|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 13:48:05 GMT -8
Not meant to be insulting, and also never said it was a lie. I said the studies were "fatally flawed" which means they overlooked something very significant when interpreting their results which caused them to draw hasty and unsupported conclusions. It's not that the idea disagrees with me, it disagrees with tons of data gathered over many and many years using a myriad of techniques. It is with this other library of information that you can show the holes in the other hypotheses, that is why it is not convincing. If two tests that aren't very well designed tell you one thing but one hundred different tests tell you another then you know the first two tests were leaving an important variable out that caused them to be insufficient measures of whatever you are looking at. Or at the very minimum you don't walk around telling everyone about the truth you found with those first two tests. They don't stand up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 13:40:10 GMT -8
Life is anything that uses RNA to replicate itself, from viruses to sunflowers to people. Look up synthetic, self replicating life. It was just done in 2010.
|
|
|
geology
May 13, 2011 13:38:17 GMT -8
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 13:38:17 GMT -8
Oh, and they mentioned diamonds in Arkansas as well. Exciting.
|
|
|
geology
May 13, 2011 13:37:36 GMT -8
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 13:37:36 GMT -8
This is what I have so far- they are still checking and wonder if you have any specific things in mind.
"Reddish barite sand roses are pretty common around here [Norman, OK], you can find a bunch of them by Lake Thunder Bird" and said they are referred to as "Oklahoma potatoes"
"Arkansas Ouachita quartz crystals are something your friend might look into, I have been to a place in Arkansas by Hot springs and dug for quartz crystals"
"salt flats are a place in Jet, Oklahoma, north of here you can dig for selenite crystals" which you mentioned- same spot?
Someone else is checking with the biologic survey folks about insects for you. I'll keep you posted.
|
|
|
geology
May 13, 2011 9:39:19 GMT -8
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 9:39:19 GMT -8
hmmm... My sister lives in Norman, she probably works with some people who might have insight. She's a climatologist at the NWS but it is affiliated with OU and the department of Geography which is a hodge-podge department including cartographers, botanists, various types of anthropologists. Good chance there is a geologist or entomologist on staff. I'll get back with any info I can find out. Would be interested to hear if you find anything as well, I will be there over the summer visiting her. Insects are my concern though, not into minerals *yet*.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 9:20:41 GMT -8
We can create "life". Nucleic acids are everywhere, exposing them to UV light turns one into another and a little bit of heat and electricity and they start to self-associate. There we have the first strand of genetic material. We can do it in a test tube. I think there is even a NOVA episode about this very subject for those who don't like to read. I'm a molecular biologist, I am very qualified to discuss the heck out of this if you want.
Young earth is not quantifiable, not without falsifying data. Old earth is very quantifiable and it has been quantified over and over and over and over with very very small margins of error (think % not actual years, 100 years might be long to an organism that is usually expiring around 80, but not to a planet that is millions- then it is only a fraction of a percentage).
I have no problem with religion either, friends and family naturally span the gamut, but I do take issue with disseminating "beliefs" as "facts" just like Simon. It is socially irresponsible. I too hope that this mode of thinking remains a strictly American thing. I would hope that the rest of the world laughing out loud would help us to... evolve, so to speak, our own thought processes to integrate facts with our various beliefs a little more realistically.
|
|
|
|
Odonata
May 13, 2011 8:53:35 GMT -8
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 8:53:35 GMT -8
BTW, the eyes will get opaque. Haven't found anyway around that. But the colors on the body keep very well.
|
|
|
Odonata
May 13, 2011 8:52:50 GMT -8
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 8:52:50 GMT -8
Acetone treatment is used to "fix" the proteinaceous pigments which will undergo proteolysis as the insect decays if they are not treated. Pruinosity is lost because the surface is disrupted- correct me if I am wrong, but I thought pruinose= powdery surface, not necessarily blue. The metallic colors are refractory so they stay, just like with butterfly wings. True pigments are much more ephemeral and therefor have to have special consideration when deciding how to preserve best. I don't do it much, but there are differences in color quality depending on which type of treatment you use, how long, etc.
I have not trouble with blue or green coloration and acetone fixation. I inject a small amount into the body prior to immersion in acetone (usually for a day or two total). The acetone itself will completely dry the specimen so be sure it is in the position you want as they are very brittle after this. No need for heat drying in my experience. I use anhydrous acetone and get the best results (look for molecular grade acetone). Would be interested to know of alternative chemicals if anyone has any experience. Always experimenting.
You know those "body" exhibits with the preserved human remains looking life-like and rather creepy? They are done in a similar fashion- extensive acetone washes and latex/silicone injections to preserve the volumetric aspects.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 8:30:48 GMT -8
Also it should be noted that the courts stated in no unclear terms that "intelligent design is religious in nature" and does not hold up to scientific standards. Thus it cannot be taught because it is "not science" and would be violation of the establishment clause of the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 8:24:56 GMT -8
Creationism is a construct of an American Evangelical institution. That's why it's called "intelligent design" now- the courts ruled that Creationism was in fact a component of the Christian ideology which cannot be taught in schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution because we are a diverse nation that supposedly respects all religious persuasions equally (although atheism is somehow not afforded the same respect- that word itself is strange- "why have a word like that? there isn't a word for not believing in witches"). Once creationism was shut down a group invented the new term "Intelligent Design" and generated the infamous "Panda" book (a "science" text bookwhich included a section on "Intelligent Design". That too was shot down by the supreme court because it was demonstrated that the term "Intelligent Design" was indeed a construct of the same body which proposed "Creationism" and was not different. Young earth is only prescribed to this type of thinking to my knowledge. The rest of us have heard of radiocarbon dating...
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 8:05:38 GMT -8
I must be a hunter then. The experience is worth it to me, even if it is an epic failure in terms of what I come back with. On the other hand, I do have some Ornithoptera... I guess for me it's how reasonably I can buy the insect vs. the feasibility of making the trip. Like Barry, there are lots of things I 'need' so occasionally a good deal is just to tempting to pass up- it's rare and it happens mostly with green things for some reason. Not on purpose, just a pattern I noticed in my own behaviour over the years. And I have some friends I swap with. Somehow knowing they went on an adventure on my behalf makes those specimens more important to me than the birdwings anyway. So yes, I suppose there is something to be said for the provenance of a specimen in terms of its significance to me.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 7:19:21 GMT -8
Global cooling is not enough alone though. About 1/6 of the effect of warming counteracted is the most recent estimate I have heard. Particulates making smaller water droplets able to form highly reflective clouds. One of the proposed temporary fixes for warming has to do with pumping inert particulates, most likely silver salts, into the air in order to induce this effect. Of course most don't think it's a great option, but we always need a plan b, c, d, and e in case things get out of hand (which they might if we keep refusing to accept our role in the effect). Funny thought though- have you ever seen someone with Argyria? Imagine a whole world full of gray people... Used to be thought that silver would help with some rheumatological disorders, it was used as a holistic medicine and still is by a few people. Makes you look like you were clipped from a black and white photo. Not harmful other than to your self esteem maybe.
Anyway, no one is claiming that temperatures didn't change before industrial times, just that they are changing very fast now and that they are not even close to the threshold. Do we really want to restore the earth to its former status of ball clouded in hot sulfur?
wwinged, do you understand how these numbers were generated and what they can actually prove? For example, Bob Carter might show that Mann et. al is incorrect, but nobody with any life science education would believe that anyway as we all are aware that the end of the last ice age caused the desertification of the Sahara in just one generation, and that's just one of a number of said shifts (after all, the poles used to be covered in Azolla sp., right?). All that those numbers actually show is that climate change happens, you can't read any more into them. It cannot be concluded from this information that the modern problem is therefor unrelated to human activities. It simply states that climate change can happen by itself. The point of the modern dilemma is that we know:
1. Climate change can happen rapidly and 2. Such climate changes result in catastrophic extinction and major shifts in ecological systems and 3. The measurable, added output resulting from modern human activity contributes a great amount of warming gas, more than ever before
So the question is- if these historical changes were bad enough by themselves, do we really want to continue on the same path we are on, knowing that we are contributing to this at an accelerated rate, given that the historical evidence shows that these changes in lesser magnitudes are very bad for life in general already?
Finding random numbers on the internet that seem to support what you want to think isn't convincing unless you understand what those numbers mean, how they were derived and what you can actually imply from them. These studies try to draw conclusions that simply aren't supported by the data they are presenting. It's a fatal flaw, something that is very frowned upon by the scientific community at large and hence we come full circle- there is a reason why the majority of the scientific community will only put their names on papers that further the understanding of human effects on climate. We are trained to read critically. I would never put my name on any radical paper unless I truly was convinced (which takes a lot- more than just one test, a few numbers and some off-beat references) that the effect I am being asked to verify is real and that the conclusions being drawn are supported by the evidence. It's not something you take lightly, this is your professional reputation on the line. You don't want to be the author on the paper with the fatal flaw.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 5:23:18 GMT -8
Winged: notice how those links are not reputable sources? I can find lots of links with conspiracy theories about everything on the sun, sure. But does that mean they were silenced because they were saying anything true or relevant? Not at all. And then the question is- where they really "bullied into silence" or were they in reality dismissed because they have no basis or credibility? Wollstoni is right on, again, as usual . There are fundamental laws of physics that govern the universe and they are involved in regulating the atmospheric content of the earth. It's preposterous to suggest that we can cut down forests, burn thousands of tons of fossil fuel, have giant industrial pools of animal waste sequestered into vast gas-generating pits, and so and so is somehow magically negated because it was produced by humans. We are not part of a closed ecological system. Qualification of a study is very simple. The capacity to approach a study and generate valid data without jumping to conclusions not supported by the results. That's all, nothing complicated. The point is that others can reproduce your data and the conclusions still hold true, or better yet, are confirmed independently by other approaches. Instead of looking only at one side and jumping in head first, why not check both to see why each group believes they are correct. There is a data driven, factual basis for why one mode of thinking is uncommon and the other is embraced by the majority of the scientific community. There are going to bad scientists and poorly designed studies out there on both sides of most issues, absolutely. But the overwhelming number of studies by relevant groups are singing the same song in every language they know. It's not a big conspiracy, I promise. BTW, for this topic I have a specially qualified individual available to me- my sister is a climatologist at the NWS in Norman, OK. And she wouldn't even lie about farting.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 12, 2011 7:37:29 GMT -8
It's not a question, just whether or not you are informed about it. It's much like evolution. People who think you can "believe" it or not clearly have not bothered to investigate. These topics are not up for debate except for by those who either don't know or who have a hidden agenda (even if it's just that you can't take the embarrassment of parking your SUV next to everyone else's Prius). It's a shame in the modern era that Science at large is still vilified by politics and religion as though they are mutually exclusive. From history we should all be acutely aware of the power of ignorance. A population that doesn't have enough information to make intelligent decisions (either by choice or design) is very easy to control. With all the facts available, I wonder why we have to still debate over global warming instead of over the validity of multinational oil corporations and the damages their unscrupulous practices cause, both environmentally and socially. And of course it isn't just limited to the oil industry... isn't there a thread somewhere about Mansanto? Just because you may be religious or politically inclined or drive a Hummer doesn't mean you can't allow yourself to understand reality too- there are plenty of big-car driving scientists who go to church every Sunday, but if they have any credibility at all they also go to work Monday through Friday knowing the why the trip is so much more expensive these days and what the greater implications are. wingedwishes: National Geographic is not considered a "Scholarly" resource- it's like quoting the Discovery Channel (the two are in fact connected...). Try using those references and the like for an NSF proposal, no one will believe you before they even start to read. If you can't find a source that other people have immediate respect for, well, then there's likely a problem with the argument. No one will put their name on it for a reason. How about anything from: journals.ametsoc.org/You won't find any information supporting the claim that global warming is unrelated to human activities there. Even the very prestigious Nature (NPG) has a new journal dedicated solely to the topic. Also, notice the references cited by your links- if you check them out, the scant few they are, most (of those which might be considered scholarly) actually are concluding the exact opposite thing, they have just been misused to lend credence to an argument which they actually do not support- some even have response letters to this end. It's a common trick with this topic specifically.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 3, 2011 5:46:41 GMT -8
I guess I should correct and not say "everyone" as there are a good deal of other scams going on too. I meant to investigate the high ratio of Cameroonian scams vs. scams elsewhere. Anyone able to figure out if it is just a few people responsible for all of it, like an insect trading scammer ring or something? The guy I heard from is "Edwin Nsakse" from Duaola.
|
|