Search This Blog

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Moonbattery - requires no charge

See below, my newest addition to the blogrolls!

December 31, 2009

What the State-Run Lamestream Media Missed in 2009

Posted by The MaryHunter at 11:12 AM | Comments (3)


Fox News has earned the right to crow about nine top stories of 2009 that you would have never heard of -- if CNN, MSNBC, HLN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the rest of the MSM had been your sole source for news propaganda. was there too:

Van Jones -- a damn commie in damn commie's Czar House.

ACORN Tapes -- a lesson in how not to community organize child trafficking and prostitution.

Science Czar John Holdren -- eugenics made easy.

ClimateGate -- new dictionary listing under "hoax."

Politicizing the NEA -- but, it's art.

Chas Freeman -- because having a bin Laden associate in the Obama Administration would be real cool.

Tea Party and 9/12 March on Washington Protests -- a few thousand, tops.

Kevin Jennings, Safe Schools Czar -- because pedophiles and perverts are people, too.

Democratic Stimulus -- porkulus bucks for everything from sex studies to dead folks went 2 to 1 toward Democrat districts.


With ratings for Fox News Channel and conservative talk radio ramping up with no sign of a slowdown, we can expect more news that isn't fit to print in the New York Times from these alternative outlets.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

One great soldier for freedom gone...RIP Bonnie! The rest of us must carry on...

In Memoriam

The Northwest Indiana Patriots have lost a loved and valuable member of our family.

Bonnie Kuzminski

Bonnie Jean Kuzminski was a loving, faithful wife and devoted mother. For the past year, she served as the volunteer secretary for the Northwest Indiana Patriots. Bonnie passed away December 23, 2009, at the age of 60. She is survived by her husband, Gary, son and daughter, Steven and Kimberley, and grandchildren, Christian and Nicholas.

Bonnie was the motor driving the NWIPs. She authored every post on this blog, and wrote or co-wrote every email blast and newsletter ever sent out by the NWIPs. She helped organize, set up and run our events. She opened her home for an NWIP yard sale. Bonnie did all this – while receiving zero compensation – because she believed in the principles of limited government and fiscal and individual responsibility. She did all she could to help preserve liberty for her fellow citizens.

Bonnie recently related the story of how she came to be associated with the NWIPs. Like many of us, she was frustrated with the political direction of our nation. Also like many of us, she felt alone in her frustration, seeing no outlet or opportunity to have an effect. Then the Tea Party movement began, and news came of a Tax Day Tea Party in Valparaiso. Bonnie and Gary went, excited at the possibilities, but unsure of what would come of it. Would anyone show up? Would it just be 5 people gathered to say goodbye to our founding principles?

Bonnie found herself surrounded by hundreds of like-minded Patriots. People who felt just as she did. People who shared her frustrations and hungered to make a difference. And she was confronted with something new and exciting – opportunity. Bonnie seized that opportunity and never let go. She found a second home in the Patriots, and she was very proud to stand with all of you. She was so dedicated that she continued to post and email right up until the very week of her passing. Her example is an inspiration.

As we mourn Bonnie’s death, we must celebrate her successes. The NWIPs and the Tea Party movement have grown beyond what she initially thought possible. Locally, Bonnie was on the streets every day in the runup to the November referendum on the RTA, raising awareness and getting people to register and vote. The people of Porter County responded with a resounding 4-to-1 rejection of the RTA.

Nationally, the Tea Party movement halted the rush to pass a federal takeover of healthcare, though there is still much to do on that front. Another economy killer, Cap & Trade, has stalled. She marched in Washington, D.C. on 9/12. The political landscape of our nation has changed greatly this past year, and Bonnie was very much a part of that.

Bonnie’s greatest successes, though, were with her family. She was utterly devoted and always faithful to her husband, Gary. She provided the example for her daughter to raise a beautiful family of her own. She sustained her son, Steven, through an accident that left him with paralysis, giving him the strength, knowledge and support he would often need but never lack, thanks to her.

We love you, Bonnie. You will be sorely missed. We will honor you by continuing your fight.

Bonnie Kuzminski Marches on DC

Bonnie Kuzminski
July 14, 1949 – December 23, 2009

Mark Leyva's Information Blast

Prepare For Rebellion, Obama Orders US-Canadian Troops

White House picks new cyber coordinator


Thousands May Incorrectly Be Using Stimulus Tax Breaks

Letter to Editor: Please leave comments
Amnesty has absolutely no benefit to American citizens

This is an incredible painting by Jon McNaughton, Notice Jesus Christ in the center with all his garments also explained. Jesus is holding the U.S. Constitution.

Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill

Senators Challenge Health Care Bill Section Making Death Panels Permanent

Health bill money for hospital sought by Dodd

Medicare changes, 'Cadillac' tax complicate debt picture

Cash for Cloture

Who benefits from Senate healthcare? ACORN!

Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment issues

Nathan Myhrvold's Anti Global Warming Scheme

Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World

Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act Q&A, Parts #1

Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act Q&A, & Part #2

Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act - Part 3

Second Bill of Rights!......Smarter than Jefferson Or FDR Had The Answers?

Harder to buy US Treasuries

Defense bill comes at a price for taxpayers

GOP cuts deal on vote to raise debt

Why Is Islamberg Now a Ghost Town?

Under cover of darkness in the middle of the night they made up their rules out of our sight.

Now it’s begun it has to be done and we’ll have to like it and not try to fight it, they know what we need we must follow their lead

Forget the way it used to be now that freedom means getting things for free.

Old forms and traditions need new definitions history’s heroes have been turned into zeros their struggles and deeds now reported as greed.

And marriage no longer a man and his wife joining together producing new life, that’s called discrimination against the gay rights proclamation.

Now all that is human is seen as pollution harming the Earth they’ll make us pay what its worth.

They say, “just relax it’s just a small tax we know better than you our presumptions are true. You know you should trust us we determine the justice.”

They assure us that they will provide for our health pretending that they are protecting our wealth, but they’re taking us hostage and our children in bondage

Expanding the debt with little regret making deals being chummy with other people’s money paying off special interest that’s political incest.

They think we won’t notice they ignore our protests they think we won’t fight to recover our rights they’ve made a mistake freedom is not theirs to take.

Let us join and make a pact to take our country back for the solution read the Constitution.

by Debbie (wife of Radar), 12-22-09

Friday, December 25, 2009

A belated Key Largo Christmas to you and yours!

First, Merry Christmas to one and all! A bit late, but I was not well today and I also had something negative to say. But thank you God for making all things and making me and then providing for me a place with You for all time and beyond!

I love good movies! I could begin naming good movies and just go on and on and on. But most of the movies I really love were made long ago and often before I was even born. "Bringing Up Baby" is a hilarious romantic farce. "It Happened One Night" is a romantic comedy with tons of sex appeal even though no one gets naked or anything like that on the screen. In fact I think the sexiest movie of all time," To Have And Have Not", is a good example of romance and sex appeal and yet everyone keeps their clothes on. It was the first movie pairing Bogart and Bacall and also a boat and a few other wonderful actors, including the remarkable Walter Brennan.

Humphrey Bogart was the star of one of my absolute favorite movies ever, "Casablanca." The studio didn't realize what a fantastic hit it would be but it has become one of the all-time favorites of movie critics. Bogart's love interest in this one was Ingrid Bergman and I suppose the movie itself has become iconic. People always misquote him, Bogie does not say "Play it again, Sam" but rather he says "You played it for her, you can play it for me. Play it!"

Having discovered a formula for success, "Passage to Marseilles" with a very similar cast and premise was made but it did not compare to "Casablanca" in quality or story and was something of a flop. Perhaps Michele Morgan was too big a downgrade from Bergman? It really was not a bad movie but it has not stood the test of time as a popular classic.

On the other hand, the pairing of Bogie and Bacall was magic and they were happily married until his demise in 1957 from cancer. In the meantime, the movies loved them together and they did star in three subsequent movies, although Lauren Bacall became more involved with having children and being a mother and less concerned with career for much of their married lives together. She wrote a book about the experience of the filming of "The African Queen" as an observer, the movie that won Bogie his only academy award in an unusual role for him, a man neither tough nor hardened but rather just humbled and bored and retired from life in general. He and Hepburn made a marvelous screen couple but in real life Mrs. Bogart was there all the while, just not on the screen.

My personal interest in the movies may be in the genes. I had a great-grandfather and great-grandmother who worked in the movies as stage crew and if I remember correctly they met on a movie set...just like Bogart and Bacall...well, sort of like. By the time I was old enough to know them they were long-retired and I forget most of their stories. But there is Hoagy Carmichael, who was my Mom's second cousin if I remember correctly...a very distant relative that I never met. It just so happens that Hoagy was Cricket the piano player in "To Have And Have Not" and was an actor and famous song-writer back in the days before television. I suppose his most famous song would be "Stardust" but many people remember him for his movie appearances. My mother resembled Ida Lupino as a young woman and had a voice much like Rosemary Clooney but she chose motherhood over career and spent several decades as a local singing star rather than a Hollywood actress, which is of course much better for me. Thanks, Mom!

Anyway, Bogie and Bacall were paired in yet another movie involving a boat and drama in "Key Largo." By that time Bogart had become a huge star and although Edward G. Robinson had been a big name for a long time, Bogie got top billing and played the hero while Eddie wound up as bad guy.

The Robinson character utters these words during the movie: "You hick! I'll be back pulling strings to get guys elected mayor and governor before you ever get a 10-buck raise. Yeah, how many of those guys in office owe everything to me. I made them. Yeah, I made 'em, just like a-like a tailor makes a suit of clothes. I take a nobody, see? Teach him what to say. Get his name in the papers and pay for his campaign expenses. Dish out a lotta groceries and coal. Get my boys to bring the voters out. And then count the votes over and over again till they added up right and he was elected."

Does that sound familiar? Chicago politics goes that way. Now Chicago politicians and their compadres are in charge of the entire USA! No wonder the deficit is higher than ever, jobs are disappearing and the rotten politicians are working overtime passing laws that will give them more control over the common man and commerce. Think this is a coincidence?

I could not quite bear to post this until after midnight on Christmas. Negativity even though truth. Perhaps by next Christmas more responsible people will have been elected to both the House and the Senate and some of the damage the Obama Administration will have been undone? Now that would be a fine Christmas indeed!

And to all a good night!

Thursday, December 24, 2009

An early Christmas present - the truth about Climategate!

With a hat tip to Small Dead Animals, the awesome Canadian blog, below the fish is the article in it's entirety...required reading for those who want to understand that lump of coal the elitists wish to put in your stocking!

Oh, and another great site, Symon Sez, is now on my favorite links. You'll want to check into his blog. Simon Sez is a wonderfully eclectic blog about history, current events, the weather and, well, you should go see for yourself! Like this one concerning global warming, er, cooling....and where else will you hear the story of the man-eating Goonch?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server

By David Rose
Last updated at 4:58 PM on 13th December 2009

Hot topic: Model Helena Christensen speaking yesterday at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen

Hot topic: Model Helena Christensen speaking yesterday at the UN climate change conference

The claim was both simple and terrifying: that temperatures on planet Earth are now ‘likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years’.

As its authors from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) must have expected, it made headlines around the world.

Yet some of the scientists who helped to draft it, The Mail on Sunday can reveal, harboured uncomfortable doubts.

In the words of one, David Rind from the US space agency Nasa, it ‘looks like there were years around 1000AD that could have been just as warm’.

Keith Briffa from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which plays a key role in forming IPCC assessments, urged caution, warning that when it came to historical climate records, there was no new data, only the ‘same old evidence’ that had been around for years.

‘Let us not try to over-egg the pudding,’ he wrote in an email to an IPCC colleague in September 2006.

‘True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established.’

But when the ‘warmest for 1,300 years’ claim was published in 2007 in the IPCC’s fourth report, the doubters kept silent.

It is only now that their concerns have started to emerge from the thousands of pages of ‘Warmergate’ emails leaked last month from the CRU’s computers, along with references to performing a ‘trick’ to ‘hide’ temperature decline and instructions to resist all efforts by the CRU’s critics to use the Freedom of Information Act to check the unit’s data and conclusions.

Last week, as an official inquiry by the former civil servant Sir Muir Russell began, I tried to assess Warmergate’s wider significance.

The CRU’s supporters insisted it was limited. ‘In the long term, it will make very little difference to the scientific consensus, and to the way politicians respond to it,’ Professor Trevor Davies, the university’s Pro-Vice Chancellor and a former CRU director, told me. ‘I am certain that the science is rock solid.’

He admitted that his CRU colleagues had sometimes used ‘injudicious phrases’, but that was because they kept on being ‘diverted’ from their work by those who wished to scrutinise it. ‘It’s understandable that sometimes people get frustrated,’ he said.

The only lesson the affair had for him was that ‘we have got to get better in terms of explanation. Some scientists still find it quite it difficult to communicate with the public.’

Others, however, were less optimistic. Roger Pielke, Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, could in no sense be described as a climate change sceptic, let alone a ‘denier’.

Climate change graphic Climate change graphic enlarged

‘Human-caused climate change is real, and I’m a strong advocate for action,’ he said. ‘But I’m also a strong advocate for integrity in science.’

Pielke’s verdict on the scandal is damning.

‘These emails open up the possibility that big scientific questions we’ve regarded as settled may need another look.

'They reveal that some of these scientists saw themselves not as neutral investigators but as warriors engaged in battle with the so-called sceptics.

‘They have lost a lot of credibility and as far as their being leading spokespeople on this issue of huge public importance, there is no going back.’

Climate science is complicated, and often the only way to make sense of raw data is through sophisticated statistical computer programs.

The consequence is that most lay individuals - politicians and members of the public alike - have little choice but to take the assurances of scientists such as Davies on trust.

He and other ‘global warmists’ often insist that when it comes to the IPCC’s main conclusions - that the Earth is in a period of potentially catastrophic warming and that the main culprit is man-made greenhouse gas emission - no serious scientist dissents from the conventional view.

Hence, perhaps, Gordon Brown’s recent comment that those who disagree are ‘behind-the-times, antiscience, flat-Earth climate sceptics’.

In fact, there is a large body of highly-respected academic experts who fiercely contest this thesis: people such as Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a disillusioned former IPCC member, and Dr Tom Segalstad, head of geology at Oslo University, who has stated that ‘most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible’.

These dissenters focus their criticisms on the IPCC’s analysis of the way the atmosphere works and the models it uses to predict the future.

However, Warmergate strikes at something more fundamental - the science that justifies the basic assumption that the present warming really is unprecedented, at least in the past few thousand years.

Take the now-notorious email that the CRU’s currently suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, sent to his IPCC colleagues on November 16, 1999, when he wrote he had ‘just completed Mike’s Nature trick’ and had so managed to ‘hide the decline’.

For example, some suggest that the ‘medieval warm period’ was considerably warmer than even 1998. Of course, this is inconvenient to climate change believers because there were no cars or factories pumping out greenhouse gases in 1000AD - yet the Earth still warmed.

The CRU’s supporters have protested bitterly about the attention paid to this message. In the course of an extraordinary BBC interview in which he called an American critic an ‘****hole’ live on air, Jones’s colleague Professor Andrew Watson insisted that the fuss was completely unjustified, because all Jones had been talking about was ‘tweaking a diagram’.

Davies told me that the email had been ‘taken out of context’ adding: ‘One definition of the word “trick” is “the best way of doing something”. What Phil did was standard practice and the facts are out there in the peer-reviewed literature.’

However, the full context of that ‘trick’ email, as shown by a new and until now unreported analysis by the Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre, is extremely troubling.

Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.

There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical - and much more significant.

It is true that, in Watson’s phrase, in the autumn of 1999 Jones and his colleagues were trying to ‘tweak’ a diagram. But it wasn’t just any old diagram.

It was the chart displayed on the first page of the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ of the 2001 IPCC report - the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph that has been endlessly reproduced in everything from newspapers to primary-school textbooks ever since, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a dizzying, almost vertical rise in the late 20th Century.

There could be no simpler or more dramatic representation of global warming, and if the origin of worldwide concern over climate change could be traced to a single image, it would be the hockey stick.

Drawing a diagram such as this is far from straightforward.

Gabriel Fahrenheit did not invent the mercury thermometer until 1724, so scientists who want to reconstruct earlier climate history have to use ‘proxy data’ - measurements derived from records such as ice cores, tree-rings and growing season dates.

However, different proxies give very different results.

For example, some suggest that the ‘medieval warm period’, the 350-year era that started around 1000, when red wine grapes flourished in southern England and the Vikings tilled now-frozen farms in Greenland, was considerably warmer than even 1998.

Of course, this is inconvenient to climate change believers because there were no cars or factories pumping out greenhouse gases in 1000AD - yet the Earth still warmed.

Some tree-ring data eliminates the medieval warmth altogether, while others reflect it. In September 1999, Jones’s IPCC colleague Michael Mann of Penn State University in America - who is now also the subject of an official investigation --was working with Jones on the hockey stick. As they debated which data to use, they discussed a long tree-ring analysis carried out by Keith Briffa.

Briffa knew exactly why they wanted it, writing in an email on September 22: ‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ But his conscience was troubled. ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple - I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’

Agenda: An Iceberg projection highlighting the Copenhagen UN summit shows the high level interest in the threat of climate change - and why scientists may be desperate to prove it is man-made problem we can solve

Agenda: An Iceberg projection highlighting the Copenhagen UN summit shows the high level of political interest in climate change - and why scientists may be desperate to prove it is a man-made problem we can solve

Another British scientist - Chris Folland of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre - wrote the same day that using Briffa’s data might be awkward, because it suggested the past was too warm. This, he lamented, ‘dilutes the message rather significantly’.

Over the next few days, Briffa, Jones, Folland and Mann emailed each other furiously. Mann was fearful that if Briffa’s trees made the IPCC diagram, ‘the sceptics [would] have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith [in them] - I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!’

Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.

According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.

This is the context in which, seven

weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.

All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.

On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.

‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

Since Warmergate-broke, some of the CRU’s supporters have claimed that Jones and his colleagues made a ‘full disclosure’ of what they did to Briffa’s data in order to produce the hockey stick.

But as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’.

On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines.

By 2007, when the IPCC produced its fourth report, McIntyre had become aware of the manipulation of the Briffa data and Briffa himself, as shown at the start of this article, continued to have serious qualms.

McIntyre by now was an IPCC ‘reviewer’ and he urged the IPCC not to delete the post-1961 data in its 2007 graph. ‘They refused,’ he said, ‘stating this would be “inappropriate”.’

‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data’

Yet even this, Pielke told me, may not ultimately be the biggest consequence of Warmergate.

Some of the most controversial leaked emails concern attempts by Jones and his colleagues to avoid disclosure of the CRU’s temperature database - its vast library of readings from more than 1,000 weather stations around the world, the ultimate resource that records how temperatures have changed.

In one email from 2005, Jones warned Mann not to leave such data lying around on searchable websites, because ‘you never know who is trawling them’.

Critics such as McIntyre had been ‘after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone’.

Yesterday Davies said that, contrary to some reports, none of this data has in fact been deleted. But in the wake of the scandal, its reliability too is up for grabs.

The problem is that, just like tree rings or ice cores, readings from thermometers or electronic ‘thermistors’ are open to interpretation.

The sites of weather stations that were once open countryside become built up areas, so trapping heat, and the type of equipment used changes over time.

The result is what climate scientists call ‘inhomogeneities’ - anomalies between readings that need to be ‘adjusted’.

But can we trust the way such ‘adjustments’ are made?

Last week, an article posted on a popular climate sceptic website analysed the data from the past 130 years in Darwin, Australia.

This suggested that average temperatures had risen there by about two degrees Celsius. However, the raw data had been ‘adjusted’ in a series of abrupt upward steps by exactly the same amount: without the adjustment, the Darwin temperature record would have stayed level.

In 2007, McIntyre examined records across America. He found that between 1999 and 2007, the US equivalent of the Met Office had changed the way it adjusted old data.

The result was to make the Thirties seem cooler, and the years since 1990 much warmer. Previously, the warmest year since records began in America had been 1934.

CRU 'can't be trusted' says MP

Norman Lamb, MP

Norman Lamb

The MP whose father founded the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia says it is important that trust in the unit’s work is restored.

Liberal Democrat frontbencher Norman Lamb is the son of Professor Hubert Lamb, who was the first director of the CRU in 1971.

Under his leadership, it gained an international reputation for authoritative and ground-breaking research.

Last night, Norman Lamb, MP for North Norfolk, said: ‘My father was always very concerned that the highest possible standards were met.

'The university has done the right thing in calling for an independent investigation.

‘It is of critical importance that trust is re-established. We want truth and accuracy, both in small detail and the bigger picture.’

Prof Lamb died in 1997, aged 84.

Now, in line with CRU and IPCC orthodoxy, it was 1998.

At the CRU, said Davies, some stations’ readings were adjusted by unit and in such cases, raw and adjusted data could be compared.

But in about 90 per cent of cases, the adjustment was carried out in the countries that collected the data, and the CRU would not know exactly how this had been done.

Davies said: ‘All I can say is that the process is careful and considered. To get the details, the best way would be to go the various national meteorological services.’

The consequences of that, Stott said, may be explosive. ‘If you take Darwin, the gap between the two just looks too big.

‘If that applies elsewhere, it’s going to get really interesting. It’s no longer going to be good enough for the Met Office and CRU to put the data out there.

‘To know we can trust it, we’ve got to know what adjustments have been made, and why.’

Last week, at the Copenhagen climate summit, the Met Office said that the Noughties have been the warmest decade in history. Depending on how the data has been adjusted, Stott said, that statement may not be true.

Pielke agreed. ‘After Climategate, the surface temperature record is being called into question.’ To experts such as McIntyre and Pielke, perhaps the most baffling thing has been the near-unanimity over global warming in the world’s mainstream media - a unanimity much greater than that found among scientists.

In part, this is the result of strongarm tactics.

For example, last year the BBC environment reporter Roger Harrabin made substantial changes to an article on the corporation website that asked why global warming seemed to have stalled since 1998 - caving in to direct pressure from a climate change activist, Jo Abbess.

‘Personally, I think it is highly irresponsible to play into the hands of the sceptics who continually promote the idea that “global warming finished in 1998” when that is so patently not true,’ she told him in an email.

After a brief exchange, he complied and sent a final note: ‘Have a look in ten minutes and tell me you are happier. We have changed headline and more.’

Afterwards, Abbess boasted on her website: ‘Climate Changers, Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it’s been subject to spin or scepticism. Here’s my go for today. The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for.’

Last week, Michael Schlesinger, Professor of Atmospheric Studies at the University of Illinois, sent a still cruder threat to Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, accusing him of ‘gutter reportage’, and warning: ‘The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists ... I sense that you are about to experience the “Big Cutoff” from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.’

But in the wake of Warmergate, such threats - and the readiness to bow to them - may become rarer.

‘A year ago, if a reporter called me, all I got was questions about why I’m trying to deny climate change and am threatening the future of the planet,’ said Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University near Toronto, a long-time collaborator with McIntyre.

‘Now, I’m getting questions about how they did the hockey stick and the problems with the data.

‘Maybe the emails have started to open people’s eyes.’

Yes, emails came from here - but we didn't do it, say Russians


Tomsk: Emails were sent from this Siberian town

Russian secret service agents admitted yesterday that the hacked ‘Warmergate’ emails were uploaded on a Siberian internet server, but strenuously denied a clandestine state-sponsored operation to wreck the Copenhagen summit.

The FSB - formerly the KGB - confirmed that thousands of messages to and from scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were distributed to the world from the city of Tomsk, as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week.

Now, it has emerged that IT experts specialising in hacking techniques were brought in by the Russian authorities following this newspaper’s exposure of the Tomsk link.

They have gathered evidence about how and where the operation was carried out, although they are not prepared to say at this stage who they think was responsible.

A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation.

‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’ he said. ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done from outside Russia.’

The Kremlin’s top climate change official, Alexander Bedritsky, denied the Russian government was involved in breaking into the CRU’s computer system.

‘You can post information on a computer from any other country. It is nonsense to blame Russia,’ he said.

Read more:

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

CLIMATEGATE! (What ever happened to journalism?)

Where are the journalists? Remember how they hounded President Nixon and the aptly named members of CREEP?

Where are they now? It takes bloggers to investigate things these days, the lamestream media is too busy cranking out propaganda. Here are some blog-takes on the subject and all are linked!

Senator Steve Fielding recently asked the [Australian] Climate Change Minister Penny Wong why human emissions can be blamed for global warming, given that air temperatures peaked in 1998 and began a cooling trend in 2002, while carbon dioxide levels have risen five per cent since 1998. I was one of the four independent scientists Fielding chose to accompany him to visit the Minister.

The Minister's advisor essentially told us that short term trends in air temperatures are irrelevant, and to instead focus on the rapidly rising ocean heat content:

Figure 1: Wong's graph.

This is the new trend in climate alarmism. Previously the measure of global warming has always been air temperatures. But all the satellite data says air temperatures have been in a mild down trend starting 2002. The land thermometers preferred by the alarmists showed warming until 2006, but even they show a cooling trend developing since then.

(Land thermometers cannot be trusted because, even in the USA, 89 per cent of them fail siting guidelines that they be more than 30 meters from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source, and their data is forever being "corrected".)

Ocean temperatures were not properly measured until mid-2003, when the Argo network became operational.

Before Argo, ocean temperatures were measured with bathythermographs (XBTs)—expendable probes fired into the water by a gun from ships along the main commercial shipping lanes. Geographical coverage of the world's oceans was poor, XBTs do not go as deep as Argo, and their data is much less accurate.

The Argo network consists of over 3,000 small, drifting oceanic robot probes, floating around all of the world's oceans. Argo floats duck dive down to 1,000 meters or more, record temperatures, then come up and radio back the results.

Figure 2: The Argo network has floats measuring temperature in all of the oceans.

Figure 3: An Argo float descends to cruising depth, drifts for a few days, ascends while recording temperatures, then transmits data to satellites.

The Argo data shows that the oceans have been in a slight cooling trend since at least late-2004, and possibly as far back as mid-2003 when the Argo network started:

Figure 4: Ocean heat content from mid 2003 to early 2008, as measured by the Argo network, for 0-700 metres. There is seasonal fluctuation because the oceans are mainly in the southern hemisphere, but the trend can be judged from the highs and lows. (This shows the recalibrated data, after the data from certain instruments with a cool bias were removed. Initial Argo results showing strong cooling.)

Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in charge of the Argo data, said in March 2008: "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant".

The ocean data that the alarmists are relying on to establish their warming trends is all pre-Argo, from XBTs. Now that we are measuring ocean temperatures properly, the warming trend has disappeared. And by coincidence, it disappeared just when we started measuring it properly!
Notice how the Minister's graph above shows rising ocean heat content for 2004 through 2006, but the Argo data shows a cooling trend? There is a problem here.

The Argo data is extraordinarily difficult to find on the Internet. There is no official or unofficial website showing the latest ocean temperature. Basically the only way to get the data is to ask Josh Willis (above). The graph above come from Craig Loehle, who got the data from Willis, analysed it, and put the results in a peer reviewed paper available on the Internet. Given the importance of the ocean temperatures, don't you think this is extraordinary?

If the Argo data showed a warming trend, don't you suppose it would be publicised endlessly?

So what's going on? Our best data, from satellites and Argo, says that both the air and oceans have not warmed for at least five years now. In the short term, some cooling force is overpowering the warming due to human emissions.

Let's look at the long-term trend. The medieval warm period around AD 1000 - 1300 was a little warmer than now: crops grew in Greenland, and there were many signs around the world of extra warmth during that period. That gave way to the bitter cold of the little ice age from 1400 to 1800: animals in Europe died from cold even inside barns, and the River Thames in London would freeze over every winter (it last froze over in 1804).

Global air temperatures have been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since about 1750, as the world recovers from the little ice age:

Figure 5: Reasonable global air temperature data only goes back to 1880. This analysis into a steady rising trend and oscillations is simply an empirical observation, by Dr Syun Akasofu. The IPCC predictions are their widely publicised 2001 predictions.

On top of that trend are oscillations that last about 30 years in each direction:

1882 - 1910 Cooling
1910 - 1944 Warming
1944 - 1975 Cooling
1975 - 2001 Warming

In 2009 we are where the green arrow points in Figure 5, with temperature levelling off and beginning to fall slightly. The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of cooling until about 2030.

The long-term trend suggests that the last warming period (1975-2001) was like the previous one (1910-1944), and that once the effects of the little ice age have finally passed, the temperature will get back to where it was in the medieval warm period (which is also where it was during the Roman Optimum, and in the Holocene optimum before that).

What about human influence? Human emissions of CO2 were virtually non-existent before 1850, and were insignificant compared to current levels until after 1945.

It is worth bearing in mind that there is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide was the main cause of recent warming—it's only an assumption, and the calculations of future temperature rises derive most of their warming from an assumed water vapor feedback for which there is only counter-evidence.

Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, building the carbon accounting model that Australia uses to track carbon in its biosphere for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.


Naturally the idea that scientists would accept real readings instead of data "massaged" to reflect a fake warming trend flies in the face of all the millions of dollars the Gores of this world have invested in this scam. There are thousands of environmentalists who will join arm-in-arm with socialists and eugenicists to turn the average man into serfs blindly obedient to the ruling elite. Are you really going to buy a share of that Brooklyn Bridge, chum? Watt's Up With That has a pdf document that details the fraud:

The Climategate Timeline: 30 years visualized

23 12 2009

The always sharp Jo Nova tips us to this:

Here’s a Spectacular Poster of ClimateGate covering 3 decades

You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails. To better appreciate the past and what was exposed by the CRU emails, the time-line chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That the chart exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us.

ClimateGate Timeline

Click on the image to see it enlarged, but download the full PDF to see the detail. Read the rest of this entry

This link takes you to projects that have exposed a blatant attempt to make temperature reading stations (weather stations) give artificially high readings. If they really ARE after you, you are not paranoid after all.


You can keep up to date on the antics of those wacky global warming kooks on this site right here!

I suppose they would be funny if they did not intend to bring about changes to the world's economy that impoverishes and kills thousands, no millions of innocents for (guess what?) money and power. Gee, that is a new situation, right? History repeats itself in part because the average man doesn't bother to study it, so he gets pulled in by the same old scams. Thus we get Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Islamofascism and Al Gore...and currently the liberal Democrats. You think that the health care bill is intended to help you? Ha! It is intended to tax you blind! But now back to our movie...

Do you really want to know the truth? Polar Bears are thriving and, if it got warmer, they would be better off. Global warming kooks actually have kept the actual experts from giving their reports and here is a case in point.


Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

No! No! This wasn't what we wanted to hear. It just does not fit in with our preconceived notions.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Correct, and NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard also reported on this "stranded polar bear" hoax two years ago.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

An inconvenient truth because it is inconsistent with preconceived global warming alarmist notions.

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.

I could go on and on. Wasn't it funny that the US delegation to Copenhagen had to leave early to try to fly into Washington before being stopped by one of the biggest blizzards ever there? As New York and Philadelphia and the District of Columbia try to dig out from the snow and survive the freezing rain, the Democrats are hustling to hurry up and bribe enough people to pass the Obamacare bill that will throw the economy into a deep freeze...that may be the coldest fact in this entire Climategate scandal! Anyway, all this cooling is just part of global warming, they say...are you going to believe them?

Finally, eat your pet dog, save the world?!

Where's PETA when you need them

Where's PETA when you need them

A new study shows that the carbon footprint of a pet dog is more than double that of the evil gas-guzzling SUV.

The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a “medium” sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) — around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4×4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

(excerpt, go to link to read entire article)


Dinosaurs and Man lived together/the next five reasons why evolution will not fly

A young woman provides a comparison for a large section of a polystrate tree.

The recent excitement about Mary Schweitzer's findings of actual tissue being preserved in a Tyranosaurus Rex fossil? It only makes sense. In fact, now we know that soft tissue has been found in more than one fossil, which naturalistic materialistic scientists used to claim could not possibly happen. After all, dinosaur fossils would have to have been in the ground for millions upon millions of years! Now they are saying that, who knew, actual tissue can be preserved for millions of years despite all evidence to the contrary! Yeah, right.

Let me remind you of the article I published in April of 2006, Beowulf, Grendel, and a preponderance of dinosaurs. It began thusly:

"Dinosaurs and Man

Having established that the
Bible mentions and describes dinosaurs, I wish to begin laying out the historical evidence for the coexistence of dinosaur and man after the Noahic Flood. I wanted to give the Bible evidence first, allow doubters to emit their first "Piffle!" and move on from there. Time to begin compiling the evidence. "

If you click the title link you can read the entire thing.

I am pretty happy with the research done by Bill Carroll on this subject and borrowed heavily from his work (attributed, of course). There are signficant problems for old earthers and here are the main ones:

1) Drawings, carvings and figurines dating from several hundred to a few thousand years old depicting dinosaurs of many varieties. How did people from 500, 1,000 or 1,500 years ago know what dinosaurs looked like?

2) Myriad stories of man doing battle with various kinds of dinosaurs.

3) Myriad official reports and documents in the archives of towns and cities throughout Europe mentioning encounters with dinosaurs.

4) The mentions of dinosaurs in the Bible.

5) Now we also have tissue that has not yet petrified being discovered in dinosaur remains. One has to wonder how many times in the past this was discovered and destroyed? We all owe a debt of thanks to the nevertheless staunch Darwinist Mary Schweitzer for her honest appraisal of her T-Rex remains, thereby letting another cat out of the bag.

I also mentioned and discussed the recent Creation on the Web article about soft tissue finds, which I am copying below:

Best ever find of soft tissue (muscle and blood) in a fossil

by Carl Wieland
Published: 11 November 2009(GMT+10)

A salamander allegedly “18 million years old” is the latest fossil to produce astonishingly well preserved soft tissue. This time, it’s muscle tissue, and it is supposedly the most pristine example yet.

The muscle and blood found in the salamander fossil are the latest soft-tissue evidence in a long line of similar discoveries. Earlier, these flexible branching structures in T. rex bone (left photo) have justifiably been identified as blood vessels, while microscopic structures squeezed out of the blood vessels (right photo) look distinctly like cells, as evolutionary researchers themselves have admitted. (See Still soft and stretchy.) Soft-tissue evidence such as muscle, blood and cells should not be there if the fossils really are millions of years old.
Background—the “dinosaur connection”

Readers may recall the controversy that erupted when we first started reporting (in Creation magazine and later also on this site) on the discovery (by evolutionists) of blood vessels containing red blood cell remnants, and later other soft tissue, in dinosaur fossils (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!). This included flexible transparent branching blood vessels with nucleated red blood cells visible and more (see Still soft and stretchy: Dinosaur soft tissue find a stunning rebuttal of ‘millions of years’, also the trail of links leading from that to later articles, including the discoveries of dinosaur proteins).

There was not only astonishment that such fragile tissues could have survived for more than a few thousand years at most, there was frank disbelief from many circles. Even some creation-believing scientists made sceptical comments showing that they didn’t understand the issues (as shown), and not surprisingly “progressive creationist” long-agers published detailed attempts at refutation which fell flat. The reason for their problem is clear; the physics and chemistry indicates that the protein molecules responsible for such structures could never, in the best of circumstances, last for millions of years. So this is powerful evidence for the Bible’s young age for the earth.

Evolutionist and dinosaur expert Prof. Phil Currie acknowledges the opposition faced by those who have published on such finds that upset the traditional viewpoint—see the ‘extras’ interviews on CMI’s DVD Darwin: The Voyage that Shook the World for Professor Currie’s very revealing comments on the topic.

And the evidence continues to mount, including carefully repeated analyses of the actual proteins themselves. And there are now so many published reports and detailed documentation and analysis of similar finds that it is rapidly becoming “mainstream”. This latest report on preserved salamander muscle should really serve as the final nail in the coffin of ill-informed opposition.

The best yet

According to University College Dublin geologist, Dr Maria McNamara, the lead author of the report1 just published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the muscle specimen in this particular fossil showed “very little degradation since it was originally fossilised … making it the highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.”2

The muscle tissue was preserved ‘organically’ in three dimensions, with many fine microscopic details. Its circulatory vessels were ‘infilled with blood’.

McNamara says that the team, which consisted of researchers from Spain, the UK and Ireland, undertook “a series of highly detailed analyses to limit the possibility that it was simply an artefact of preservation” or something non-biological. The muscle tissue was preserved “organically” in three dimensions, with many fine microscopic details. Its circulatory vessels were “infilled with blood”.1

The authors say that their results are “unequivocal evidence that high-fidelity organic preservation of extremely labile tissues [i.e. extremely unstable ones-Ed] is not only feasible, but likely to be common.” They then mention similar discoveries in Germany’s Messel oil shale pit.1
OK, it’s soft tissue—what now?

One could hardly wish for a better demonstration of the bankruptcy of deep time

It wasn’t hard to predict that such inconvenient facts, even when they could no longer be denied, would not lead to a wholesale abandonment of such a carefully constructed worldview artifice as evolution’s “deep time”—especially given its crucial importance for the materialist religion of the age. All it will take is for report after report to talk about the “millions of years” ages for each such “squishy fossil”, and everyone will relax and come to accept that “we know that soft tissues can last for millions of years”. As if there was never any doubt. And no one will bother to explain how it is that all that “hard science” said (and still says) that they shouldn’t be there, period, in anything anywhere near that old. As Bible-believers, we need to keep holding their feet to the fire, so to speak. We need to be graciously but persistently pointing out this potent and unresolved inconsistency in “long-age religion”, despite the convenient apathy that is already shrouding the issue.

For those who are open to believing God’s Word one could hardly wish for a better demonstration of the bankruptcy of deep time and the reality of Genesis history.


1. M. McNamara, P. Orr, S.L. Kearns, L. Alcalá, P. Anadón and E. Peñalver-Mollá, ‘Organic preservation of fossil musculature with ultracellular detail’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, published online before print 14 October 2009.

2. ‘Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil’,, November 5, 2009.


Now recently I found that a commenter pointed out a very interesting site that must be seen to be believed, DINOGLYPHS - DINOLITS,
the Out-of-Place Artefacts (OoP-Arts) carved, hewn and painted by our common forefathers. What if Man and dinosaurs coexisted, after all?

The site lists a few names used by man to identify dinosaurs:

Tinshemet, behemot, leviatan, leviathan, tannin, rahab, raahab, belua, addanc, carrog, wyrmeynnes, saedracan, nicor, niceras, ythgewinnes, lyftfloga, widfloga, ligdraca, lyftfloga, widfloga, ligdraca, grendel, gryndel, grund-wyrgen, Grindelwald, Grendelwood, Dinosaur, dinosaurs, dinosauria, dinosaurus, dinosaurukset, dinotopia, dinoglyf, dinoglyph, dinolit, dinoglyfit, dinoliitti, dinocritic, Beowulf, Beowolf, Beewolf, Gilgamesh, Enkidu, Flintstones, Kiviset ja Soraset, hirmulisko, hirmuliskot, dragon, dracon, draco, draconite, pendragon, pendracon, ископаемое, вымирание, lohikäärme - LEVIATANIA

There are all sorts of pictures of various carvings, drawings and other artifacts. Regular readers of Radaractive will remember my posts concerning the Acambaro figurines and the overwhelming evidence that the makers of the figurines lived with dinosaurs. I spent a couple of columns discussing the stegosaurus carvings on an old Cambodian temple earlier this year. Feel free to search for them and reconsider the evidence again.

Those who have no reasonable arguments simply scoff and make fun and yet there are no Darwinists who can explain such evidence. So therefore they simply try to ignore it and cover it up. So in that light I will present the numbers 6-10 of the Fifty Reasons Why Evolution Will Not Fly.

6. TRANSITIONAL LIFEFORMS: If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one species to another, as evolutionists insist, then we would expect to find many fossils intermediate between all the species. Yet, we do not find any transitional species. Instead of finding fish growing limbs and reptiles sprouting wings in the fossil record, what we actually see are gaps. Creationists continually ask evolutionists to explain the following gaps; non-living matter to protozoan, protozoan to metazoans, metazoans to invertebrates, invertebrates to fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to fur-bearing quadrupeds, quadrupeds to apes, and apes to man. Have you ever seen or heard of a transitional fossil? Of course not. They don’t exist!

Quick article on Polystrates.

7. PETRIFIED LOGS: Petrified logs represent something of an enigma for evolutionary scientists. These logs point to a rapid, catastrophic event, such as a massive worldwide flood, rather than a slow burial. These trees all have their branches stripped off and yet their bark is intact. This would indicate a very different method of deposition than we currently find in forests and it speaks of an event of enormous power. Creationists believe much evidence exists for a worldwide (Noah’s) flood. Which belief system best explains petrified logs to you, evolution or creationism?

8. POLYSTRATIC TREES: Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers (“many strata”) of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 feet deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, no one doubts that these trees were buried rapidly, from top to bottom. Otherwise, the top of the trunks would have decayed well before new rock layers had a chance to surround them. An example of polystratic trees can be seen at Spirit Lake in Washington State. The observable, catastrophic events at Mt. St. Helens buried thousands of trees rapidly. Sometimes evolutionists try to explain polystratic evidence as a reburial event, but this can hardly be the case when the rock layers are situated directly against the trunk of the tree.

9. EPHEMERAL MARKINGS: How long do animal tracks last in the woods? Does rain leave an imprint for millions of years? Ephemeral markings include ripple-marks, rain imprints, worm trails, and animal tracks. These fleeting emblems are found in great abundance in the fossil record. As you can well imagine, such fragile marks are very easily disturbed, yet the fossil record yields a large amount of them. Most of these imprints were made in soft, wet sand that hardened into rock. These marks must be buried very fast or they will just wash away with the next wave. Furthermore, they must be buried at least to the depth of the imprint or the rock above the imprint will squash it away to nothing. This is ample proof that these ephemeral imprints were buried in a fast-moving, catastrophic environment such as Noah’s flood.

Man and dinosaur footprints at same time?

10. BIOTURBATION -- Bioturbation is evidence of animal activity left in rock. This phenomenon would be expected in the upper few feet of most layers of rock. Rapid bioturbation is seen on the East Coast of the U.S., where hurricanes regularly deposit fresh new layers of sediments along the exposed beaches. These sediments are thoroughly inhabited by creatures within a few weeks time to a depth of many feet. If the top few feet of rock layers have been exposed for thousands or millions of years, as evolutionists maintain, we should find profound evidence of animal life, as well as root tracts from plants. Yet, as we look carefully at the geologic column, we find precious little evidence of bioturbation. How can we explain the absence of these animal “tracks?” Consider the expected results of a worldwide flood as described in the Biblical book of Genesis. Such an event would deposit rock layers so quickly that no bioturbation could occur. What do you think? Why can’t we find evidence of bioturbation in so-called “ancient” rocks?
Gee, I wonder if the reason they are not found is the same reason soft tissue is being discovered in fossils and that carvings and reports and drawings of dinosaurs are common in the historical records of mankind before 1500 AD. God made the world in six days, destroyed the face of it in a world-wide flood and then we humans have had about 4,000 years to try to fill the world with people and we have not yet succeeded. How many of you are willing to throw off the old, tired Evolutionist paradigm and actually THINK?