RE: ICR's Acts and Facts for Dec 2005

I didn't read the entire article but the following gem struck me: "Another
gas which could be used for this calculation is argon. It is produced by the
decay of uranium in the rocks of the earth." Huh? That's not even a type;
it's just dead wrong.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dr. David Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 4:58 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: ICR's Acts and Facts for Dec 2005

> Larry vardiman has an article on hurricanes. Using regression
> analysis,
> he shows a trend in these over the period 1840 to 2005. My
> skeptical
> self asked if he preselected the data (all canes exceeding 39 MPH) to
> fit
> his desired results. Maybe not. But the analysis is that of a 1st
> year
> undergraduate student, at best. At my college, Carnegie Tech, I
> would
> guess it would get a C- as a first semester physics project. You may
> want
> to check it out on the ICR web site and see if you agree.
>
If this is it,
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=view&ID=33

there's a typo that would interest Freud, in addition to the bogus
science. (Foram skeletons are actually called tests, so you can guess
what the web page has.) I have no idea how he selected the isotopic
data to get the curve shown, but it doesn't match the actual isotopic
record.

It also seems to neglect the fact that sea surface temperature is not
uniform globally, though I don't think this affects the argument.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections Building
Department of Biological Sciences
Biodiversity and Systematics
University of Alabama, Box 870345
Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345  USA