01 Jan 2020, 6:46 pm
01 Jan 2020, 6:59 pm
01 Jan 2020, 7:01 pm
SoloSailor wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Edit:
What about the tidal factor?
What about the tidal factor?
Oh no. Is climate change responsible for the tides too?
There would be tide events in Sydney harbour also, right?
If you look at the picture on the right, there seems to be a high-water-line.
Dude,
I like your style and philosophical positioning,
But I am the Oracle of Truth,
And must service my mistress, first an foremost.
Take a look at this pic of Fort Denison when the tide is up:
01 Jan 2020, 7:11 pm
01 Jan 2020, 7:11 pm
beneficii wrote:
According to my source, sea level has risen about 12 cm in Sydney Harbor from the end of the 19th century. You're claiming it has risen 0 cm.
I have doubts about that too, atm.
I.E.
I agree with you, atm.
OK,
Now it is time to burst into flames:
01 Jan 2020, 7:17 pm
beneficii wrote:
So apparently SoloSailor thinks that climate scientists are either so stupid or so dishonest, that "a little effort" is all that is needed to disprove major claims made in their field. Because of that, he tells us that the postgrad textbooks and the major peer-reviewed journals in that field are little better than toilet paper. We should instead just trust that he knows what he's talking about.
Oh, your good.
01 Jan 2020, 7:19 pm
01 Jan 2020, 7:24 pm
beneficii wrote:
SoloSailor,
It means not thinking that every thought you have or every conclusion you make is automatically correct simply because you consider yourself a "rational person".
It means not thinking that every thought you have or every conclusion you make is automatically correct simply because you consider yourself a "rational person".
Correct!
That's *my* job.
01 Jan 2020, 7:53 pm
beneficii wrote:
So apparently SoloSailor thinks that climate scientists are either so stupid or so dishonest,
It does happen.
So your position is:
*Everything/k* that comes out the mouths of babes, err, I mean scientists, brims with integrity and honesty?
And that there are never political or financial motives invested influencing the direction and outcome of research?
If so,
I find that position a "little" naive.
beneficii wrote:
that "a little effort" is all that is needed to disprove major claims made in their field. Because of that, he tells us that the postgrad textbooks and the major peer-reviewed journals in that field are little better than toilet paper. We should instead just trust that he knows what he's talking about.
I though postgrad textbooks often become obsolete due to new information becoming available.
And I would hardly consider the "Peer review System" infallible.
Check this out:
Quote:
The journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. This isn’t the journal’s first rodeo. Late last year, 58 papers were retracted from seven different journals— 25 came from Tumor Biology for the same reason. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04 ... iew-fraud/
And this:
Quote:
Three US researchers have pulled off a sophisticated hoax by publishing fake research with ridiculous conclusions in sociology journals to expose what they see as ideological bias and a lack of rigorous vetting at these publications.
Seven of the 20 fake articles written by the trio were accepted by journals after being approved by peer-review committees tasked with checking the authors' research. https://phys.org/news/2018-10-real-fake ... rnals.html
Seven of the 20 fake articles written by the trio were accepted by journals after being approved by peer-review committees tasked with checking the authors' research. https://phys.org/news/2018-10-real-fake ... rnals.html
Once again,
It pays to take things with a grain of salt.
Skepticism rulz,
Yeah, babey.
01 Jan 2020, 8:07 pm
SoloSailor wrote:
Pepe wrote:
If you look at the picture on the right, there seems to be a high-water-line.
The same with the one on the left. But that's not the point I'm trying to make.
Rather difficult to discern in the B&W photo.
Could travel back in the Mr Peabody time travel WABAC machine and take a colour one?
01 Jan 2020, 8:12 pm
01 Jan 2020, 8:25 pm
01 Jan 2020, 9:56 pm
01 Jan 2020, 10:10 pm
SoloSailor wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Rather difficult to discern in the B&W photo.
That it is. If you look at the color photo, you'll see a stone course about 2/3 of the way down from the top of the building that isn't like the others. (Oddly enough, right at the high tide line. Coincidence?) Using that as a reference point, you should be able to see the darker area below in the B&W photo.
If you look at the circular part of the wall,
There isn't any noticeable change in colour.
Dude,
You really do need to use your WABAC Time Machine,
Just to make it absolutely clear.
Edit:
How about we make a poll?
Can you see the high tide line on the B&W curved wall/mini-tower?
01 Jan 2020, 10:40 pm
01 Jan 2020, 10:43 pm
Pepe wrote:
Edit:
How about we make a poll?
How about we make a poll?
LOL. While we're at it: Any guesses on what that big white blob near the bottom center of the tower is?
Photo artifact or something else?
