🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33A801D9.4DB255F8@miningco.com>,
Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
>William Hyde wrote:
>
>> 
>>         Details, please.  I suspect that you are parroting
>>         a questionable source.  I'm quite sure that you
>>         yourself do not understand C-14 dating.
>
>C14 is an isotope of Carbon caused by cosmic rays.  It has a half-
>life of approximately 5600 years.  Normal C12 does not radioactively
>decay.  People assume a specific amount of C14 was present a long,
>long time ago without much justification,


	You seem to think that there is some sort of
	comsipiracy here, whereas the problem of fluctuating
	amounts of C-14 has been known since day one, and methods
	to deal with it devised.

	Do you know just how much the error in this assumption
	will change dates (hint - not as much as you think)?

	Do you know about calibration of C-14 dating with
	dendrochronological and uranium series dating?

	Do you know when C-14 is and is not used?


 and compare that to what
>is presently possibly accurately measured in core samples and fossils.

	C-14 is not commonly used to date fossils.  Most
	fossils are far too old for this method to work.

>The C14:C12 ratio supposedly indicates age...and I don't care :)

	You don't care ... but you post serious accusations.

>
>>         "I made a claim impugning the honesty and
>>         competence of a large group of people, but I
>>         have not a shred of evidence for my claim."
>
>If a person says something is true without knowing so, they
>are lying at worst and exaggerating at best.  According to
>mathematical standards, none of such things we are discussing
>have been proved.

	Nice evasion of the issue.  In science, nothing is
	ever proven - that only happens in Mathematics.
	The theory of relativity, theory of gravity,
	quantum theory, theory of evolution, first law of
	thermodynamics, second law... none of them are
	"proven".

	But we can show things to be true "beyond a reasonable
	doubt".  We then speak of those things as "true".

	So, do you still accuse us of lying?

>
>>         Some things currently believed will be proven
>>         wrong in the next month.  That's science, a
>>         process you do not seem to understand, probably because
>>         of your hostility towards it.
>
>Then the people who spoke of them as if they were certain would
>have been incorrect.

	*If* they spoke of them as certain.  Though the media
	does not like it, a degree of uncertainty applies
	to all scientific statements.

	But some things we do know beyond a reasonable doubt.

> 
>>         Given that it is pretty clear you have never bothered
>>         to study the reasoning you criticize, your preference
>>         for fantasy is natural.
>
>This assumption is incorrect like many of the theories.

	I think the assumption is working rather well.  You have
	certainly demonstrated no knowledge of this work despite
	my invitation to demonstrate your competence in this
	area.

  *The
>real truth about this matter is that people studying past
>climates can get more funding convincing people their theories
>are true*.

	Also false.  If we could demonstrate that our ideas
	were all *true*, we'd get no further funding, because the
	problem would have been solved.

	I have written several successful grant applications.
	You have to convince the referees:

		(1) That the problem is important

		(2) That current knowledge is inadequate

		(3) That your approach has a good chance of
		solving the problem.


  We can spend our money better ways.

	The Know-Nothing party used to be quite popular.
	Maybe you could revive it.

William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University