It's About Time Someone Reigned in Those Geologists!

I expect you're about as sick and tired as I am of wild-eyed geologists shooting their mouths off, saying whatever they like whenever they like. Yadda yadda geology, yadda yadda Earth's crust, yadda yadda data says this. Whatever. I'm glad somebody has the guts to put these wild-eyed rock hippies in their place.

The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, who study everything from caribou mating to global warming, subjecting them to controls on research that might go against official policy.

New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

[...]

“I feel as though we've got someone looking over our shoulder at every damn thing we do. And to me that's a very scary thing. I worry that it borders on censorship,'' said Jim Estes, an internationally recognized marine biologist who works for the geological unit. “The explanation was that this was intended to ensure the highest possible quality research,'' said Estes, a researcher at the agency for more than 30 years. “But to me it feels like they're doing this to keep us under their thumbs. It seems like they're afraid of science. Our findings could be embarrassing to the administration.''

[Yeah, whatever, ya long-haired fact-loving geology liberal! Cry me an aquifer with your little fact-based tears!]

The agency's director, Mark Myers, and its communications office also must be told — prior to any submission for publication — “of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.''

[That's more like it!]

From now on, USGS supervisors will demand to see the comments of outside peer reviewers' as well any exchanges between the scientists who are seeking to publish their findings and the reviewers.

The Bush administration, as well as the Clinton administration before it, has been criticized over scientific integrity issues. In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning that oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected.

So some geode-huggers won't be able to play favorites with the Carbouistas in Alaska? About damn time, if you ask me!

I was wondering when someone would have the guts to take action against the blatant partisans of rock-based science. I applaud the administration for standing up to the fascists of geology! Bravo! Bravo, I say! The reality-based community is on the run.

Had this policy been in place in Newton's time, his gravity nonsense could have been stopped. How I'd love to be able to run off a cliff and hang there in mid-air like Wile E. Coyote chasing the Road Runner.

Thanks for bringing this important issue to the fore, Lemur. ~;)

Government interference is sometimes good for science, sometimes bad. The government , if they provide money for research, good. If they say "No you can't research this" bad.

The government should know better than to expect accountability from one of it's bureaucracies. They should be free to spend tax dollars however they see fit without oversight. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The government should know better than to expect accountability from one of it's bureaucracies. They should be free to spend tax dollars however they see fit without oversight. :yes:

---

Xiahou, please be reasonable! Nobody is suggesting accountability for dollars spent! All the Administration is asking is that these geological hippies vet all results before speaking to anyone. We're talking about controlling information, not research.

Sheesh, accountability for dollars spent? That is some serious pre-9/11 thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sheesh, accountability for dollars spent? That is some serious pre-9/11 thinking.

---

Sorry- I really do love freedom though. :sweatdrop:

I agree with Gregoshi, now that they didn't stop him I have to buy flightsims just because I cannot do it myself.:furious3:

The rocks don't lie.

However Bush might hate it, they say they are 4.5b years old and not made personally by a god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

The rocks don't lie.

---

They don't do much of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

They don't do much of anything.

---

Oh, you have no idea. What do you think those geologists were doing? :beam:

Come on. Say it isn't fascism. I dare you.

If you say it isn't... you are a fascist. There is no way of denying it anymore.

Don't blame the rocks - it is not their fault. ~D

The irony (pun intended) is that the Bush administration will want this policy written in stone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Don't blame the rocks - it is not their fault. ~D

The irony (pun intended) is that the Bush administration will want this policy written in stone.

---

As would other presidents. Clinton interfered quite abit with the USGS. Honestly what can you expect when the organization is funded by the government without laws preventing them medling around. Although this will definately help as there wont be idiots with half finished work screaming :end: . The world can benefit from scientists holding their tongue's until they've actually proven their hypothosis with completed scientific research. Lets not forget in the 60's and 70's the world was on the verge of another major ice age.:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Had this policy been in place in Newton's time, his gravity nonsense could have been stopped. How I'd love to be able to run off a cliff and hang there in mid-air like Wile E. Coyote chasing the Road Runner.

---

While as brilliant and observer newton was his gravitational formula's are close to being rewritten again. They've changed quite alot over the years, so maybe just maybe Wile E. Coyote will be able to just hang there in mid-air one of these days.

“They don't do much of anything.” They hurt; ambush you when you are walking on the path, sometimes even form alliance and fall in avalanches. And deep under our feet, whereas we thing to wall on solid ground, they move and earthquake our civilisation, then waters are attacking our costs. Rocks are sneaky…
What is funny is what Bush’s administration is what the Pope what from Galileo. Research but please, don’t publish without authorisation…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

The rocks don't lie.

However Bush might hate it, they say they are 4.5b years old and not made personally by a god.

---

(emphasis mine)

It would be difficult to justify the latter part of your statement, even metaphorically.

Heh, the newspaper makes it sound like absolute censorship of American science. Let's hope it's just the newspaper exaggerating a bit!

The only ones who are happy about hiding the truth, are people that the truth tells are villains.

Wouldn't surprise me if the global warming causes a Great Flood similar to that in Genesis 6:17, and kills all those who refused to listen to the warnings about global warming, similar to how the humans in Genesis hadn't listened to the warnings not to live sinfully and in ways that caused their own destruction. God says in the Bible "I will no longer kill all humans for their sins", implying that in the future he'll let the sins of the humans make them kill each other and themselves. Well, if Global Warming isn't exactly that, then I don't know what it is. I hope the extremist fundamentalist Christians who want to censor the truth don't come to use later and say: "I am hungry, please feed me, I am naked, please give me clothes". For we will answer: "We asked you to feed us, but you didn't. We asked you to give us clothes, but you didn't listen. It was said: the truth shall set you free, but you said unto us: the truth shall not be heard, the truth is forbidden. And we begged on our knees that you would listen. But you grew angry with us, and punished us for our desire to spread The Truth. Now you have been judged, while we have not. And so it shall be."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

I hope the extremist fundamentalist Christians who want to censor the truth don't come to use later and say: "I am hungry, please feed me, I am naked, please give me clothes". For we will answer: "We asked you to feed us, but you didn't. We asked you to give us clothes, but you didn't listen. It was said: the truth shall set you free, but you said unto us: the truth shall not be heard, the truth is forbidden. And we begged on our knees that you would listen. But you grew angry with us, and punished us for our desire to spread The Truth. Now you have been judged, while we have not. And so it shall be."

---

What exactly does that mean? That only "extremist fundamentalist Christians who want to censor the truth" will be affected by global warming? Or do you have some master plan to make them all suffer?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

do you have some master plan to make them all suffer?:inquisitive:

---

no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

. The world can benefit from scientists holding their tongue's until they've actually proven their hypothosis with completed scientific research. Lets not forget in the 60's and 70's the world was on the verge of another major ice age.:oops:

---

If you start off with a proven hypothesis that is to suit the facts as determined by a political overseer it ain't science. By definition science is exploration of the unknown, not a drive down the same daily route to the same local Wall Mart with everything neatly packed in aisles and getting out the same shopping list.

Peer review is one of the most cut throat scenarios for any scientist to face. This however should not be based on political pre-determinism and what suits the current political agenda.

Nor would any scientist worth his salt talk about having 100% proof. Except the oceanographers and then its Rum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

While as brilliant and observer newton was his gravitational formula's are close to being rewritten again.

---

Not really. His laws are perfectly apt at describing non-relativistic gravity in a elegant method. Not many of us spend our time at 0.9c to make have to use of time and space dilation shifts.

Quote:

---

“of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.''

---

So you're happy that government is acting less transparent. Anything that might embarrass them is to be massaged within the political communication strategies.

So Lemur, did you just copy this down from the daily show?

This:

Quote:

---

[Yeah, whatever, ya long-haired fact-loving geology liberal! Cry me an aquifer with your little fact-based tears!]

---

Was especially funny, considering everything the guy said was an opinion.

CR

Quote:

---

Not really. His laws are perfectly apt at describing non-relativistic gravity in a elegant method. Not many of us spend our time at 0.9c to make have to use of time and space dilation shifts.

---

Except the minor fact that currently his thoeries on gravity say that with the universes current known mass it should collapse on its self. With the exception of the possible existance of dark matter, there's no explanation for this except that the formula's are incorrect.

Quote:

---

Peer review is one of the most cut throat scenarios for any scientist to face. This however should not be based on political pre-determinism and what suits the current political agenda.

---

They already have a political agenda on alot of the study's. This will at least help stop people from poping their mouths off for a shot at the media with half completed work. I'm not saying I agree with this but it will bring a positive with it. Like I said in the 70's we were afraid of the undeniable Ice Age that was about to settle upon us. This should at least help stop some of the sloppy researchers spouting off half finished work for a shot on ABC NightLine.

:laugh4: Lemur! Your sarcasm is so good that it seems like you're being serious. It's convincing us on who is right or wrong. Keep up the good work. ~:thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Except the minor fact that currently his thoeries on gravity say that with the universes current known mass it should collapse on its self. With the exception of the possible existance of dark matter, there's no explanation for this except that the formula's are incorrect.

---

I agree, Newton should have just kept his little 'theory' to himself. It's like they are used for anything besides constructing buildings, bridges, building airplanes and space shuttles, making cars, and a few million other applications :dunce:

Quote:

---

So Lemur, did you just copy this down from the daily show?

---

My understanding of today's America has increased tenfold since I started watching the Daily Show (obviously by the time we see it in the UK its actually Yesterday's Show, but I digress)

I fully support this initiative. Freedom from information* is a basic constitutional right. Hope they go after the goshdarn molecular biologists next. Its time this "HIV causes AIDS" junk science was stopped. Has anyone actually SEEN HIV cause AIDS? With their own eyes? No? Pretty funny, huh?


*that joke (c) the Onion, sorry Jon Stewart fans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So Lemur, did you just copy this down from the daily show?

---

I thought I was doing more Colbert than Stewart. Alas, the text is mine, so any errors of grammar, style and substance are mine as well. Glad you thought it was good enough to be plagiarized.

Scarcasim, like that found in the daily show and colbert report is often brimming with truth, the fun to me is picking it out!


Geologists favorite cereal?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Coco Pebbles :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Except the minor fact that currently his thoeries on gravity say that with the universes current known mass it should collapse on its self. With the exception of the possible existance of dark matter, there's no explanation for this except that the formula's are incorrect.

---

Not quite true, and more mixing other theories up with Newtonian Gravity. There are 3 broad cases of how the universe will go, static, collapse and ever expanding cold death. Sub categories of these have already been disproven enough for now to move on (until we build better models of nature)... for instance the infinite in age and infinite in size static universe should appear as a solid mass of light as no matter where we look we would stare at a star, while a rapidly collapsing universe has at least one boundary to the timeline... the age of our universe, clearly anything that collapsed in a million years would not be around for us to observe from within. A slowly collapsing universe might be true if we can find enough matter and that we definitively understand gravity on a intra-galactic level. Newtonian Gravity would explain an eventually collapsing universe if we had more (not less) dark matter, it would also explain the rotational speed of galaxies if we had more dark matter.

However Newtonian Gravity is not the only tool set for astrophysics. It is useful but has deficiencies that are readily apparent. For instance most of what is dealt with in astrophysics has our information transmitted to us at non-Newtonian speeds. Light after all interplays with the universe according to the General Theory of Relativity which is Einsteinian Gravity. Black holes are massive entities whose existence would not be well mapped out by only Newtonian models. Plenty of mysteries out there to unwrap and understand.

Government should be transparent and accountable. This policy is quite the opposite. On an Enlightenment Scale it gets 1 out of ten Voltaires, which for the Fundamentalist Godstick converts to 3 Taliban, a couple of Waco conspiracy theorists and a Hillsong revival group.

Quote:

---

On an Enlightenment Scale it gets 1 out of ten Voltaires, which for the Fundamentalist Godstick converts to 3 Taliban, a couple of Waco conspiracy theorists and a Hillsong revival group.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Bump.

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801

Quote:

---

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

---

Get your copy here :yes:

I thought everyone knew the Grand Canyon is Moses' parting of the Red Sea frozen in time. Heck, just look at the colour of the rocks - they are red. ~D

And that makes 'em good Republican rocks, I guess. No wonder they had Mr. Heston in the film version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I thought everyone knew the Grand Canyon is Moses' parting of the Red Sea frozen in time. Heck, just look at the colour of the rocks - they are red. ~D

---

^^ 'at's jus funny, I don' care who y'are!:laugh4:

This account by a Park Ranger is both funny and sad:

Layers of rock are like chapters in a history book and this canyon, carved so deeply, told an ancient story. Standing at the bottom, calling out over the roar of the falls, I got to teach the exciting conclusion, “The layers of slate and shale beneath our feet tell us that 300 million years ago, this deciduous forest was a tropical jungle.”

“What book d’ya get that out of?” came the reply one day. And thus it began, for this waterfall was not only located in ancient rock, it was also in the heart of the Bible-belt. I had heard there were people who believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old, but I never thought I would actually meet any. That summer, and every other summer I worked teaching science to the public, I met a lot of them. Though most objectors would just walk away from the program, some mothers would cover their children’s ears to protect them from the “blasphemous park ranger.” One man, after I patiently explained how we know the age of rocks, finally just threw up his hands, exclaimed, “The Devil made that rock look that old to turn you away from God,” and led his family back up the trail.

Well If I know one thing its that there is going to be more room in Heaven for me!....Heritics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This account by a Park Ranger is both funny and sad:

Layers of rock are like chapters in a history book and this canyon, carved so deeply, told an ancient story. Standing at the bottom, calling out over the roar of the falls, I got to teach the exciting conclusion, “The layers of slate and shale beneath our feet tell us that 300 million years ago, this deciduous forest was a tropical jungle.”

“What book d’ya get that out of?” came the reply one day. And thus it began, for this waterfall was not only located in ancient rock, it was also in the heart of the Bible-belt. I had heard there were people who believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old, but I never thought I would actually meet any. That summer, and every other summer I worked teaching science to the public, I met a lot of them. Though most objectors would just walk away from the program, some mothers would cover their children’s ears to protect them from the “blasphemous park ranger.” One man, after I patiently explained how we know the age of rocks, finally just threw up his hands, exclaimed, “The Devil made that rock look that old to turn you away from God,” and led his family back up the trail.

---

:no:

I wonder if air stewards ever get similar grief from Flat Earthers?

Not the walking away part, obviously. :wink3:

I don't buy the devil explanation at all. I think God was just "distressing" the Earth to make it look older than it is. Kind of like you can do with newer furniture to make it look like an antique. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

The rocks don't lie.

---

No, but the Caribou are devious bastards.

Just a little update: Of twenty-six books submitted to be carried by the gift shops at the Grand Canyon, only one has been approved over the last three years. It's an Intelligent Design book. In further news about how much fun it is to be a geologist in the U.S.:

Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

That's the same link that I posted on page 1 ~;)

:wall:

In order not to disturb anyone's beliefs, the age of the wall I'm banging my head against is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Just a little update: Of twenty-six books submitted to be carried by the gift shops at the Grand Canyon, only one has been approved over the last three years. It's an Intelligent Design book. In further news about how much fun it is to be a geologist in the U.S.:

Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

---

Now I have my doubts about the creditablity of the story as written in the quote and the link. The bookstore link at the National Park Service states that the book stores are operated by The bookstores throughout Grand Canyon National Park, are operated by the Grand Canyon Association. GCA is a private, non-profit organization founded in 1932 to support the educational goals of the National Park Service at Grand Canyon.



http://www.nps.gov/grca/supportyourpark/bookstore.htm

You can follow the link to find out what books are available online from the bookstore.

Then from the Question and Answer section from the Grand Canyon Park Web Site

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grand Canyon National Park

How old is the Canyon?

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young. (top of page)


Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?

No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada. (top of page)

---

http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old

Maybe I am missing something but the news articles smack more of politics then reality. Now its been over a decade since I was last at the Grand Canyon but they definitely discussed ages of rocks then.

And during my recent trip to Yellowstone (1.5 years ago), geology and the age of geyser formations were activitly discussed by Park Rangers.

Redleg, I certainly hope you are right about the political angle. As much as I hate politics, I'd prefer that to the reality portrayed in the article. I did some searching on my own after your post yesterday and I could find nothing to back up the original story - the search hits I found all drew from the same source. I even spent some time on the US government website searching for anything on the issue.

I was at the Grand Canyon in the summer of 2005 and the shuttle bus guides did talk about the age of things - and it certainly wasn't on a biblical timeline. However, I don't know if the guides were in the employ of the National Park Service or an independent firm.

Well I found this little bit of a formal press release.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by link

Recent news reports suggesting the Bush administration is trying to muzzle scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by placing new controls on approval and release of research plans and products are off base and misinformed about the intent of the changes being formalized at the agency. Speaking as the senior biologist at the USGS, I am deeply concerned that longstanding legitimate scientific peer review processes that have been the basis of scientific practices at the USGS and other scientific agencies and organizations have been mischaracterized as inappropriate political controls on research. Peer review is the bedrock of processes in any credible science organization that ensures scientific conclusions or findings are robust, independent and objective.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The USGS has had such processes in place for many years. As with any science enterprise, policies are periodically reviewed and updated to keep pace with changes in the organization. Our recently revised policy is an effort to do just that and has been developed by scientists and science managers (not political appointees) in an effort to coordinate existing review processes.

Research supervisors in the review chain are simply charged with ensuring all USGS information products have addressed peer comments and are in compliance with USGS procedures with regard to the review and release of scientific information. Furthermore, the notion that senior leadership in an organization should not be alerted to significant findings that will directly impact policy development and decision-making is disturbing. Under current policy this information is transferred to policy makers as it is released to the public.

Characterizing these reviews as an attempt by the Bush administration to control and censor scientific findings is inaccurate, is a disservice to those scientists who developed those processes in the spirit of continually improving our commitment to excellent science and undermines the bedrock of the peer review process as an arbiter of the credibility of individual science products and facilitator of science progress and discussion

---

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1588

Googling 'Jim Estes', the guy cited as saying: "...that's a very scary thing. I worry that it borders on censorship...'' shows that the guy has been very active the past 30 years, and apparently unfettered in how he and collegues release their research results to the public - he's a sought-after sound-bite guy by all the mainstream media (especially on matters of marine biology), and he's never had to check with his USGS bosses before.

Now he has to, and doesn't like it, after 30 years of independence. But he's getting a USGS paycheck, so I can see where they're coming from; they don't want to be uninformed and caught flat-footed. They should tread this new "must report to HQ" rule very lightly, and Prof. Estes should cry foul if they try to suppress anything. Shouldn't be a problem, since Fox, CNN, et al have him on speed-dial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This account by a Park Ranger is both funny and sad:

Layers of rock are like chapters in a history book and this canyon, carved so deeply, told an ancient story. Standing at the bottom, calling out over the roar of the falls, I got to teach the exciting conclusion, “The layers of slate and shale beneath our feet tell us that 300 million years ago, this deciduous forest was a tropical jungle.”

“What book d’ya get that out of?” came the reply one day. And thus it began, for this waterfall was not only located in ancient rock, it was also in the heart of the Bible-belt. I had heard there were people who believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old, but I never thought I would actually meet any. That summer, and every other summer I worked teaching science to the public, I met a lot of them. Though most objectors would just walk away from the program, some mothers would cover their children’s ears to protect them from the “blasphemous park ranger.” One man, after I patiently explained how we know the age of rocks, finally just threw up his hands, exclaimed, “The Devil made that rock look that old to turn you away from God,” and led his family back up the trail.

---

It is disturbing to see how ignorant some people choose to be and that they would teach their children their same ways. I guess it is all a matter of perspective but from mine I see them as fools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Now he has to, and doesn't like it, after 30 years of independence. But he's getting a USGS paycheck, so I can see where they're coming from; they don't want to be uninformed and caught flat-footed.

---

That was more or less what I was thinking when I heard this. Some of these government researchers don't grasp the concept of being at least somewhat accountable to their employer who's signing their paychecks. Asking them to report anything major to their managers before running to the press doesn't really sound like an unreasonable burden.

Also, good research, Redleg- your Google-fu is strong. :bow:

George W. is the messiah and Bill Clinton is the antichrist, no wait….the other way….err…was I right the fist time….no! Uh….uh…uh…err but…

Was it something like…kill um all and let god sort it out??? Ya, that's the logic.

Education is not an inoculation for stupidity.
We all know of educated idiots and uneducated sages don't we?

The jerk who counted up the years the Bible mentioned from creation was highly educated for his time. He went through a peer review and published. It doesn't change the fact that he was WRONG about the age of earth, or that there may have been changes in the original manuscript that led to wrong assumptions.

Global warming is a fact, maybe… Why in forecasting the results did they over look the Medieval Warm Period when the Norse settled in Greenland?

Medical research seemingly reverses it's self about every other week.

Too much in the last few decades at least our research has been agenda driven with the conclusion decided before the study begins. Science is as broken as Government.

What a scary thought!!!

Let's face it; We are all going to die…just because those selfish twits with the secret of eternal life took it with them to the grave!

Ahh, another 'spill-over' from the Citadel & Monastery. Hello Fisherking, welcome to the Backroom. ~:wave:

Here's another person not living in the Reality Based Community:

Car Bosses With Heads in Sand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Here's another person not living in the Reality Based Community:

Car Bosses With Heads in Sand

---

Yes, I have the suspicion he was drunk or had had a really bad morning just before that interview.

The irony with the whole age of the Earth thing is that oil companies make money by knowing the age and composition of rocks. Then their main customers/supporters deny it.