From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ted flips out (semi-amusing)
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:54:09 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <2709@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.210126.4682@ac.dal.ca>, hyde@ac.dal.ca writes:
>  
>> > Nothing too unusual about this??  How about the fact that within recorded
>> > history, and in fact ever since the great change which killed the gigantic
>> > herds of mammoths and other creatures which lived in the Liakhovs and novo
>> > Sibirsk islands, these areas have always been as they are now??  How about 
>> > the fact that standard theory has absolutely no means of providing any rationale
>> > as to why they might have ever been otherwise given the standard uniformitarian
>> > hypotheses??
>> 
>> 
>> 	It has already been explained to you, Ted, how "standard
>> 	theory" predicts that these areas would have been considerably
>> 	warmer some thousands of years ago.  I guess you just forgot
>> 	it, like you forgot to answer my last post.  I guess.
> 
> "It has already been explained to me"?  By who?  God??  By somebody
> disinterested, i.e. whose entire life hasn't been wasted persuing "science"
> which is entirely based upon this false axiom of uniformity, as yours has?

	Got you angry, did I Ted?  How nice.  I'm afraid I don't
	use "uniformity" as an axiom, though.  Now that Ted Holden
	guy, who extrapolates from a two legged creature of
	about 300 pounds to a four legged creature claimed
	to be several hundred thousand pounds, now *there* is
	a believer in uniformity.  What a wasted life he must lead.

> 
> In recorded history, i.e. since the foundation of Rome, 

	So you claim recorded history starts with Rome?  I guess
	that means those babylonian and egyptian records you
	so frequently cite are forgeries.  And we thought only
	your maps were forgeries.


the arctic regions have
> always had the temperature which they have now,

	Do please post the "recorded history" of this area.  Frankly,
	I was quite unaware that the romans, or for that matter
	any other literate people inhabited this area in the period
	we are discussing.  Don't forget to give primary sources.

	Evidence for early-mid Holocene warmth does exist, though,
	and agrees well with climate model results.  References
	available on request.

 and the standard hypotheses
> which you use can provide no reason for this ever having been different within
> millions if not billions of years. 

	Wrong, Ted.  To pick one example, nine thousand years
	ago the area under discussion received 40 watts per meter
	squared more sunlight in summer than it now does.  That is
	a lot of power.  Prior to the most recent glaciation
	(say about 125,000 years ago) the increase was more than
	double that.  All of this is the consequence of orbital
	calculations which are (in principle) quite straightforward.
	No cosmic billiard player is required to shoot planets around the
	solar system.

	Kindly explain why 40 watts per square meter is "no reason".


 The mammoths were living under warm climate
> conditions in Novo Sibirsk and the Liakhovs within the last 6000 years.
> 

	Wow, something we agree on.  The difference is that *I* can
	show why it was warmer without invoking unknown processes
	or violating physical law.

	By the way, could you give me a rough estimate of
	just how much warmer you believe it was in Novo Sibirsk
	6000 years ago?  Though we agree that it was warmer, I
	suspect we disagree as to *how* much warmer.

> You and your cronies know that an explaination for this is required,

	*I* have cronies?  Well, I don't know about that, but I
	*do* have a good explanation for holocene warmth.


 and yet
> refuse to accept the obvious and correct one, i.e. catastrophism.  The line
> that such conditions could have prevailed given no radical change in our
> cosmos and solar system is self-serving and a bullshit lie.
> 
> You, Hyde, are a liar.

	It is a pleasure for me to see that you know you are wrong.
	Why else would you involve yourself in such unprovoked
	insults?  I like the "self serving" part in particular.
	Bad news for you Ted, I could abandon paleoclimate tomorrow
	(I do other research as well) and be none the worse off
	professionally.

	By the way, just which of my statements was a lie, Mr
	"I don't start the insult-fests"?

> 
> Beyond that, "It has been explained to you" is an semi-literate usage of
> what I assume is your own language.

	You are probably unaware that verbs can be used in both
	the passive and active voices. The active voice is,
	indeed, better style.  I burn with shame that I committed
	such an aesthetic faux pas.  Whaterver was I thinking of?


  What the hell does "PHD" stand for in
> your case, Hyde?

	Really, Ted, you shouldn't let your envy of people with
	Ph.D.'s in science show.  It is unseemly.

> 
>  
>> 	Now, are you going to answer Sue's points about your
>> 	mammoths *not* being quick frozen?  Are you going to
>> 	find me that "Birds-eye" reference I asked for?
> 
> The birds eye reference is cited in Ginenthal's book for one; 


	No, Ted.  I want the *primary* reference.  Where did the
	Birds eye scientists publish their work?  Who were they?
	Second hand won't do.  I want to know what *they* said,
	not what Ginenthal said they said.  We have already seen
	Ginenthal's massive ignorance of physics exposed in the
	venus debate.


 I'm sure
> you're capable of finding it.  As for any "points" in Sue Bishop's postings,
> I've never seen any.  That the mammoths were quick frozen is well known and
> well documented.  


	Then why don't you document it by giving us the
	references where these "facts" were established?

	Once again Ted, I'd like to thank you for making your
	anger so plain.  It is so enjoyable when you reveal
	your little weaknesses of character.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc