Climate Change and Global Warming

Excellent post Ian. I urge anyone reading this thread to read through Ian's post before mine.

WhiskeyandGunpowder, you caught me off guard (unless you did not recognize it as well). I should have recognized the manipulation of facts in that Toronto star article about the hottest year on record. I knew something didn't seem right.

Ian,

This drubbing makes me question all of W & G's seemingly "factual" arguments.

If he is this wrong on Global Warming - what else is he wrong about ??

Time is not a constant so I suppose that changes a lot of things as well. If time is not a constant then the speed of light is not a constant because speed is distance divided by time. Do the scientists working with RCD know this? Yes. And it's assumed that time over the past 4-5 billion years on earth has been working at the same interval 5 billion years ago on earth as it is now. If someone has a scientific background or education feel free to correct me, I'm just a computer science and then political science student.

Do you say assumed because you don't personally know or you can't find out?

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by Christian Soldier

If you guys are still talking about global warming then here is another interesting link.

http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/ecohyst.pdf

"Dr." Jay. L. Wile is a creationist christian that has widely abused his PhD status to sound like an authority on any issue. The man goes around arguing radiometric dating is unreliable.

I'm not saying that because he's Christian then all of his work is discredited but when you call yourself a nuclear chemist and still go around arguing radiometric dating is wrong by billions of years, one has to wonder how kooky he is. I think he also works for the Institute for Creation Research. lol

Not a reliable source Christian Soldier.

I know exactingly who this man is. I love his work and am trying to find some of his text books used(so they will be cheaper. money, as you know, is hard to come by) I was already interested in science but this man got me hooked.

Is radiometric carbon dating the same thing as carbon dating? If so then he is right, carbon dating is flawed.

Thanks for telling me that he works for the Institute for Creation Research. I have been looking for someplace besides his text books to read his work.

As far as I am concerned, he is a reliable source. Like you said "I'm not saying that because he's Christian then all of his work is discredited." So just because you don't like or think what he says is wrong, do your research first and see what you find, then make your claim.

IanD wrote:

Originally Posted by Christian Soldier

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by Christian Soldier":3b2xe8yr]If you guys are still talking about global warming then here is another interesting link.

[url="http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/ecohyst.pdf

http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/ecohyst.pdf[/url]

"Dr." Jay. L. Wile is a creationist christian that has widely abused his PhD status to sound like an authority on any issue. The man goes around arguing radiometric dating is unreliable.

I'm not saying that because he's Christian then all of his work is discredited but when you call yourself a nuclear chemist and still go around arguing radiometric dating is wrong by billions of years, one has to wonder how kooky he is. I think he also works for the Institute for Creation Research. lol

Not a reliable source Christian Soldier.

I know exactingly who this man is. I love his work and am trying to find some of his text books used(so they will be cheaper. money, as you know, is hard to come by) I was already interested in science but this man got me hooked.

Is radiometric carbon dating the same thing as carbon dating? If so then he is right, carbon dating is flawed.

Thanks for telling me that he works for the Institute for Creation Research. I have been looking for someplace besides his text books to read his work.

As far as I am concerned, he is a reliable source. Like you said "I'm not saying that because he's Christian then all of his work is discredited." So just because you don't like or think what he says is wrong, do your research first and see what you find, then make your claim.[/quote:3b2xe8yr]

Could you please tell me where radiometric dating is flawed? I prefer not to say carbon dating because it's only one of the many extremely predictable isotopes that are used.

Choose your words carefully however as the study of unstable isotopes breaking down in a predictable fashion is APPLIED (ie used and relied upon in its entirety) in areas of medicine as well as nuclear weapons and power in addition to being used for dating. This is a very wide swath of science which is used on a daily basis that you're attacking.

I should have specified when I said it was flawed. Here is what I mean. Actually, I will turn it over to Dr. Jay Wile and then comment at the end.

Originally Posted by Dr. Jay Wile

if you think about it, this fact can be used to
measure the length of time that an organism has been
dead. After all, if we know how much 14C was in an
organism when it died, and if we measure the amount
of 14C in it now, the difference will be the amount of 14C
that has decayed away. Since we know how quickly 14C
decays, this can tell us how long the organism has been
dead. Pretty simple, right?
Well, it would be simple, if we knew how much 14C was
in the organism when it died. The problem is, how do
we figure that out? After all, no one was around to
measure the amount of 14C in the organism when it
died; thus, we must make an assumption about how
much 14C would have been measured if someone had
been there to measure it. As I have said before, there is
nothing wrong with making assumptions in science.
The trick is that we have to know our assumptions are
accurate.
In the case of 14C dating, scientists assume that, on
average, the amount of 14C in the atmosphere has
never really changed that much. They assume that the
amount of 14C in the atmosphere today is essentially
the same as it was 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, etc.
Thus, when the age of a dead organism is being
measured with 14C dating, we assume that the amount
of 14C it had when it died was the same as the amount
of 14C that is in the atmosphere now. That gives us a
value for how much 14C was initially in the dead
organism. We can measure the amount of 14C that is in
the organism now and then determine how long the
organism has been dead.
Notice, however, that the age we get from this process
is completely dependent on the assumption that we
made about how much 14C was in the organism when it
died. If that assumption is good, the age we calculate
will be accurate. If that assumption is bad, the age we
calculate will not be accurate. So the question
becomes, “Is the assumption accurate?” In short, the
answer is “no.”

From http://emp.byui.edu/MARROTTR/Carbon%201 ... g-Wile.pdf

So what I should have said it was "It works, but only if the original C14 number is known." Sorry about the confusion.

Can anyone tell me why the Ice caps and major glaciers are melting ??

Or is this just more propaganda ?

I don't have my own satellite - so I can't confirm the truth.

But I think I believe the Globe is warming up.