NSG Sceptics Society (OOC)

[UCUMAY]

Fire removes some of the everything, it's not all that picky. And we carbon date fossils, not ashes. Fossils are notoriously non-flammable.

But then again, carbon dating only goes back 50,000 years, so it's completely useless most of the time.

Geology can go back further than that.

[Wikkiwallana]

Fire removes some of the everything, it's not all that picky. And we carbon date fossils, not ashes. Fossils are notoriously non-flammable.

But then again, carbon dating only goes back 50,000 years, so it's completely useless most of the time.

Source on the age limit?

[Gagatron]

But then again, carbon dating only goes back 50,000 years, so it's completely useless most of the time.

Source on the age limit?

Try Wikipedia, which is the source one of your buddies gave me originally.

[Wikkiwallana]

But then again, carbon dating only goes back 50,000 years, so it's completely useless most of the time.

Geology can go back further than that.

As can other radiometric dating methods based on other elements.

[UCUMAY]

Geology can go back further than that.

As can other radiometric dating methods based on other elements.

Which ones? *curious*

Edit: Question answered below.

[Avenio]

Fire removes some of the everything, it's not all that picky. And we carbon date fossils, not ashes. Fossils are notoriously non-flammable.

But then again, carbon dating only goes back 50,000 years, so it's completely useless most of the time.

Not really. Fossils only take a few decades to form, under the right circumstances. Besides, there are other varieties of radiometric dating methods, like potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating which have a much greater range of accuracy. And its also useful for archaeological samples, such as an ancient Egyptian royal barge, as it is highly accurate.

[Farnhamia]

As can other radiometric dating methods based on other elements.

Which ones? *curious*

These ones.

[UCUMAY]

I am skeptical at the moment if there is more postitive in the world than negative.

[Farnhamia]

I am skeptical at the moment if there is more postitive in the world than negative.

That's because the negative is easy to see, and the news media follow the principle of "If it bleeds, it leads." You have to work a little to find the positive.

[UCUMAY]

I am skeptical at the moment if there is more postitive in the world than negative.

That's because the negative is easy to see, and the news media follow the principle of "If it bleeds, it leads." You have to work a little to find the positive.

Not necessarily. Postive is like a candle in a dark room. It really only takes 1 candle to make a difference. Negative is like a dark room. So if postive and negative are similar to a candle in a dark room; It doesn't necessarily mean there's more postive, but instead that the postitive is brighter than the negative is dark.

[New Sociopia]

Besides the falsehoods of the bible, you mean. I'd consider that at least incomplete proof.

Eww, Christianity. That's like the worst religion although I'm technically an agnostic theist. I give myself the agnostic label since I know neither side has proof. It's nothing but faith really although I have had personal experiences that make me inclined to believe in God. I would die before becoming Christian though.

Deities are by definition impossible to prove. So is the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but would you give the IPU much credence? Would you refuse to deny the existence of the IPU, saying those who believe it exists have as valid a view as those who do not? See also Russell's Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

[South Norwega]

Fire removes some of the everything, it's not all that picky. And we carbon date fossils, not ashes. Fossils are notoriously non-flammable.

But then again, carbon dating only goes back 50,000 years, so it's completely useless most of the time.

I recall it losing accuracy at dates over 40,000, which was apparently one of the main reasons that Indigenous Settlement of Australia was dated at 40,000 years for quite some time.

As others have pointed out, and as I would be able to point out if I had gone to that silly lecture on dating methods back in May, there are other ways.

[Meryuma]

Skeptical of:

unregulated socialist, ok this one is just for a little fun.

I'm a mutualist, and I often call myself a free-market socialist.

[Ifreann]

You've got to be freaking kidding me. Are you also skeptical about whether or not electrons exist or all living things are made up of cells?

It is logically impossible for carbon to decay at a set rate if it is in contact with the weather of the Earth and other living things.

How does the weather of the Earth and contact with living things affect radioactive decay?

[Unhealthy2]

good scientists are never upset when another person questions their findings. they usually welcome the challenge. ive yet to read of a climatologist that didn't clamor to high heaven that unless his findings were endorsed, and all others censured, the world would come to a screeching halt.

No, good scientists are able to admit when the questioning is legitimate and actually refutes their findings. That doesn't mean they're not upset.

In addition, you seem to be under the assumption that most challenges to global warming are legitimate attacks coming from people well-versed in climatology. They aren't. It's like the attacks on evolution by creationists. They are, pretty much invariably, completely dishonest bullshit attacks.

If you were a physicist, and you kept getting "physics skeptics" throwing around nonsensical "refutations" of physics like "Magnets can stick to a wall forever. Why don't they run out of magnetic energy? I've just disproved conservation of energy!" or "Venus spins the opposite way the other planets do. That violates conservation of angular momentum, therefore no big bang happened!" you'd get damn sick of it. You'd get sick of people with absolutely no goddamn understanding of your subject trying to refute it. You'd get goddamn sick of them spreading lies and misinformation about physics, and you having to go around and correct all the public misunderstandings caused by them. You'd be fucking annoyed, and rightly so.

[Unhealthy2]

How does the weather of the Earth and contact with living things affect radioactive decay?

Well, the "weather" in the upper atmosphere causes nitrogen-14 to turn into carbon-14. Of course, by "weather" I mean "cosmic rays and solar winds."

[The Southron Nation]

good scientists are never upset when another person questions their findings. they usually welcome the challenge. ive yet to read of a climatologist that didn't clamor to high heaven that unless his findings were endorsed, and all others censured, the world would come to a screeching halt.

No, good scientists are able to admit when the questioning is legitimate and actually refutes their findings. That doesn't mean they're not upset.

In addition, you seem to be under the assumption that most challenges to global warming are legitimate attacks coming from people well-versed in climatology. They aren't. It's like the attacks on evolution by creationists. They are, pretty much invariably, completely dishonest bullshit attacks.

If you were a physicist, and you kept getting "physics skeptics" throwing around nonsensical "refutations" of physics like "Magnets can stick to a wall forever. Why don't they run out of magnetic energy? I've just disproved conservation of energy!" or "Venus spins the opposite way the other planets do. That violates conservation of angular momentum, therefore no big bang happened!" you'd get damn sick of it. You'd get sick of people with absolutely no goddamn understanding of your subject trying to refute it. You'd get goddamn sick of them spreading lies and misinformation about physics, and you having to go around and correct all the public misunderstandings caused by them. You'd be fucking annoyed, and rightly so.

well, this much is true i suppose. annoyance does lead to anger, it certainly has in this thread (for myself regarding the folks who continue to assert that i am claiming climate change doesn't happen). so i stand corrected on that note. what i am not assuming, however, is that scientists (not climatologists) will not resort to using the political process to ostracize dissenters and skeptics.

[Lenehen]

Does the moon really exist? I mean we've all seen the supposed 'moon landings' but has any of us actually been there? I think not.