it is a legitimate problem with ANY issue that has been as politicized as this one has.

And science that depends on modeling like climate change does is particularly susceptible. Models are very susceptible to the garbage in garbage out principle. Tweak a few parameters and get a completely different result. When the desired result is known in advance (as in this situation), to get grants their careers depend on the modelers must make sure their parameters give that desired result.

Whether or not this is actually happening is impossible to say unless you are a telepath. But the fact that it is a legitimate and logical possibility contributes to the trust deficit between the modelers and the general public.



2. Coleman states that the Weather channel's official statement that it "stands behind the idea of climate change." is a reasonable statement. But "the programming they put on the TV is not reasonable. They put on their climate geeks. Those aren't scientists, they're nuts."



A very legitimate criticism of TV programing. Basically the weather equivalent of the old standby "if it bleeds, it leads". And of course as these wild predictions consistently fail to come true, this also contributes significantly the the trust deficit between the climate change supporters and the general public.

The government may, but other groups give a fairly large portion of money to trying to disprove it. And an interesting thing about science is you will end up with more money and fame, and your career wou;ld be set for life, if you can disprove something like global climate change, yet no-one has managed this, indicating its truth.


He also calls himself a scientist despite having a degree in journalism, not science. Telling porkies on air like that does not suggest that you are telling the truth.

I don't know who the weather channel let onscreen that he calls nuts, but considering that that he lies for one statement, and has another that would require the entire scientific community to act against their own best interests, i would classify him as the nut.

biochem wrote:You may not like him or the website but he does have a couple of important and legitimate points.


1. "The government only gives money to scientists who will present their hypothesis. They don't have any choice; if you are going to get the money, you have to present their position. Those are the ones the government pays for. That doesn't make it right, that only means it's bought and paid for."


This is a legitimate problem. Actually it is a legitimate problem with ANY issue that has been as politicized as this one has.

And science that depends on modeling like climate change does is particularly susceptible. Models are very susceptible to the garbage in garbage out principle. Tweak a few parameters and get a completely different result. When the desired result is known in advance (as in this situation), to get grants their careers depend on the modelers must make sure their parameters give that desired result.

Whether or not this is actually happening is impossible to say unless you are a telepath. But the fact that it is a legitimate and logical possibility contributes to the trust deficit between the modelers and the general public.



2. Coleman states that the Weather channel's official statement that it "stands behind the idea of climate change." is a reasonable statement. But "the programming they put on the TV is not reasonable. They put on their climate geeks. Those aren't scientists, they're nuts."



A very legitimate criticism of TV programing. Basically the weather equivalent of the old standby "if it bleeds, it leads". And of course as these wild predictions consistently fail to come true, this also contributes significantly the the trust deficit between the climate change supporters and the general public.

The government may, but other groups give a fairly large portion of money to trying to disprove it. And an interesting thing about science is you will end up with more money and fame, and your career wou;ld be set for life, if you can disprove something like global climate change,

1. That would only be if you are successful in proving beyond a doubt that it doesn't exist. But those who want to study something opposed to the orthodoxy face many of the same problems regarding availability of data and problems regarding the integrity of models as those in favor of global warming do. So proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they are correct, is unlikely. Would you risk your career on that?

2. The government outfunds everybody

yet no-one has managed this, indicating its truth.

That is WAY TOO STRONG of a statement. A more accurate statement would be: the current evidence indicates that some unnatural climate change is more likely than not.


Just because no one has yet managed this does not mean no one will manage it in the future. Climate studies is a field fraught with challenges. The data is difficult to understand, complex, and incomplete. We really only have good solid data recently, a tiny tiny fraction of the time necessary to understand something involving as long of time periods as climate change. As a result scientists on both sides of the debate are forced to use a lot of models and assumptions which may or may not be correct.

Given our current knowledge it is more likely than not but we don't know what we don't know. There very well may be some key evidence out there that we have yet to discover.

I don't know who the weather channel let onscreen that he calls nuts, but considering that that he lies for one statement, and has another that would require the entire scientific community to act against their own best interests, i would classify him as the nut.

It's a problem broader than the weather channel. "Scientists" who make wild predictions that can be spun into tales of doom drive ratings. Fear sells. It's not just climate change it's everything. Remember the annual stories of poisoned Halloween candy? That virtually never occurs (the most dangerous part of trick or treating is getting hit by a car not being poisoned) but every year they lead with the scare tactics. They're doing the same with climate change. It's all about ratings.

Say a river washes sediment into a lake for several million years. Over the eons, sediment builds up, the river runs slower and is less capable of carrying large particles. This will produce a deep sediment bed with coarse sand and gravel at the bottom, and only fine silt at the top. Many many years later, somebody misinterprets this as "stratification" caused by one single catastrophic event.

Why is it that "faith" causes people to persist in believing things after they have been conclusively proven not to be true? They will claim that the truth is not what it is, the facts are not what they are, or what their "holy book" says is not what it says.
-----------------
Facts remain true whether you like them or not.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Why is it that "faith" causes people to persist in believing things after they have been conclusively proven not to be true? They will claim that the truth is not what it is, the facts are not what they are, or what their "holy book" says is not what it says.
-----------------
Facts remain true whether you like them or not.

Most Holy Books are inherently inaccurate due to the fact that early incarnations of them were transcribed and copied by hand, thus allowing spelling errors to creep in and modify the original teachings. It only gets worse when the books are translated to other languages.

The most commonly quoted mistranslation is "Man shall not sleep with man as like a husband and wife" which is often quoted as proof that homosexuality is bad.
Wrong!
If one goes back to the original Aramaic and translates from there without going through Latin, German etc, the actual quote is "Adult shall not sleep with child as like a husband and wife".
The true Bible ain't opposed to homosexuality, it's opposed to pedophilia.

The reason that people believe in things even after being comprehensively proven wrong is that they have invested time and (mental) energy in their belief, shaping their own personality around it somewhat. As such, should their belief be proven wrong, it leaves them with two options.
1) Ignore the proof. They know what they know, dammit.
2) Jettison the support of the beliefs that they hold and try to find something new that they can use to buttress their personality.
This is why converts to a religion tend to be somewhat more prone to extremism than the original believers. They are generally overcompensating because they feel vulnerable, having had their previous belief support-structure removed and thus when they find a new belief to replace it, they cling to it as tightly as they can for fear that it is going to be taken away from them as well.
For those raised in a religion or a cult, learning that they were wrong will either make them or break them, usually the latter.