• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arctic Cold Smashes October Records in the West, Plains

Threegoofs said:
Hilarious.

You ask ‘what scientist has ever said “x”’, (implying no one has ever said it) and when you get the name, you complain that he actually said “x”.
Click to expand...
Not at all, I know what Hawking said, but I also know that even an alarmist like Michael Mann said,
"Hawking is taking some rhetorical license here," Michael Mann
Click to expand...
 
Surface Detail said:
Sigh. This is Glitch's post that I was replying to:



Note the name of his second source :roll:
Click to expand...

Nice try, but that is a DIFFERENT paper from the one YOU posted, which Glitch NEVER posted:

YOU posted,

The Flooded Earth: Our Future in a World Without Ice Caps

Glitch posted,

Rivers in Time

===

This is your FIRST reply to me at post 296:

That's Glitch's source, Peter D. Ward, speaking, not me. Note the quote marks.
Click to expand...

It was made obvious that YOU referred to a non existent quote of a paper that Glitch didn't post at all. I can see that there were TWO references to Peter D. Ward, but Glitch posted one report you posted a DIFFERENT Peter D, Ward report, the one I initially responded to and have keep pointing this out to you, the one Glitch never posted at all.

and your second one at post 314:

Those are the words of Glitch's source, whose name is Peter D Ward. I have merely quoted them. Good grief, talking to you folk is like wading through syrup!
Click to expand...

Never once disputed Glitch source of a Peter D. Ward report, the problem YOU have is that you posted a DIFFERENT Peter D. Ward report that glitch never wrote about. That is the one I have been talking about over and over, of which you have yet to acknowledge.

Back at post 294, I made this reply to that report YOU posted, the one Glitch NEVER mentioned at all:

The Antarctica ice caps are waaaay too cold for it to fully melt away, not even close to that possibility.

The Arctic ice cap is mostly FLOATING in the ocean waters already, therefore little sea level rise is possible from those two regions.

Don't continue to embarrass yourself over this overblown sea level babble.
Click to expand...

Going to make another foolish evasive reply here fella?
 
Glitch said:
You are quick to dismiss Dr. Pardee. He was the one who discovered the mechanism that created the Channeled Scablands, not Dr. Bretz. Looks like you are guilty of doing precisely what you accuse other scientists of doing to Dr. Bretz. Perhaps if Dr. Bretz had actually found the source for his mysterious massive flood he might have been taken more seriously. It isn't science unless the theory has been tested. By claiming it was caused by massive flooding and then provide nothing to support that assertion is worthy of mockery, because that isn't science.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Pardee would not want people trying to smooth over the fact that the scientists who mocked Bretz's claims 'for scientific reasons' were themselves all wet.

Bretz's critics remind me of the scientific geniuses who came up with the idea that the Colorado River sliced through the Grand Canyon beginning at the Kaibab 5,000 feet above the river headquarters. That is not very bright.
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
Yes, I know what the Carboniferous era is. But what has that got to do with my supposed political lean?
Click to expand...
Post #384, you said,
The people who research ancient climates are called paleoclimatologists. Their number includes one Michael E. Mann, and virtually all of them subscribe to the AGW consensus.
Click to expand...
implying that the study of ancient climates was something new, it has been around since long before the AGW crises.
FYI, Michael Mann is not a paleoclimatologists by training, I think his PhD is in Physics, and only moved into climate related
research in the last year of his PhD program.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Nice try, but that is a DIFFERENT paper from the one YOU posted, which Glitch NEVER posted:

YOU posted,

The Flooded Earth: Our Future in a World Without Ice Caps

Glitch posted,

Rivers in Time

===

This is your FIRST reply to me at post 296:



It was made obvious that YOU referred to a non existent quote of a paper that Glitch didn't post at all. I can see that there were TWO references to Peter D. Ward, but Glitch posted one report you posted a DIFFERENT Peter D, Ward report, the one I initially responded to and have keep pointing this out to you, the one Glitch never posted at all.

and your second one at post 314:



Never once disputed Glitch source of a Peter D. Ward report, the problem YOU have is that you posted a DIFFERENT Peter D. Ward report that glitch never wrote about. That is the one I have been talking about over and over, of which you have yet to acknowledge.

Back at post 294, I made this reply to that report YOU posted, the one Glitch NEVER mentioned at all:



Going to make another foolish reply there fella?
Click to expand...

LOL.

In other words, if Glitch didn’t post it, it doesn’t actually exist.

Brilliance.

I can see why WUWT values your contributions.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

In other words, if Glitch didn’t post it, it doesn’t actually exist.

Brilliance.

I can see why WUWT values your contributions.
Click to expand...

No I never said that at all, I made that clear with these statements:

It was made obvious that YOU referred to a non existent quote of a paper that Glitch didn't post at all. I can see that there were TWO references to Peter D. Ward, but Glitch posted one report you posted a DIFFERENT Peter D, Ward report, the one I initially responded to and have keep pointing this out to you, the one Glitch never posted at all.
Click to expand...

and,

Never once disputed Glitch source of a Peter D. Ward report, the problem YOU have is that you posted a DIFFERENT Peter D. Ward report that glitch never wrote about. That is the one I have been talking about over and over, of which you have yet to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

You are a pathetic liar since I acknowledged Peter D. Ward TWO different reports existence,

Surface Detail posted,

The Flooded Earth: Our Future in a World Without Ice Caps

Glitch posted,

Rivers in Time
Click to expand...

but Glitch only posted ONE of them, the other was posted by Surface Detail, that is the point I keep pointing out over and over, you guys have serious reading comprehension problems.....
 
marke said:
I'm sure Pardee would not want people trying to smooth over the fact that the scientists who mocked Bretz's claims 'for scientific reasons' were themselves all wet.

Bretz's critics remind me of the scientific geniuses who came up with the idea that the Colorado River sliced through the Grand Canyon beginning at the Kaibab 5,000 feet above the river headquarters. That is not very bright.
Click to expand...

It was Dr. Pardee that did all the work. Dr. Bretz originated the idea, then did nothing to test his theory. Anyone can have an idea. That doesn't make it science. It becomes science when the hypothesis is actually tested, like what Dr. Pardee did.

Imagine if Edwin Hubble had announced in 1922 that the Andromeda Nebula was actually a galaxy more than 2.5 million light years away and offered nothing to support his assertion. He would have been mocked by the entire scientific community, just like Dr. Bretz announcing his cataclysmic flood. However Dr. Hubble was able to test his hypothesis by using red shift to approximate the distance. Instead of being made a mockery for not having any evidence to support his theory, he was hailed as a hero for opening up a universe we never knew existed until he discovered it.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
It was Dr. Pardee that did all the work. Dr. Bretz originated the idea, then did nothing to test his theory. Anyone can have an idea. That doesn't make it science. It becomes science when the hypothesis is actually tested, like what Dr. Pardee did.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase for your benefit. Dozens of reputable scientists mocked Dr. Pardee's claim that a massive flood from a gigantic dam break formed the Channeled Scablands. However, it turned out the scientific arguments from the scientific community were wrong, just like so many other arguments. Scientists have also proposed the theory that the normal flow of the Colorado River was responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon. That is another bad theory adopted by too many who do not think the thing through. The Colorado River could not possibly have cut through the Kaibab which was situated 5,000 feet about the river headwaters.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Nice try, but that is a DIFFERENT paper from the one YOU posted, which Glitch NEVER posted:

YOU posted,

The Flooded Earth: Our Future in a World Without Ice Caps

Glitch posted,

Rivers in Time

===

This is your FIRST reply to me at post 296:



It was made obvious that YOU referred to a non existent quote of a paper that Glitch didn't post at all. I can see that there were TWO references to Peter D. Ward, but Glitch posted one report you posted a DIFFERENT Peter D, Ward report, the one I initially responded to and have keep pointing this out to you, the one Glitch never posted at all.

and your second one at post 314:



Never once disputed Glitch source of a Peter D. Ward report, the problem YOU have is that you posted a DIFFERENT Peter D. Ward report that glitch never wrote about. That is the one I have been talking about over and over, of which you have yet to acknowledge.

Back at post 294, I made this reply to that report YOU posted, the one Glitch NEVER mentioned at all:



Going to make another foolish evasive reply here fella?
Click to expand...

You really aren't getting this, are you? I know it's a different paper (actually, book). That's the whole sodding point!

Glitch cited Peter D. Ward as a source for his information about ancient climates. One therefore assumes that he regards Peter D. Ward as a reliable source of information. I therefore directed him towards a different book by Peter D. Ward in which he gives his opinion on AGW, which pretty much coincides with the consensus opinion. My implied question was that if he trusts Peter D. Ward on the former topic, why does he not trust him on the latter topic?

Is this really so difficult to understand. Perhaps I should use shorter, more direct sentences in future!
 
Surface Detail said:
You really aren't getting this, are you? I know it's a different paper (actually, book). That's the whole sodding point!

Glitch cited Peter D. Ward as a source for his information about ancient climates. One therefore assumes that he regards Peter D. Ward as a reliable source of information. I therefore directed him towards a different book by Peter D. Ward in which he gives his opinion on AGW, which pretty much coincides with the consensus opinion. My implied question was that if he trusts Peter D. Ward on the former topic, why does he not trust him on the latter topic?

Is this really so difficult to understand. Perhaps I should use shorter, more direct sentences in future!
Click to expand...

It won’t matter.

Honesty and understanding is not what Tommy is ever going for.
 
Surface Detail said:
No, I don't consider Hawking a climate expert (though I'm sure he understood a lot more that Glitch about the topic). I was simply disproving Glitch's assertion that Hawking never compared Earth to Venus.
Click to expand...

You need to be candid for a moment here- do you honestly believe Hawking was serious when he said that the Earth would end up in a greenhouse hell like Venus if the US left the Paris Accords? Yes or no.
 
Glitch said:
It was Dr. Pardee that did all the work. Dr. Bretz originated the idea, then did nothing to test his theory. Anyone can have an idea. That doesn't make it science. It becomes science when the hypothesis is actually tested, like what Dr. Pardee did.

Imagine if Edwin Hubble had announced in 1922 that the Andromeda Nebula was actually a galaxy more than 2.5 million light years away and offered nothing to support his assertion. He would have been mocked by the entire scientific community, just like Dr. Bretz announcing his cataclysmic flood. However Dr. Hubble was able to test his hypothesis by using red shift to approximate the distance. Instead of being make a mockery for not having any evidence to support his theory, he was hailed as a hero for opening up a universe we never knew existed until he discovered it.
Click to expand...

I have to dispute this because Harlan Bretz did a lot more than that, as shown here at Hugefloods.com
Bretz’s brief stint at the U. of W. prompted him to explore the landscape of the Columbia Basin of eastern Washington. What he observed intrigued him—and then amazed him.

The massive Dry Falls complex of abandoned waterfalls in Grand Coulee drew his attention, as did what appeared to be potholes in the streambeds of Quincy Basin. For several years he painstakingly explored this strange countryside, often accompanied by his students during summer breaks from his teaching duties. This was the era before GPS devices, quality aerial photos, high-tech measuring devices, computer simulations, pocket calculators—or even paved roads in much of the Columbia Basin.

SCABLANDS AND THE “SPOKANE FLOOD”

The more he trudged the scablands and coulees, the more evidence he gathered. Granite boulders in Quincy Basin that didn’t belong there because granite is not native to the region. Other “erratic” boulders in the Columbia River Gorge. So-called “hanging valleys” which defied the geologic principal that streams flow together at uniform elevations. Gravel bars at places and elevations where normal erosion processes would not have deposited them. Finally, the scablands lacked the drainage patterns common to valleys created by gradual erosion.
Click to expand...

It was Bretz who actually visited the many areas of Eastern Washington, I have seen them too as I live at the Southern part of it. The scablands appearance was obviously caused by floods over a large area. He PUBLISHED a paper in 1923:

In research papers published in 1923 Bretz concluded that the scablands were channels, and not valleys. [Hence his name the “channeled scablands.”] The crazy network of channels, buttes, and canyons in the Columbia Basin could only have been a flood conduit. In addition, the only way these out-of-place “erratic” boulders could have been moved hundreds of miles was to have floated there in rafts of glacial ice. For that to happen the water must have been deep, fast-flowing, and in immense volumes.
Click to expand...
 
then in 1927:

THE 1927 CONFRONTATION

The controversy erupted in 1927 when Bretz delivered a presentation to the Geological Society of Washington, D.C. The audience was packed with eminent geologists who were prepared to disagree. Bretz stated his conclusions—and his reservations. His theory was denounced as “preposterous” and “incompetent”. Regrettably, then—and for years after—many of Bretz’s opponents never bothered to visit the scablands, or even undertake a detailed analysis of the evidence he presented.
Click to expand...

It was then that Joseph T. Pardee, who was there said he knew where the SOURCE of the waters were from, his subsequent published research actually supported many of Bretz contentions of flooding in the region. It was Pardees work in MONTANA that helped show where all the water was coming from. That was made clear in 1942:

Pardee then returned to the valleys of western Montana. He added two vital pieces of evidence. One was his calculation of the flood volumes and velocities associated with a catastrophic emptying of Lake Missoula by taking measurements at Eddy Narrows, on the Clark Fork River east of Thompson Falls. Second was his analysis of a cluster of hills in the Camas Prairie near Hot Springs, Mont. Until viewed from the air they had not been recognized for what they were—giant ripple marks that could only have been formed by powerful currents of fast-flowing water. Pardee’s new information was presented in 1940 and published in 1942.
Click to expand...

Even then most Geologists of the day still resisted the obvious, it was until the late 1950's that most of Bretz's work was valid, this was because they finally got their asses into the field to see what Harlan had known for 35 years:

By the mid-1950s Bretz’s interpretations could no longer be ignored. Increasingly, geologists decided to visit the scablands region to see for themselves. Astonished by the sheer magnitude of the flood features at places such as Palouse Falls, Wash., long-time critic James Gilluly commented: “How could anyone have been so wrong.” The report of a 1965 geologists’ tour concluded that Bretz had been right.
Click to expand...

It was Dr. Bretz who did most of the FIELD work, while Pardee supported (20 years later) the flood concept, in his field work in Montana.
 
Surface Detail said:
Yes, your approach of assuming that almost all scientists are simply government propagandists following some party line (and keeping it all secret) is rather different to mine. I tend to assume that they are actually, you know, doing science.
Click to expand...

You tell me that it is the registered Climate Scientists[SUP]TM[/SUP] who were the ones who found out that it had been warmer in the past and I talk about how it was know to have been so before there were any such things as climate scientists.

Then you say I am the one with the wrong view of the history of science.

Some of us have memories.
 
Sunsettommy said:
It was Dr. Bretz who did most of the FIELD work, while Pardee supported (20 years later) the flood concept, in his field work in Montana.
Click to expand...
What field work? Other than his one non-scientific paper published in 1923, that did not include a source for his cataclysmic flood and therefore could not be tested, what field work did he publish? Dr. Pardee did the footwork required, he obtained the evidence in order to substantiate Dr. Bretz's claim. In my opinion Dr. Pardee deserves most of the credit for doing the hard work. Dr. Bretz publish one unsubstantiated paper and made a bunch of field trips to various sites.
 
PoS said:
You need to be candid for a moment here- do you honestly believe Hawking was serious when he said that the Earth would end up in a greenhouse hell like Venus if the US left the Paris Accords? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

I think he was being serious - his subsequent comments didn't give the impression he was joking - but as I stated, Hawking was not an expert in climatology. Nevertheless, it is not impossible that failure to curb greenhouse gas emissions could, if we are extremely unlucky, ultimately lead to Venus-like conditions on Earth. Very unlikely, but not impossible.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You tell me that it is the registered Climate Scientists[SUP]TM[/SUP] who were the ones who found out that it had been warmer in the past and I talk about how it was know to have been so before there were any such things as climate scientists.

Then you say I am the one with the wrong view of the history of science.

Some of us have memories.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about "registered Climate Scientists". Stop making things up.
 
Surface Detail said:
I think he was being serious - his subsequent comments didn't give the impression he was joking - but as I stated, Hawking was not an expert in climatology. Nevertheless, it is not impossible that failure to curb greenhouse gas emissions could, if we are extremely unlucky, ultimately lead to Venus-like conditions on Earth. Very unlikely, but not impossible.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. If Hawking was being serious then his motor disease obviously caught up to his brain. There is no conceivable scenario that AGW by itself can somehow turn the Earth into another Venus even up to a thousand years from now.
 
Surface Detail said:
I never said anything about "registered Climate Scientists". Stop making things up.
Click to expand...

How else would you describe a list according to Wiki of scientists who are on it only if they agree with the doctrine even if they have published many papers on climate but those don't agree with the doom?
 
Tim the plumber said:
How else would you describe a list according to Wiki of scientists who are on it only if they agree with the doctrine even if they have published many papers on climate but those don't agree with the doom?
Click to expand...

The fact that these scientists appear in a list on Wikipedia does not make them "registered climate scientists", whatever that is supposed to mean. You are aware, aren't you, that Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopaedia, not some official registry service?
 
Glitch said:
What field work? Other than his one non-scientific paper published in 1923, that did not include a source for his cataclysmic flood and therefore could not be tested, what field work did he publish? Dr. Pardee did the footwork required, he obtained the evidence in order to substantiate Dr. Bretz's claim. In my opinion Dr. Pardee deserves most of the credit for doing the hard work. Dr. Bretz publish one unsubstantiated paper and made a bunch of field trips to various sites.
Click to expand...

Oh my!

You are showing your ignorance of his research and field work.

Here is the 1923 paper you never read, that describes many flooding features in it.

From the Journal of Geology

The Channeled Scablands of the Columbia Plateau

LINK

By then Bretz had done most of the FIELD in Eastern Washington work showing abundant evidence of massive floods, his second paper published in 1928, shows numerous PHOTOS of the flooding effect features:

The Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington

LINK

Meanwhile Pardee published NOTHING by 1928 about Eastern Washington, not a dam thing!

Bretz was the one who found most of the flooding evidence, since they were found by doing FIELD work. Harlan didn't know where the flood waters originated, he had initially though it was near the Spokane area, but it was Pardee's main contribution that it originated in Montana region.

Pardee's main contribution was about the SOURCE of the flood waters, which he found to be in Montana region, because that is where he did his FIELD work in. He has ZERO field research experience in Eastern Washington, that was done by

Harlan Bretz who published a number of papers and photo's of what he saw.
 
Surface Detail said:
The fact that these scientists appear in a list on Wikipedia does not make them "registered climate scientists", whatever that is supposed to mean. You are aware, aren't you, that Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopaedia, not some official registry service?
Click to expand...

A list that can be modified by anybody but obviously the side with the many paid handsa on the keys and the organisation of a cult will win and delete your name should you be on the other side.
 
PoS said:
Ridiculous. If Hawking was being serious then his motor disease obviously caught up to his brain. There is no conceivable scenario that AGW by itself can somehow turn the Earth into another Venus even up to a thousand years from now.
Click to expand...

It is not likely, and it would take a lot longer than 1,000 years, but it is not completely impossible. There are plausible scenarios in which a massive release of methane (the so-called clathrate gun hypothesis) could indeed trigger sufficient warming to result in a runaway effect. Most climate scientists don't think it is likely, but it hasn't been completely ruled out.

P.S. It's called motor neurone disease.
 
Tim the plumber said:
A list that can be modified by anybody but obviously the side with the many paid handsa on the keys and the organisation of a cult will win and delete your name should you be on the other side.
Click to expand...

Once again, the Wikipedia list I cited is not a list of "registered" climate scientists! I've no idea why you would think such a thing :shrug: I have never claimed is this list is indicative of anything at all. If you wish to cite a palaeoclimatologist who is not on the list, please be my guest.
 
Joseph Thomas Pardee and the Spokane Flood Controversy
GSA Today v.5. no. 9, September 1995

From HERE:

ABSTRACT
Joseph Thomas Pardee (1871-1960) played a key role in the Spokane Flood controversy, in which the cataclysmic flood origins of the Channeled Scabland were intensely debated during the decades of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Pardee first drew attention to glacial Lake Missoula in 1910. He suggested it to J Harlen Bretz as a source of the cataclysmic flooding, just prior to Bretz's famous presentation of the flood hypothesis to the January 12, 1927, meeting of the Washington Academy of Sciences. Though Pardee did not publicly advocate the cataclysmic flood hypothesis, his 1940 revelation of the evidence for rapid draining of glacial Lake Missoula, including giant current ripples and immense flood bars, proved to play a pivotal role in the eventual acceptance of the cataclysmic flooding hypothesis by the scientific community.
Click to expand...

bolding mine

Pardee's main contribution:
The year was 1910. In that same year Pardee (1910) described the geomorphological evidence for a great glacial lake occupying the intermontane basins of western Montana during the late Pleistocene. He described the prominent strandlines of the lake Fig.1 and the evidence for lake impoundment behind a glacial lobe in the basin of modern Lake Pend Oreille in northern Idaho. These relations were well known. Pardee (1910, p. 376) even credited T. C. Chamberlin with the discovery of the lake strandlines: "Chamberlin conceived the idea of a glacial dam and furthermore tentatively suggested that its location was in the Pend Oreille region with outflow by way of Spokane." The glacial lake was named for Missoula, Montana, where its strandlines were particularly prominent (Fig. 1).
Click to expand...

and,
The eighth speaker in the session was Joseph Thomas Pardee, who rose to speak on "Ripple Marks(?) in Glacial Lake Missoula.' The modest title and the low-key delivery were deceiving. Pardee quietly described the "ripple marks" at Calllas Prairie Fig.2, an intermontane basin in northwestern Montana. He described their size as "extraordinary," heights of up to 15 m and spacings of as much as 150 m (Pardee, 1940). His written discussion (Pardee, 1942) also had an understated title, "Unusual Currents in Lake Missoula." His work, dating back to before Bretz's studies, clearly demonstrated that Lake Missoula was the source of catastrophic floods through the Channeled Scabland. He noted that about 2000 km3 of water were held in the lake. Moreover, the glacial dam impounding this lake had clearly failed suddenly, with a resultant rapid draining of the lake. Evidence for this failure included severely scoured constrictions in the lake basin, huge bars of current-transported debris Fig.3, and the giant current ripple marks. However, Pardee (1942) did not state the connection to the Channeled Scabland. Perhaps he generously left that point to Bretz.
Click to expand...

Over and over his main work was to show that LAKE MISSOULA was the source of the flood waters, which was in Montana region that Pardee did most of his field work in. He did next to nothing about Eastern Washington itself, that was done by Bretz and others who actually been there and publish about it.

It is clear that Bretz main research in FIELD work was in EASTERN WASHINGTON backed by several published papers, while it is clear that Pardee's main research in FIELD work was in the Montana/Idaho region, backed by a SINGLE paper published in 1942.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom