🚀 go-pugleaf

This whole ridiculous thread started when someone innocently wanted to
know of paleontological evidence of specific weather events (as opposed
to seasonal climatic conditions)--fossilized raindrop prints in the mud,
for example.  Mr. Bartlo, out of the blue before anyone could answer,
essentially said "No one can know of past weather events because no one
can prove that they happened.  Anyone that claims to is lying."

Let's warp back in time and assume that the original question was
phrased:  "Are there any instances of paleontological artifacts that
scientists believe, to the best of their knowledge, to have been caused
by specific weather events (as opposed to climatic conditions.)" 
....which is what the original poster obviously intended in the first
place.  

There, now maybe we can get back to a discussion of something
*interesting* and germaine to ne.weather and others groups involved in
this thread.

	Eric Lucas

Kim Elmore wrote:
> 
> 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, and compare that to what
> >is presently possibly accurately measured in core samples and fossils.
> >The C14:C12 ratio supposedly indicates age...and I don't care :)
> 
>         This indicates a passing familiarity with the process, but nothing
> that invalidates either the process or the assumptions behind it.  Why do
> you feel that carbon dating has no values (assumed by your statement
> "...and I don't care"?
> 
> >
> >>         "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.
> 
>         No one said they had been proven.  Wiliiam Hyde was simply pointing
> out that the pricipals and explanations we invoke satisfy Occam's Razor in
> that they constitute the simplest of various conflicting explanations.
> And, I gently remind you that mathematics can only prove things within the
> bounding context of fundamental assumptions about mathematics.  There are
> axioms in mathematics that preclude proof because they constitute the
> founding pricipals of mathematics.
> 
> >
> >>         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.
> 
>         Anyone who speaks about our current physics understanding as
> absolute is clearly in error.  As is anyone who discounts our current
> physical understand because they are not absolute.  Our understanding, and
> so science, is evolutionary.
> 
> >
> >>         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 don't think you, or anyone else, knows for certain what parts of
> which theories are incorrect.  That they are *incomplete* is certain, but
> they may be quite correct as far as they go.  And, if they serve us in our
> understanding, they are functioning as intended.
> 
> >  *The
> >real truth about this matter is that people studying past
> >climates can get more funding convincing people their theories
> >are true*.  We can spend our money better ways.
> 
>         I honestly don't think any reputable paleoclimatologist will say
> their results constitute "truth".  They will say that, within certain
> limiting conditions -- which are subject to debate -- they constitute the
> best available explanations, but they do not constitute truth.
> 
>         "We can spend our money better" is true only within the context of
> limiting assumptions about what is important.  Clearly, you feel
> paleoclimate research is umimportant.  The key question is: *why* do you
> feel such research is unimportant?  On *what* can our money be better spent
> and *why*?
> 
> Kim Elmore, NSSL/Univ. of Okla.
> My views are mine; NSSL and OU must get their own.