Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars
I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.
Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.
If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.
Actually, my father was a geologist, so I know quite a bit about geology. One thing I know is that knowing what the climate was like at a certain point in time doesn't mean you know what caused that climate. You can look at pollen and determine what plants were growing at the time to determine the climate, but that doesn't tell you jack shit about what caused that climate.
Of course it doesn't. You need more data spread out over time. Geology gives us that data.
The scientific difference between fact and theory is "splitting hairs?" DId you mention that in your paper? You insisted they said it was “fact.” Scientiststs. That difference is not splitting hairs, it is huge. Just man up and admit you were wrong. They believe the theory, they don’t state it is fact.You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?
Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.
So no, you're not going to man up, got it
So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.
“Climate change” as endorsed by scientists is shooting a rocket randomly into space. One day it’s theorized it’s going to Jupiter, the next day it’s theorized it’s going to Saturn. One day it will crash in the atmosphere the ext leave a crater the size of Texas.
Every time it changes, their view is well, it’s still going somewhere and it’s going to do something. Or not. It’s easy to believe in a theory you can constantly change what that belief means.
You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?
Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.
So no, you're not going to man up, got it
So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.
You mean a bunch of political hacks in the AGU leadership affirmed AGW. However, those people are beholden to government. They would be biting the hand that feeds them if they attacked AGW. The idea that the would ever come out against AGW is as believable as the existence of an honest politician.
The AGU is beholden to government? They're position hasn't changed since Bush was in office, and not all of the officers who signed the position papers are Americans. That being the case, to who's government, exactly, are they beholden?
The scientific difference between fact and theory is "splitting hairs?" DId you mention that in your paper? You insisted they said it was “fact.” Scientiststs. That difference is not splitting hairs, it is huge. Just man up and admit you were wrong. They believe the theory, they don’t state it is fact.You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?
Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.
So no, you're not going to man up, got it
So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.
“Climate change” as endorsed by scientists is shooting a rocket randomly into space. One day it’s theorized it’s going to Jupiter, the next day it’s theorized it’s going to Saturn. One day it will crash in the atmosphere the ext leave a crater the size of Texas.
Every time it changes, their view is well, it’s still going somewhere and it’s going to do something. Or not. It’s easy to believe in a theory you can constantly change what that belief means.
Global warming is not a theory. It is an observational fact.
Which has nothing to do with the AGU, which is NOT a government agency and doesn't rely on the government for anything. I'm a geologist, and as a professional, have never relied on the government for anything. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.Government in general. All government bureaucrats support AGW because it means vast new revenues for them plus control over the hapless subjects (us)
The scientific difference between fact and theory is "splitting hairs?" DId you mention that in your paper? You insisted they said it was “fact.” Scientiststs. That difference is not splitting hairs, it is huge. Just man up and admit you were wrong. They believe the theory, they don’t state it is fact.You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?
Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.
So no, you're not going to man up, got it
So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs. I'm not surprised in the least.
“Climate change” as endorsed by scientists is shooting a rocket randomly into space. One day it’s theorized it’s going to Jupiter, the next day it’s theorized it’s going to Saturn. One day it will crash in the atmosphere the ext leave a crater the size of Texas.
Every time it changes, their view is well, it’s still going somewhere and it’s going to do something. Or not. It’s easy to believe in a theory you can constantly change what that belief means.
Global warming is not a theory. It is an observational fact.
“Climate change” as endorsed by scientists is shooting a rocket randomly into space. One day it’s theorized it’s going to Jupiter, the next day it’s theorized it’s going to Saturn. One day it will crash in the atmosphere the ext leave a crater the size of Texas.
Every time it changes, their view is well, it’s still going somewhere and it’s going to do something. Or not. It’s easy to believe in a theory you can constantly change what that belief means.
Global warming is not a theory. It is an observational fact.
Horseshit.
They're going to have a harder time of it:
Anti-science advocates are freaking out about Google truth rankings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
“Climate change” as endorsed by scientists is shooting a rocket randomly into space. One day it’s theorized it’s going to Jupiter, the next day it’s theorized it’s going to Saturn. One day it will crash in the atmosphere the ext leave a crater the size of Texas.
Every time it changes, their view is well, it’s still going somewhere and it’s going to do something. Or not. It’s easy to believe in a theory you can constantly change what that belief means.
Global warming is not a theory. It is an observational fact.
Horseshit.
Well, why not since they constantly change what it means?
Answer the question or are you a liar?Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.
And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"
You are welcome.
They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?
I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars
I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.
You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?
Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.
And has nothing to do with global or climate. What a tool.Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.
And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"
You are welcome.
They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?
I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars
I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.
Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.
If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.
And has nothing to do with global or climate. What a tool.You are welcome.
They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?
I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars
I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.
Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.
If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.
What caused it? Was it that way in Russia or Australia ? Uh noAnd has nothing to do with global or climate. What a tool.I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars
I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.
Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.
If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.
Absolutely, it does. The Muldraugh limestine represents a middle Mississippian aged mixed carbonate-siliciclastic tempestite-dominated ramp environment. What does that mean? It means that this formation was deposited in a shallow tropical environment dominated by frequent massive gale-force storms. Today, the region in which we find this limestone is 38 degrees north of the equator. Limestone reefs can only form 20 degrees north or south of the equator. And so when this limestone was laid down, the region was within 20 degrees of the equator. And so we know from studying these rocks, and the fossils they contain, that there have been major climatic changes not only at the time the rocks were deposited, but in the interval of time since. And by studying the rocks that occur in the interval between then and now, we can fill in the gaps for what the climate was like. It has everything to do with climate.
What caused it? Was it that way in Russia or Australia ? Uh noAnd has nothing to do with global or climate. What a tool.I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.
Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.
If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history? Anything at all? No? That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils. I do. That is my expertize. Your expertize? Wasting everyone's time.
Absolutely, it does. The Muldraugh limestine represents a middle Mississippian aged mixed carbonate-siliciclastic tempestite-dominated ramp environment. What does that mean? It means that this formation was deposited in a shallow tropical environment dominated by frequent massive gale-force storms. Today, the region in which we find this limestone is 38 degrees north of the equator. Limestone reefs can only form 20 degrees north or south of the equator. And so when this limestone was laid down, the region was within 20 degrees of the equator. And so we know from studying these rocks, and the fossils they contain, that there have been major climatic changes not only at the time the rocks were deposited, but in the interval of time since. And by studying the rocks that occur in the interval between then and now, we can fill in the gaps for what the climate was like. It has everything to do with climate.
Back 50 years ago when the US ranked #1 in science education, such spurious dismissives as "denial" and "denialist" would never see light of day. Now that the left has turned our educational system into the illiterate cesspool it is, where we now rank at the bottom of the industrialized world in science education, these Medieval pitchfork & torchlight icons find ready sanctuary in the tiny pea brains of knuckle-draggers like Flopper and Pogo.
Back 50 years ago when the US ranked #1 in science education, such spurious dismissives as "denial" and "denialist" would never see light of day. Now that the left has turned our educational system into the illiterate cesspool it is, where we now rank at the bottom of the industrialized world in science education, these Medieval pitchfork & torchlight icons find ready sanctuary in the tiny pea brains of knuckle-draggers like Flopper and Pogo.
50 years ago, you didn't have right wing evangelical creationists and climate science deniers on school boards demanding that our schools "teach the controversy" and trying to get evolution and climate change removed from the curriculum.
