I have never denied that evolution exists. I doubt it is as monolythic as 98%, but I can believe 80% to 85%. However, there is a huge difference in the scientific views of the mechanism of evolution. I personally am a catrastrophist. Evolutionary change was spurred on by changes in the global environment. There are others who have other opinions.
>On 2/12/07, Russel Madere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> What part of PERSONAL OBSERVATION of scientific data didn't you >> understand? I can not point to any apolitical scientific organizations that >> share my beliefs. and I don't care. You made unqualified statements that >> 95% of the scientific community around the world agrees that "greenhouse" >> gasses are the cause of climate change. I doubt that. There is no such >> monolythic viewpoint. > > >I was more interested in the evolution angle, as I almost always am, than >the climate change one. I'm pretty sure such a monolythic viewpoint does >exist for evolution....but am willing to concede it probably does not for >climate change and it's causality as it relates to humans. > >So...i rescind the 95% for climate change. > >I can rely on the data I have seen. Most of which is under NDA because it >> is either private data I have been able to see or it is in use for a >> potential published article. I trust my training and my analytical >> ability. It is trusted by others, which is why I have been given access to >> the data. > Much of my data is in the public sector. It has been published. Do a documant search on Serpa, Pavlis, et al. Thier Death Valley data forms the baseline for my basin and range data. As for the rest, digging through Geophysical thesese and disertations can give you the rest. The geophysical method I am expert in, gravity and magnetics, is currently out of vogue in the academic community. It is still much in use by others, especially those that do oil and gas exploration. It isn't as sexy or precise as seismic, but it is a hell of a lot cheaper. That and a decent geologic map can give even an average geophysicist an excellent idea of the subsurface geology to about Moho level. The deeper, the less precise, but still an excellent tool. > >I most humbly hold out the possibility that you are privy to huge amounts of >data to which I am not. It is wholly possible that this evidence refutes the >evidence available in the public sector which seems to support human >causality. > The public data is only unequivical when seen through a political polarizer. My point has been that too many scientist are espousing aa politically advantageous theory and ignoring all others. This is likely to protect thier sources of funding by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. >Left only to see that the publically available scientific evidence seems to >support a theory of human causality....what would you have me believe at >present????? I feel I am being accused of ignoring the science I disagree with. I admit that humans have had some effect on the climate. However, what I have seen makes me believe it is statistically insignificant when other, natural factors are taken into account. It is just politically expedient to blame us for climate change. > >-- >She's a PhD in "I told you so" >You've a knighthood in "I'm not listening" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:227869 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
