Paleontologic Dating Methods

[Col. Tartleton]

Are we right or is this actually completely junk? I'm not an expert so naturally I'm relying on what I learned as a little kid who was fascinated with dinosaurs and history.

Purely as devil's advocate, why should I believe dinosaurs are X millions of years old? I do, (I'm still very skeptical of the contrary "evidence") but how reasonable is that of me?

Like I'll buy carbon dating in most circumstances (obviously it gets messy with fires and the like). Carbon dating is only good out to 50,000-60,000 years as far as I know, but it's pretty precise (in theory). I think it's reasonable to assume that carbon levels and decay and all that are effective because they're on a short time scale. Radiometry is over a hundred years old though and it's still very open to problems. It's certainly more precise now, but the original estimates were 1.3 billion years or so and that's obviously pretty different than what we have now. That's reliant on an original uranium-thorium-lead ratio being a certain thing. It's not a closed system and we're only presuming what the original ratios are. It's quite suspect. I'm not saying that half life's are an invalid idea outright (it's still open to skepticism), but it's pretty much impossible to use them to accurately date things. It's a good idea but it requires knowledge of the original and final results and no contamination... So like I said it's more reasonable in a 60k year period to say that you can estimate the original stuff and maybe have minimal interference (and I'm still worried about that). It's like the Drake equation. It's a basic mathematic equation with some theoretical values in it. Its being taught in a factual way. It's just a rough estimate based on some presumptions. Before radio dating they were using thermal dating until someone pointed out that was pants on the head

When we're looking at the big picture we're talking about a huge gulf of time. Like the age of the universe is based on the estimate that the universe is expanding at a steady rate of acceleration. Fair enough. It's a presumption but it seems reasonable. Its such a fundamental factor that it would be very odd if it was not that kind of constant. I'd want evidence to the contrary to doubt that.

But lets forget that. Lets let the rocks talk.

Dinosaurs are primarily dated on rock layers. The layers are radiometrically dated but they're based on presumptions.

That's not valid. We know it's really bs.

Rocks do not need millions and millions of years to form. There are sedimentary rocks which have formed around man made objects... There are petrified clothes from modern times. There is petrified wood. There is petrified food. Rocks form within human lifespans. Igneous rocks can form in minutes. Pumice is full of air pockets, it traps air inside of it, that's how fast it forms. It floats. We can make diamonds given the proper heat and pressure in weeks, not millions of years. The whole "millions of years" things gets bandied around a lot and I'm a bit worried that people are potentially making mistakes because they're building on other potential mistakes. Why should a diamond take millions of years to form if all it needs is heat and pressure? It's not a sedimentary rock. Even if it was, we'd be concerned with the whole stalactites and stalagmites being formed by water born minerals over hundreds or thousands of years. Oh and we can make diesel out of animal fats pretty quickly. So I bet there is a natural process which could turn a forest into crude oil.

I see some major problems...

Now, this isn't some sort of Biblical argument nonsense. I'm not trying to prove the bible as that's a backwards application of theory first, facts second. (Just Dinotopia. I'm going to be really really pissed if humans killed the Dinosaurs... ) I'm not questioning the scientific method, I'm questioning if reason is actually being applied to this anywhere. I'm concerned the scientists are taking some big leaps of faith here.

I'm not claiming knowledge that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans based on a six thousand year old biblical account or the countless ancient carvings and paintings around the world of humans and dinosaurs frolicking (I'm not even going to entertain that for fear of having an existential crisis) but why can't dinosaurs be 10 million years old or a billion years old? I'm not suggesting they're 10,000 years old. I'm just curious how sure we can be it's say 100 million years ago, no buts about it.

I'm fairly certain they can't.

[Claudius Gothicus]

For a freaking minute I believed this was some sort of thread dedicated to the recopilation and share of paleontology related pick up lines Lol

[Kaukas]

If I really understand what you mean...

I would go with statistics as earthquakes, floods etc. can shape soil layers. Radioactive decay is probably only solution though - it can't be faked in most cases. And besides carbon there are other elements : isotopes of Rubidium (half-life ~50 billion years) , Iodine (half-life 17 million years) and many more. So basically you would need to take a look at meteorite and earth datings. Theory of Earth formation should be also taken into account.

[Phier]

There is a chance that radiometric dating is somehow flawed.

I think its up to you though to show how.

[Col. Tartleton]

If I really understand what you mean...

I would go with statistics as earthquakes, floods etc. can shape soil layers. Radioactive decay is probably only solution though - it can't be faked in most cases. And besides carbon there are other elements : isotopes of Rubidium (half-life ~50 billion years) , Iodine (half-life 17 million years) and many more. So basically you would need to take a look at meteorite and earth datings. Theory of Earth formation should be also taken into account.

How would any of those things work?

Radioactive decay doesn't actually work... It's not a matter of faked. It's a matter of .

If I'm Uranium dating I look at the ratio of Uranium, Thorium, Radium, and Lead. I then assume for no reason that all that material was deposited as Uranium. On what grounds? Then you take the next big assumption that no material or radiation contaminated the results. Then you assume that the rate of decay is a constant when growing evidence questions that. Oh and you have to guess what kind of dating method you're using based on the rock layer... which is about as stupid and circular as anything I can imagine. It's kind of just making it up.

How can anyone call that accurate? It doesn't even approximate accurate. Even if it was consistent it wouldn't be accurate. It's precise, but it's not accurate. Those are different things. That's one of the basic things I learned back in AP stats.

They can get several million years off fresh lava and several thousand years off a dinosaur bone. It's not good science. It's not mathematically viable. Serious mathemeticians look at it and don't even think it's science. Newton's laws are evidenced backwards and forwards. Newtonian physics make an observable equation. Einstein's stuff makes sense except when it doesn't. They accurately describe what is being discussed. Geochronology and biology are sham science. They don't work.

There's no good reason to not be a young earth creationist and the more I research evolution the more ridiculous their own leaps of faith are. The default position really should be an earth of undetermined age and Intelligent Design. Which sounds ridiculous to a "dinosaurs were millions of years ago" believer but I need to actually show otherwise. If not I may as well take every recorded story of a dragon or monster as a dinosaur sighting up until the present day.

Evolution and the Old Earth is not adequately evidenced. Just like Evolution isn't all that evidenced.

I'm saying this as a guy who was assuming Darwinist atheism was completely reasonable just 2 days ago.

[Sphere]

I can only suggest you read a little more on the topic.

The Uranium used in Uranium-Lead dating is taken from zircon specifically because when zircon is formed it strongly regects all lead. This is something you can do in a lab, or you can observe in recently formed natural zircon and can be explained using the theories of modern chemistry. To say that is simply bull is not very persausive. This is why is is relatively safe to assume all lead found in a zircon sample is from the decay of Uranium. Uranium-lead is also very usefull because there are 3 different decays to look at and compare for any one sample, which allows crosschecking, and is partly why Uranium-lead is considered the most accurate for the timescales we are talking about.

But there are other radioactive decays of completely different isotopes and elements that can be used to compare results, and there is ballpark agreement between them. Not to mention the comparison to straightforward idea's of geologic stratification and fossilization. If zircon was prone to contamination, it would be fairly evident when trying to date different strata, especially when there are certain strata or short lived-fossils which can be found across the globe and thus gives you a control to work with; e.g. if you did Uranium-Lead dating at the rust-line, or the K-T Iridium line, at different locations on the globe and got vastly different results, it would be a big red flag. Some thing with an index fossil.

Uranium-Lead is trusted because there have been no such big red flags when it has been used. As Pheir says, the onus is really on you to raise them and show where uranium-lead dating has clearly failed, and why the well understood backround chemistry and physics is being misapplied.

[Col. Tartleton]

I can only suggest you read a little more on the topic.

The Uranium used in Uranium-Lead dating is taken from zircon specifically because when zircon is formed it strongly regects all lead. This is something you can do in a lab, or you can observe in recently formed natural zircon and can be explained using the theories of modern chemistry. To say that is simply bull is not very persausive. This is why is is relatively safe to assume all lead found in a zircon sample is from the decay of Uranium. Uranium-lead is also very usefull because there are 3 different decays to look at and compare for any one sample, which allows crosschecking, and is partly why Uranium-lead is considered the most accurate for the timescales we are talking about.

Does Zircon also strongly reject all Thorium and Radium? Is decay a constant? Did it take place in a lead shielded vacuum?

But there are other radioactive decays of completely different isotopes and elements that can be used to compare results, and there is ballpark agreement between them. Not to mention the comparison to straightforward idea's of geologic stratification and fossilization. If zircon was prone to contamination, it would be fairly evident when trying to date different strata, especially when there are certain strata or fossils which can be found across the globe (e.g the rust line, or an index fossil) and thus gives you a control to work with; e.g. if you did Uranium-Lead dating at the rust-line at different location on the globe and got vastly different results, it would be a big red flag. Some thing with an index fossil.

You could have uniformly wrong data though. Besides, isn't a uniformity of fossil layers more pertinent to a catastrophe than deposition and erosion? Those should be totally different in different places. Why is oil and natural gas trapped in the ground at great pressure as if something rapidly covered and compressed it? Why does it have to be millions of years old if we can make fat into fuel through simple processes in a timely fashion?

Uranium-Lead is trusted because there have been no such big red flags when it has been used. As Pheir says, the onus is really on you to raise them and show where uranium-lead dating has clearly failed, and why the well understood backround chemistry and physics is being misapplied.

I'm claiming it's always misapplied. It's not scientific enough.

[Sphere]

Natural Thorium can also be found in zircon it seems, but it decays down to Pb208, as opposed to natural uranium which decays down to U238-Pb206 or U235-Pb207 . So there is actually Thorium-Lead dating as well which is an independent check, except for it's half-life is much shorter making the accurate ranges different. The key in all these is just to have no lead to begin with (Pb206,7,8 are all naturally occuring and stable), so you can say the observed lead came from radioactive decay.

That being said, I think you are correct that the other elements in the decay chain, not just radium, would have an effect if they can even get into zircon (which I am not sure of). However, they all have a much smaller half-life than uranium and thus are only "trace" elements in natural uranium deposits (no good source on exact %'s but wiki says "In nature, radium is found in uranium ores in trace amounts as small as a seventh of a gram per ton of uraninite.") because comparatively speaking they rapidly decay to lead once the decay chain is started. I assume trace must mean something less than 10%, but over short time periods this might be significant. Over long times however it would matter less and less.

I don't think you really want to ask the question whether radioactive decay is constant or not. You aren't going to win that battle.

If you have any papers critiquing Uranium-Lead dating I would be very interested. I got myself elbow deep already, and now I am intrigued.

[Col. Tartleton]

Natural Thorium can also be found in zircon it seems, but it decays down to Pb208, as opposed to natural uranium which decays down to U238-Pb206 or U235-Pb207 . So there is actually Thorium-Lead dating as well which is an independent check, except for it's half-life is much shorter making the accurate ranges different. The key in all these is just to have no lead to begin with (Pb206,7,8 are all naturally occuring and stable), so you can say the observed lead came from radioactive decay.

That being said, I think you are correct that the other elements in the decay chain, not just radium, would have an effect if they can even get into zircon (which I am not sure of). However, they all have a much smaller half-life than uranium and thus are only "trace" elements in natural uranium deposits (no good source on exact %'s but wiki says "In nature, radium is found in uranium ores in trace amounts as small as a seventh of a gram per ton of uraninite.") because comparatively speaking they rapidly decay to lead once the decay chain is started. I assume trace must mean something less than 10%, but over short time periods this might be significant. Over long times however it would matter less and less.

If you have any papers critiquing Uranium-Lead dating I would be very interested. I got myself elbow deep already, and now I am intrigued.

I'll see if I can find any. I'm just trying to fact check this stuff. The radiometric argument seems to be fundamentally flawed. If the chemistry covers it's back so to speak I'll be able to rebuild some degree of security in my previous understanding. Alternatively if we could imagine a generally accurate method that might be able to have an effect. I don't care if it's precise, I just want it to be accurate.

Like I don't care if it's a 3.8 billion-4.6 billion range or what have you, that's fine. My world view has predicated itself on that and if it is valid I'm not going to take the writings of ancient people as seriously. If we're completely wrong I think it becomes more reasonable to start taking people who were there more seriously since obviously our extrapolations would be useless. The problem is that if it could be 3.8 million to 4.6 million. Or even more shockingly something pointing to a "reset cataclysm" more like 3.8 thousand to 4.6 thousand years ago as recorded by ancient scholars.

My concern is that we might find ourselves having to take a radical and seemingly nonsensical stance like Hercules and Daniel being real people who killed flesh and blood dragons or something. If the earth is young what does that mean? The Maya said this "world" started 5126 years ago and that's how long these catastrophic cycles supposedly are... This starts to look like a bad year to be asking these questions. If carbon dating is flawed we can't really prove the earth is older than that. Civilization sort of appears out of nowhere roughly around that point. There were older cities according to carbon dating, but we can't know how accurate that is, or read their writings.

All our ideas are built upon each other. If the base isn't there the whole jenga tower will fall down.

[chamaeleo]

All our ideas are built upon each other. If the base isn't there the whole jenga tower will fall down.

Approximate ages of fossil assemblages within strata usually correlate quite nicely to radiometric age values. Coincidence?

Radiometric dates from the bottom to the top of any non-overturned outcrop's sedimentary sequence will decrease in age. Fluke?

Out of 200 minerals tested within a relatively intact rock, 95% share the same age range with 99% certainty. Thousands of rocks yield the same pattern. Accident?

The Atlantic ocean widens by ~25mm/yr due to new crustal formation along the flanks of the mid ocean spreading center. Radiometric dates taken from basalt at regular intervals, moving away from the ridge, increase in age at a regular rate. Rocks 20km east of the ridge are exactly the same date as those found 20km west of the ridge. What's your conclusion?

Identical fossil assemblages are found in identical rock formations in the mountains of Appalachia and N Africa. They share precisely the same radiometric dates: pre-dating the breakup of Pangaea. Was it...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

SATAN?!?!?

Not to insult the scientific community, but a few years ago I was a kid reading up to date books about dinosaurs.T Rex was an extinct cold blooded scaly lizard. Now he's an extinct warm blooded feathered bird-thingy. You have to take everything they say with salt. The only thing I see evolving is their idea about what they're talking about.

Ideas evolve with new information. Deal with it.

Here's my problem. I've read they grow by a centimeter a year in height. Based on what data? How do they measure the height of hundreds of mountains within millimeters consistently?

Short answer: lasers.

They also think it's slowly down, and they think that the weight of the mountain is pulling it down, because if it really was growing at that rate and was so old it would be much taller...

Never heard of erosion, eh? 2cm uplift coupled with 1.8cm erosion per year...total height gain is 2mm/yr, or only 10% of the uplift rate. Bear in mind that all values are an average. The mountain might shift 4m in an earthquake event whose average recurrence is every 200yrs, only to erode away until the next hiccup.

Those who understand science, respect it. Happy trolling!

[Sphere]

All our eggs are not in one basket here, you don't need radiometric dating to get us well past 10,000 years. From an earlier post of mine

Then explain to me something as straight forward as continential drift.

Looking at any map it is strongly suggestive that N. America was once connected to Europe (and South america to Africa). The obvious "fit" seen on the map is confirmed when fossils, rock strata etc. are compared (not to mention the mid-Atlantic ridge) and now that we have GPS, we can actually track real time how fast they are moving apart and the rate is ~20mm a year. The distance between the these continents is currently ~2000 km. Assuming the drift speed has been fairly constant this gives a ballpark figure of when the continents were connected of ~100,000,000 years ago ( FYI the best estimate using fossil & rock dating is actually ~60,000,000 years ago).

A 10,000 year old Earth theory cannot even account for this straight forward bit of evidence which doesn't require any sort of nuclear decay dating system with which to have a problem with; you have two continents which were once together, now 2000km apart, drifting at a measured rate of a few centimeters a year. Ballpark you are in the tens of millions of years as a lower bound of the Earths age from this bit of evidence.

Any theory which simply just ignores this has nothing to due with honest investigation of how the world really is.

[Col. Tartleton]

All our eggs are not in one basket here, you don't need radiometric dating to get us well past 10,000 years. From an earlier post of mine

Better certainly. Still flawed. Just looking at wikipedia I see this:

Ortelius came up withe proto continental drift in 1596 which had basically concluded that the continents were at one point connected due to their shapes and that natural events like earthquakes and floods pulled the new and old world apart. Something to that effect.

Wegener came up with continental drift in 1912. Wegener and some other scientists snowballed ideas around and basically thought the continents were floating on fluid and that the moon pulled the continents towards the equator which is why India formed the Himalayas with Asia and Eurasia formed the Alps with Africa. Or something like that.

By the time we ironed out Plate Tectonics it's become pretty much canonical that the world's land areas were at one point touching. The theory for movement has become the more reasonable notion that heat under the crust creates pressures which move them around.

However it seems quite evident that the plates are slowing down... Whatever force has made them move is dissipating. If you press the accelerator pedal you move pretty fast. However if you release the lever the car loses momentum because other forces counter the inertia and eventually comes to a stop. If you took the few seconds before the vehicle stopped completely and used that speed to extrapolate how long it took the car to drive a mile it would seem much greater a gulf of time than not.

What I'm suggesting is the possibility however unlikely of a "Super Earthquake", by which I mean the build up of enormous pressures so vast their release moves the tectonic plates comparably rapidly. This causing a mega tsunami "Deluge" event. It would then be reasonable that the movement of the plates now is a last bit of inertia. They may have been more than one of these. I'm not supposing that it was all at once.

Obviously such an event requires evidence but to me it doesn't seem impossible. After all the planet earth spins at over a thousand miles per hour and about 67000 miles per hour around the sun. The 4.5 miles per hour is fast suggested by some is fast certainly, but it's human walking speed and in accordance with physics we'd certainly never notice the movement.

Not that we have good evidence for something like that, but I don't know how we can rule it out either.

[Aanker]

There should logically be evidence for such a cataclysmic event; rocks would have been crushed and squeezed everywhere if all it took was one or two of these earthquakes to accelerate the mass of a tectonic plate to the speeds you describe.

I am however fairly certain that I have read that the speed of plate movement has been significantly higher before, because the Earth was hotter back in the day.

[Col. Tartleton]

There should logically be evidence for such a cataclysmic event; rocks would have been crushed and squeezed everywhere if all it took was one or two of these earthquakes to accelerate the mass of a tectonic plate to the speeds you describe.

I am however fairly certain that I have read that the speed of plate movement has been significantly higher before, because the Earth was hotter back in the day.

The earth may very well be billions of years old and they may move slowly. I just want to molest the crap out of the established theories and see what they're really based on.



This is a Anchiornis Huxleyi (Huxley's Pseudo-bird). Those are it's actual colors, they've gotten them off the feather remains... (Obviously the survival of feather pigments and soft tissues in 100 million year old impressions in the rock is reasonable... ) It's as big as a chicken. By which I mean it's less than a foot tall. I'm pretty sure we could have coexisted with it. Which is different from saying we did.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here's a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Most likely covered in feathers, the smaller members of the genus certainly were. Not sure if the pigments are accurate. It looks cool though. The black and white gives it an ostrich characteristic which seems appropriate given they both have near useless arms/wings. Still scary as hell. Did we coexist with them? With them? Maybe. Near them? No.

Not to insult the scientific community, but a few years ago I was a kid reading up to date books about dinosaurs.T Rex was an extinct cold blooded scaly lizard. Now he's an extinct warm blooded feathered bird-thingy. You have to take everything they say with salt. The only thing I see evolving is their idea about what they're talking about.

[Aanker]

Of course. But finding clues about how a dinosaur that lived more than 60 million years ago looked certainly gives more unreliable results than studying phenomena that are currently ongoing and verifiable in laboratories. Though, as other posters have written - given the widespread use of all these methods, and how they all more or less agree with each other - it really is up to you to provide evidence of their flaws. Just because some science has evolved significantly or altogether changed, does not mean that all science will be subject to the same change. These methods have consistently provided good results. They may be improved, and there may even come better methods later on, but I am highly sceptic that all of them will be overturned in a dramatic fashion in the future. This is a common mistake encountered when talking to those who believe in conspiracy theories: "look, Darwin proved everyone else wrong, so why can't this be true and all the scientists are wrong?".

And my argument about your proposed cataclysmic event still stands. Based on rather simple logic (rocks should be put under immense forces in such an earthquake, or if the plates would move as fast as you claim), it follows that there should be compelling and widespread evidence for it.

[Col. Tartleton]

Of course. But finding clues about how a dinosaur that lived more than 60 million years ago looked certainly gives more unreliable results than studying phenomena that are currently ongoing and verifiable in laboratories.

They've found flesh and blood cells in dinosaur bones... blood cells. They tested it. The Hemoglobin was still intact. Egyptian mummies have similar protein decay to dinosaurs. That gives us about 3000-5000 years or a miracle.

Though, as other posters have written - given the widespread use of all these methods, and how they all more or less agree with each other - it really is up to you to provide evidence of their flaws.

They don't agree with each other... and they're fundamentally flawed regardless.

Just because some science has evolved significantly or altogether changed, does not mean that all science will be subject to the same change. These methods have consistently provided good results.

No they haven't. You'd be shocked what I've read about the scientific method in action. If it matches their theory its in the paper. If it's pretty close it's footnoted. If it's far off it's nowhere to be seen.

They may be improved, and there may even come better methods later on, but I am highly sceptic that all of them will be overturned in a dramatic fashion in the future. This is a common mistake encountered when talking to those who believe in conspiracy theories: "look, Darwin proved everyone else wrong, so why can't this be true and all the scientists are wrong?".

Darwin didn't prove anything. That's the problem. None of it makes any sense.

There is no evidence for evolution. There is simply evidence that some animals are similar to other animals. The experts will admit that every "species" in the Genus Homo appears to be a Homo Sapiens going back millions of years (predating Australopithecus according to the dating system) and every Australopithecus thing is a previously unknown type of chimp. Neanderthal and Homo Erectus wind up looking like different ethnicities when compared to people. Australopithecus was a knuckle walking ape. The only traits that are human are it's teeth but there are other primates with more human like teeth. There's no evidence for a tree of life. There's just evidence that scientists place various species onto trees according to their similarity. Even if you looked at the genetics, it would make sense that similar animals have similar DNA because they're similar. That they derive from a common ancestor is unverifiable.

And my argument about your proposed cataclysmic event still stands. Based on rather simple logic (rocks should be put under immense forces in such an earthquake, or if the plates would move as fast as you claim), it follows that there should be compelling and widespread evidence for it.

There is some widespread evidence for it. Take orogenesis for example:



What's more logical? That two large rock sheets slowly poked each other until they created a miles high mountain range? Or that they smashed into each other and fused into a miles high mountain range? The "2cm per year" thing being responsible always sounded bogus. I took it on faith.

Here's my problem. I've read they grow by a centimeter a year in height. Based on what data? How do they measure the height of hundreds of mountains within millimeters consistently? They also think it's slowly down, and they think that the weight of the mountain is pulling it down, because if it really was growing at that rate and was so old it would be much taller...

The whole thing sounds wonky.

[Sphere]

So I've been reading about the history of trying to date the earth.

It is rather fascinating, as like many stories in science it is a story of the authorities of science, the old men like Kelvin, the grey beards of geology etc. being undercut by new experiments, new evidence and new observations which are at first ridiculed by the establishment, but eventually have to be accepted because of the shear weight of evidence.

It gives you a little more hope for society.

[Phier]

It gives you a little more hope for society.

Remember you only hear of the victories

[Col. Tartleton]

It's not trolling. It's fact checking. I'm trying to prove irrefutably that the world is 4 billion years old from the perspective of a young earth creationist. If it can't be done that's probably not a good sign.

If young earth creationism was the fashionable academic view I'd be ranting about why no one took Darwinism seriously.

[chamaeleo]

It's not trolling. It's fact checking. I'm trying to prove irrefutably that the world is 4 billion years old from the perspective of a young earth creationist. If it can't be done that's probably not a good sign.

If young earth creationism was the fashionable academic view I'd be ranting about why no one took Darwinism seriously.

Good, then. I wasn't quite sure you were being serious.

While there is certainly something to be said (and much to be learned) by playing the devil's advocate, you really need to research the facts before committing to the weaker argument. Especially if your goal for taking the stance is to be contrary, purely for the sake of being contrary.

I'm saying this as a guy who was assuming Darwinist atheism was completely reasonable just 2 days ago.

At first I was a little disappointed to read this, but I think you're smart enough to use this as a learning experience.

Back in the 90's when anthropogenic climate change was still a somewhat debatable scientific topic, I was the loudest anti-trend voice in class. This was despite the fact that I was already starting to shift my opinion. I really enjoyed making the professor squirm, but you know, I think having me as a gadfly actually allowed us to explore tangents which only served to help solidify my position...and ultimately that of everyone else.

In the 00's during gradschool, one of my most valuable experiences was taking a debate-format Environmental Geography seminar. Each of us was responsible for two debates: one had to be in support of a position you already held, and the other was against. I was assigned the contrarian position against ACC.

Being pretty well versed in the primary lit (environmental geology background), I held a clear advantage over our opponents: I anticipated their every argument, and led my team to formulate highly effective counterattacks...

Humans clearly affect atmospheric CO2 levels, just look at all the statues that've only begun melting in the last 150 yrs!

"Well, isn't that just a perfect example of the Earth's ability to purge itself of excess atmospheric CO2? Recently increased meteoric carbonic acid is pretty good proof that the system is dynamic, quite capable of reaching a new equilibrium, and if the buffers were not already in place this planet would have become a lifeless rock many millions of years ago.

It was embarrassing, I felt pretty bad for them. I even made a speech at the end of class, going down my list bullet by bullet, telling them exactly which counterarguments would've shut me down and why.

All in all, that experience only reinforced my opinion that humanity is definitely a variable in global climate. The act of consciously subverting the truth: twisting my knowledge into knots, confusing simple issues, and making facts tell alternative, false stories was supremely educational. It taught me how to be even more critical: especially of anything which the mainstream purports to be obviously so.

My suggestion is if you're in college, take a historical geology class to satisfy your science requirement and play the gadfly. If not, read. Like you said: if the base isn't there, everything falls apart. You need to first learn the base before you can shake anything loose.

BTW, have you any responses for the points I made yesterday? If you can clear those up, I've got at least few dozen more for you.

And while you're at it: can you please explain why you more or less accept C-dating, but not similar methods which are identical in principle, but only use different isotopes which have longer half-lives? If anything C-dating is less accurate, as carbon is a lot more subject to contamination. It's frustrating...kind of like accepting the concept that that 2% of 1000 is 20, while rejecting that 2% of 1,000,000,000 is 20,000,000!

If you'd like an example of primary lit...comparing multiple lines of evidence to refine the chronology of geologically recent stratigraphic sequences, and ultimately used to construct a clearer model for the deglaciation of New England some 12,000 years ago:

http://depts.washington.edu/cosmolab..._Littleton.pdf

There's even some discussion of C14 dating problems for ya.