Search results

Does that mean you are now suggesting the flood was not global? If so, I don't understand the need for tectonic forces that would generate enough energy to melt the earth.

Once again, what was previously described with the ocean floor rising as much would be required withing the time span of the flood, the amount of energy needed to do that would put the Earth in a molten state which would still be in existence today and thousands of years to come.

Two problems there. (1) Such up-welling would leave physical evidence of both the up-welling and subsidence that would have to occur. There is no such geologic evidence. (2) Such a process over such a short time would make the earth completely molten and it would still be in that state today.

Why couldn't it be?

The breech of the Bosporus Straight increasing the size of the Black Sea and encroaching the Mountains of Ararat is supported by science.

I can understand a regional flood which does have supporting evidence, but global, all the physical evidence is just the opposite.

There is an enormous difference between the composition and formation of flood debris/layers, and that of the Grand Canyon. There is also a terrestrial layer with fossilized foot prints in between marine layers. Did the flood completely recede then flood again?

I agree that Mr Nye didn't express that the best way, but the point he was making is that if the fossils in the Grand Canyon were deposited by the flood is that we would not find them distributed in layers with no species out of order. In other words, if the Grand Canyon is a result of the...

I agree, however, Creation Science and Ken Ham says it does.

Thank you for your reply but I think you have a misunderstanding of what proxies are. Climate, and/or, temperature proxies are methods for determining climate conditions and temperatures prior to instrument records. Proxy sources include tree rings, boreholes, ice cores, sub-fossil pollen...

Thank you for your concern, however; in my opinion, the link provided and content of the post seems to imply a lack of knowledge and understanding as to how NASA Global Average Temperatures (GAT) are obtained and what they represent. Furthermore, as a retired scientist (Chemist & Process...

Because it is not a natural cycle. The Medieval warm period is a regional temp. proxy, not global temperatures. We know it is due to increased CO2 from fossil fuels. Scientists have known the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere for 150 (Fourier) years. Global Warming due to increased CO2 and...

That is a common misunderstanding about science and how it actually works. Science has nothing to do with opinion. Science is based on facts. Facts that are testable and repeatedly verifiable through observation. Quite the contrary, I suggest sourcing the link in the OP which provides the...

"The Committee on Science, Space & Technology" is the Congressional Committee that oversees and investigates program funding and grants for research pertaining to the Earths environment, and climate of the atmosphere, surface and oceans. As with any science and technology, the best and most...

No, the search term(s) was not AGW, it was "global climate change' or 'global warming". Most climate science is not about AGW. Both of those phrases apply to paleoclimatology and other areas of climatology as well. Please review my previous post, I explained it quite accurately. Perhaps...

Why are you counting the 66.4% that did not address AGW? Only 33.6% of the papers addressed AGW, thus, the 33.6% becomes 100%, because they are the only papers that address the issue. Of that 100% that address AGW, 97.1% of them endorsed AGW.

No, we do not agree, that is stated out of context. Again out of context. Of those matching the search criteria, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Thus, 66.4% had no position. The 66.4% papers cannot be included because they do...

I made no such statement. What I said that 97% of the published peer review science (papers) that address AGW and have an opinion confirm AGW. It is what the research shows, not individual scientists opinions. May I ask why you refer to those professional climatologists (world-wide) who do...

I disagree, that is not what the Cook et al, 2013 paper (97% consensus) says. Here is the abstract from that paper. "We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from...

That is far from factual. The consensus study is about what the published peer reviewed science says that addresses AGW and finds in their research. It has nothing to do with how many scientists say or agree about anything. It is not about opinion. It is about what the actual professionals...