One in four Americans don't know...

[ScottM]

Perhaps you didn't read my entire post.

Perhaps you did not understand mine.

Show me that they cannot see 150 year samples. From the myriad of data I have seen they are getting some pretty good samples from way back. None of it shows anything inconsistant to disprove the current theories. It all adds to the current models. If you think otherwise, then prove it. Bets, hunches, hairs on the back of your neck do not count until you can support the ascertain.

 

[EdFred]

Perhaps you did not understand mine.

Show me that they cannot see 150 year samples. From the myriad of data I have seen they are getting some pretty good samples from way back. None of it shows anything inconsistant to disprove the current theories. It all adds to the current models. If you think otherwise, then prove it. Bets, hunches, hairs on the back of your neck do not count until you can support the ascertain.

If we can see 150 year snapshots dating back a 65 million years, then we should be able to say "the last (insert extinct species here) we found dates back (insert year here) +/- 75 years." The +/- range is much bigger than that. That's what I'm pointing to. We aren't able to look back 32 million years and say "in this 150 year period 32 million years ago x happened."

I also don't have to prove it, I'm not saying it's an absolute, like climatologists seem to be saying. You keep conveniently ignoring my statement of "but I am not going to say it absolutely has." But somehow since gets a pass on saying it absolutely hasn't, because, well they are scientists. Hypocrisy much?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Here's my prediction.

Thank you, Dale. I was about to post something similar, but shorter. You said it better than I could.