Has Kristen Uncovered More Inconvenient Truths?

[Pythagorean]

Your source is written by a seismologist and at the very least he is careless. It is possible he knows something about paleontology, but he talks about Paul Koch and David Fisher at U Mich.
Sorry, there is no David Fisher at U Mich. That is likely Daniel C. Fisher, the tusk expert/geologist/paleontologist there.

You may have a bias against him, I didn't pick up that Fisher was from U of Mich, here's the direct quote of the sentence, I can see how you misinterpreted it:

David Fisher and Paul Koch of the University of Michigan

Is that the only discredit you had for him?

What is the state of the research on mammoths/mastodons in Alaska I wonder? It was largely unglaciated at the LGM.

I must admit I'm not that interested in extinction or mammoths so I have little exposure to the state of research. I'm largely here (in this discussion) to study the AGW debate itself, and how people argue about science that's polluted with politics. I have made no real conclusions myself, but I do probe with an argument occasionally to study people's motives.

When was the last time it erupted, and what type of volcano is it? (I find it interesting).

I'm not sure. I'm studying data from January of this year. I'm not a volcanologist (nor do I want to be) I'm just a physics undergrad taking any physics job I can get. I'm more interested in the wave analysis (being able to identify and filter digital signals via techniques like Fourier transform and wavelet analysis) because it's a powerful tool that carried into many different fields of physics.

Even the group I work with aren't really volcanologists, they're an infrasound group. The volcanologists probably use our data though and we collaborate with them.

this is the cite to see for Mt. Erebus:
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/mevo/mevo.html

searching for "mammoth hunting" only brings up one article (the one you cited) on humans and hunting. That's a good site. I've read some of Ned Rozell's stuff.

I just meant to look up 'mammoth' for general info, wasn't really pushing the extinction by human hunting point. As I said before, there's no doubt harsh weather contributed too. I really can't say which was more significant, but cold weather is in every square foot during the winter (at least); humans only occupy about three square feet each, so It's not beyond my reasoning that weather was more significant.

 

[Andre]

We could blame it all on science itself. Without the satellites with their impressive data and the technology to study ice cores, we would be sitting around with nothing to do.

I'm very grateful for the ice core studies etc It helps us to understand that the world is completely different.

People have always been skeptical of new science, especially scientists. But I do see your point, if AGW turns out to be a false alarm, people may feel that science has betrayed them.

That's the idea. BTW For a lot of people, including me, that "if" is a "when".

We have used fossil fuels for over two hundred years. If there is no incentive to find clean energy, it won't be found. Remember the old saying: "Necessity is the Mother of Invention".

But you need true necessity not a red herring or it will backfire. remember that the Margaret Thatcher approach of Global warming was to push nuclear energy and get rid of the coal riots. Energy security is the name of the game. You don't want to become hostage of instable energy source regions

I don't see a dire energy crisis unless the conversion to new energy sources is manipulated by unscrupulous people.

Here in Europe we are working very hard on it. Highly inefficient wind turbines, three times less effective at best, have priority above all. I still wonder if their life cycle is long enough to produce the energy that was required to build, maintain and decommision them. Nuclear reactors, the only hope of adequate future energy, are still phased out. Carbon taxes will cripple the economy further.

 

[Pythagorean]

But you need true necessity not a red herring or it will backfire. remember that the Margaret Thatcher approach of Global warming was to push nuclear energy and get rid of the coal riots. Energy security is the name of the game. You don't want to become hostage of instable energy source regions

This points is absolutely valid, but don't you think it would be damaging the other way too. If AGW had some significance and the oil companies knew it and fought it vehemently?

I guess the difference is that we really know that we need oil, so we'll still buy from the oil companies even if we don't like them. The public can chose to ignore scientists because not everyone sees the benefits of having them. In fact, many people already don't like science as it is, but practically everybody needs oil (myself included).

 

[NileQueen]

P:You may have a bias against him, I didn't pick up that Fisher was from U of Mich, here's the direct quote of the sentence, I can see how you misinterpreted it:

Quote:
David Fisher and Paul Koch of the University of Michigan
P:Is that the only discredit you had for him?

I don't have a bias against him; I don't know him. If "David Fisher" is not
from U Mich. then the author needs to tell where he is from. The fact that Daniel C. Fisher IS at U Mich. AND has worked on this study seems to demonstrate that the author was careless.P: I must admit I'm not that interested in extinction or mammoths so I have little exposure to the state of research. I'm largely here (in this discussion) to study the AGW debate itself, and how people argue about science that's polluted with politics. I have made no real conclusions myself, but I do probe with an argument occasionally to study people's motives.

The quest for truth is a challenge.P: this is the cite to see for Mt. Erebus:
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/mevo/mevo.html

Looks like a great link, but appears to be under construction.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't have a bias against him; I don't know him. If "David Fisher" is not
from U Mich. then the author needs to tell where he is from. The fact that Daniel C. Fisher IS at U Mich. AND has worked on this study seems to demonstrate that the author was careless.

I'm assuming because it's a local forum and Daniel C. Fisher is already known for his interactions with the local scientists.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF15/1545.html's where it brings up that he's a Glaciologist from Canada.

He's with the http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/glaciology/national/activities_e.php" :