Re: OT: sea level 'rise' hmmmmm....

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:06:38 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:23:21 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip of dozens of germane science papers refuting Graham's selective view>

So why isn't Tuvalu sinking ?

Are you this daft? I don't even need to research or answer this
question, it is so manifestly idiotic to ask.

If you are willing to be so selective, Graham, in the 'facts' you
choose to consider, you might easily and rationally conclude the Earth
is flat. You are a continuing example of why scientists work to
attain comprehensive views within the scope of their work.

...

Back on topic, I remain simply unaware of where Dr. Mörner gets his
data. I'm pretty sure you also have no idea, too. He doesn't present
his case and the proposal that altimetry shows no increase is simply
bald-faced nonsense. ...

So do you think this is nonsense as well?

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/hobart-msl.htm

Not knowing what you wanted to bring my attention to, it's hard for me
attempt an answer. I could guess by glancing over it, but why should
I? I'd have to know specifically what you wanted to suggest and then
I'd need to discuss the details with those I then find who _do_ have a
more comprehensive view within the scope of your specific question.

I'd better just recommend that you ask the appropriate folks, though.
If you aren't sure who they are, I'd recommend writing to the people
at:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

with your specific question and ask them who are the lead scientists
in that area and how you might contact them (email or phone -- I use
both, depending.) Which is the process you or anyone else should
follow, when wondering about questions posed by web pages on science.

If I were doing this, I'd listen to your thoughts and then recall some
of the related reviewed science papers I'd read, go look for some of
them and pick out the lead authors, google for their contact info, and
start a conversation. I'd probably reread their papers, first. (It's
always a good idea to do in order to let them know you care about what
they have to say, if for no other reason.) But I'd also include folks
at the above web site and start a conversation with them, as well.
Phone works well, sometimes faster and better than email. So use both
methods where appropriate.

You are a smart guy, Joerg, and I've no doubt that others active in
this area of science will openly enjoy the chance to share what they
know with you and suggest some important thoughts for you to consider.
I've made quite a few excellent contacts this way, too.

Jon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution Flunked the Science Test
    ... to get your science from them with predictably poor results. ... The religious web site itself did not do any ... has yielded fossils that predate the Cambrian by nearly ... opinion from the TO web site. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question to Madman
    ... evidence for same (who needs evidence for definitions? ... science view, and makes no attempt to conceal that fact. ... Bias in science can be obvious or subtle, ... or from the TO web site. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Flunked the Science Test
    ... science, there are standards for such articles, including scrupulous ... the information toward evolution while the religious web site simply ... In this case the religious web site is simply ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question to Madman
    ... evidence for same (who needs evidence for definitions? ... science view, and makes no attempt to conceal that fact. ... Bias in science can be obvious or subtle, ... or from the TO web site. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Unfalsifiable Tautology = Evolution
    ... Ron Okimoto ... I can assure you that my CV is correctly posted on my web site. ... Regarding creationism, I can also assure you that I am not a YEC ... objectively verifiable evidence and, this is not science. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast