Sounds great to me. But you seemed a little bit on your high horse when you first suggested that I was a troll for talking about global cooling from volcanoes and their ash.
Your outlandish claim (i.e. extraordinary without any substantial evidence backing it up) made me feel you were just teasing or not taking discussions seriously, but I agree I could've been a bit less aggressive when pointing that aspect. I'm a bit cynical with non-bitcoin discussion in this forum after seeing notbatman. So my bad if I was aggressive.
I guess we all know that Wikipedia allows trolls to place info into their pages.
English Wikipedia is well moderated especially for more scientific articles so I'd argue they are trustworthy as long as they link their sources, which happened on the section you mentioned. I wouldn't think there are lies in there.
So, maybe GC from volcanoes isn't true.
I feel this claim is a product of two misunderstandings.
The first is that when we're talking about global cooling, i.e. a trend of decreasing temperature, a punctual event isn't useful. It may affect weather (short term) conditions, but as the years elapse its effects will be slowly reserved. Volcanic-related global cooling has already happened on Earth's history (a geology paper that backs my claim but uses a lot of jargon).
The second is that our current geological setting does not indicate widespread volcanic activity (the last moment such was the case was the breakthrough of Pangea, some 180 million years ago.. In general we can say the tectonic plates shift between moments of intense volcanism and moments of intense mountain-building and we're kinda somewhere in between those.
And maybe other sites that say similar things in more detail got their info from Wikipedia. But the same for global warming. I mean, if you can't tell the difference between fake news and real news, how do you determine anything when it is this huge of a topic?
That's an excellent question. My answer for that would be: the consensual explanation of specialists who back their claim on scientific evidence. And if that isn't enough, then I'd go and skim through the scientific articles myself. And if that is not enough either, I'd go and read their methodologies & results while ignoring their conclusions. But that third step is mostly reserved for academic purposes. What about you?
I see loads of your opinions in there^^. But since you like picking on someone for simply stating what an article of the popular Wikipedia encyclopedia says, this is a good way to get some posts in. Talk all day long about if there is any fake news around or not, re-define all kinds of stuff we are talking about, and make it all sound like you are saying something. More words. More posts. Great. That's what we are here for. A forum, right?
