4 ms·

My mind isn't made up, because there is not enough evidence to generate a conclusion. Which is why I have a problem with anyone who does come to a conclusion,

My mind isn't made up, because there is not enough evidence to generate a conclusion. Which is why I have a problem with anyone who does come to a conclusion, because they do not have enough evidence either. Observational evidence says temperature is going up, it's gone up in the past, and it will go up again in the future. Sea level has gone up in the past too. Guess how a shark tooth winds up buried in Montana? What will decide my stance is good, solid, open, scientific results, based on sound input, conducted by a neutral party, with sufficient data to draw conclusions, and done in a manner that any interested party can reproduce the results from their own, independently collected data. If only one dataset is available, then the data collection itself must be open and scrutinized. There's too much 'religion' surrounding the issue to trust anyone not to manipulate anything(not necessarily intentionally).

Oletros 10y ago
> What will decide my stance is good, solid, open, scientific results, based on sound input, conducted by a neutral party, with sufficient data to draw conclusions, and done in a manner that any interested party can reproduce the results from their own, independently collected data. If only one dataset is available, then the data collection itself must be open and scrutinized. Ans since when those points are not met? What is a neutral party for you? Why do you thinkg that data is not open and cannot be scrutinized > There's too much 'religion' surrounding the issue to trust anyone not to manipulate anything(not necessarily intentionally). Any example of this manipulation?
fiter 10y ago
> Guess how a shark tooth winds up buried in Montana? My guess is plate tectonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
- sathackr 10y ago
  While it is widely accepted that portions of the Rocky Mountains were once underwater, and were pushed up via orogenic processes, it is also widely accepted that the vast majority of the central United States spent a significant amount of time underwater due to a higher global sea level. Since this trough only covers the western 1/4 or so of Montana[2], I think it would be safe to say that, on average, a shark tooth found in Montana was not found in an area of orogenic lifting, thus was likely deposited there by a shark, or something higher on the food chain than a shark, during a period in which the sea levels were much higher than they are today. Are there places in Montana where orogenic lifting created dry land? Yes. Are they as likely to be trafficked by humans as the others? No. I suppose they could also have been recently deposited by a migratory bird. [1] http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/ [2] http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/cretaceous.jpg http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/cretaceous.jpg
  - fiter 10y ago
    Sorry it took me so long to see that you responded! I looked up the elevations of cities in Montana and it looked like the minimum was 2000 ft. This implies that we've seen more change due to plate tectonics than the 750 ft (generous) sea level change. [0] Granted, to really resolve the argument on the shark's tooth we'd have to know how deep that shallow sea was in the Cretaceous Period. On the positive side, even if sea levels rose 750 ft now, Montana wouldn't be underwater. :) [0] http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/69982/mod_oucontent/oucontent/522/05884163/5a6419c8/sxr260_1_004i.jpg http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/69982/mod_o...

Oletros 10y ago

> What will decide my stance is good, solid, open, scientific results, based on sound input, conducted by a neutral party, with sufficient data to draw conclusions, and done in a manner that any interested party can reproduce the results from their own, independently collected data. If only one dataset is available, then the data collection itself must be open and scrutinized. Ans since when those points are not met? What is a neutral party for you? Why do you thinkg that data is not open and cannot be scrutinized > There's too much 'religion' surrounding the issue to trust anyone not to manipulate anything(not necessarily intentionally). Any example of this manipulation?

fiter 10y ago

> Guess how a shark tooth winds up buried in Montana? My guess is plate tectonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

sathackr 10y ago
While it is widely accepted that portions of the Rocky Mountains were once underwater, and were pushed up via orogenic processes, it is also widely accepted that the vast majority of the central United States spent a significant amount of time underwater due to a higher global sea level. Since this trough only covers the western 1/4 or so of Montana[2], I think it would be safe to say that, on average, a shark tooth found in Montana was not found in an area of orogenic lifting, thus was likely deposited there by a shark, or something higher on the food chain than a shark, during a period in which the sea levels were much higher than they are today. Are there places in Montana where orogenic lifting created dry land? Yes. Are they as likely to be trafficked by humans as the others? No. I suppose they could also have been recently deposited by a migratory bird. [1] http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/ [2] http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/cretaceous.jpg http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/cretaceous.jpg
- fiter 10y ago
  Sorry it took me so long to see that you responded! I looked up the elevations of cities in Montana and it looked like the minimum was 2000 ft. This implies that we've seen more change due to plate tectonics than the 750 ft (generous) sea level change. [0] Granted, to really resolve the argument on the shark's tooth we'd have to know how deep that shallow sea was in the Cretaceous Period. On the positive side, even if sea levels rose 750 ft now, Montana wouldn't be underwater. :) [0] http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/69982/mod_oucontent/oucontent/522/05884163/5a6419c8/sxr260_1_004i.jpg http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/69982/mod_o...