Search This Blog

Sunday, February 14, 2010

How dumb can politicians get? Climate Change Alarmists cannot see nose in front of face, film at eleven!



Freeman Dyson - "IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO that Dyson began publicly stating his doubts about climate change. Speaking at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University, Dyson announced that “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.”

Since then he has only heated up his misgivings, declaring in a 2007 interview with Salon.com that “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” and writing in an essay for The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin, that climate change has become an “obsession” — the primary article of faith for “a worldwide secular religion” known as environmentalism. Among those he considers true believers, Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”

~

The world should have figured out that there is no global warming problem and yet...

This an actual Associated Press news release from last week: Why they have not been forced to admit that the acronym stands for Approved Propaganda is beyond comprehension, but let us look at this ridiculous announcement!

"WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate, which has drawn concern among many scientists in recent years.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced NOAA will set up the new Climate Service to operate in tandem with NOAA's National Weather Service and National Ocean Service.

"Whether we like it or not, climate change represents a real threat," Locke said Monday at a news conference."

Well, that is a completely ludicrous statement. Climate changes every day. Why we would need yet another agency (more money, more government, more regulations? Yeah, that is what we need! Sarcasm intended)!? If you are a snowman and it is going to be 70 degrees fahrenheit tomorrow, that is a real threat. If you make a living as a bikini model and you have a shoot scheduled for a beach in Virginia (and there are not many good ones there) then unless you love snow and cold then climate change today is a big threat. Income change is a threat. Health change is a threat. Change always includes inherent risks. Locke's statement is, in the end, supposed to sound ominous but is actually meaningless.

"Lubchenco added, "Climate change is real, it's happening now." She said climate information is vital to the wind power industry, coastal community planning, fishermen and fishery managers, farmers and public health officials."

Aye, lassie, we need to watch the weather report to know if it is going to rain or snow or so on. Not that the weather report is accurate but it is usually pretty close if they do not try to predict more than maybe a week ahead of time. But we already have an agency for that, news stations with weather reporters (One local meteorologist is actually named Amy Freeze) who are often pretty ladies with big maps and nice smiles. Meteorologists study the weather to make short-term predictions and not one of them can render an accurate forecast for a year from now.

Well, unless you want the good old "fair to partly cloudy with a chance of precipitation and increased clouds, sunrise in the morning with sunset towards evening and seasonable temperatures." You like that?

"NOAA recently reported that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record worldwide; the previous warmest decade was the 1990s. Many atmospheric scientists believe that global warming is largely due to human actions, adding gases to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas."

No, no, a thousand times no! How clueless is the Obama Administration? How clueless is the AP? More important, how clueless do they think the public is? We now know that the decade of 2000-2009 is not only not the warmest on record but is not even close. In fact, the global climate is cooling. Climategate exposed the scientists who had been cooking the books and changing data in order to promote their agenda. That entire statement is made by either a liar or an idiot. The warmest weather of the 20th century was more likely to be a year in the 1930's than the 1990's and the 21st century is one of declining global temperatures.



Small Dead Animals - small dead animals

"Pleasing your enemies does not turn them into friends."

"Hide the Decline" - the Climategate links
Special Investigation: an excellent summary for those new to Climategate.

How Canadian thermometers were "taken out and shot".


"Researchers and leaders from around the world met last month in Denmark to discuss ways to reduce climate-warming emissions, and a follow-up session is planned for later this year in Mexico. But a U.N. report that preceded the conference in Copenhagen has been widely disputed after much of the data in it was found to have been gathered unscientifically."

Well, duh. Unscientifically? How about a conspiracy and a widespread one at that to promote intentional fraudulent data in order to promote an agenda of more government control of business and energy sources? How about a conspiracy to enrich crooks like Al Gore who promoted a patently false alarmist claim about a global disaster in progress while quickly investing in carbon offset companies in order to make millions of dollars in profit on the misery of others? While third world nations would remain in poverty and the US economy would be crippled terribly, Al could afford to buy another private jet and perhaps another mansion in yet another location? How about THAT for unscientific? Rod Blagoevich was unscientific by that definition. John Dillinger was unscientific.

Go ahead and download this document and read, if you dare to know anything about what is and is not a possible crisis that the world needs to deal with right now.

Go to this website to see actual scientific enquiry into this subject.

"More and more people are asking for more and more information about climate and how it's going to affect them," Lubchenco explained. So officials decided to combine climate operations into a single unit.

Portions of the Weather Service that have been studying climate, as well as offices from some other NOAA agencies, will be transferred to the new NOAA Climate Service.

The new agency will initially be led by Thomas Karl, director of the current National Climatic Data Center. The Climate Service will be headquartered in Washington and will have six regional directors across the country."

Translation: More government, more of our money being thrown away for no good reason.

"Lubchenco also announced a new NOAA climate portal on the Internet to collect a vast array of climatic data from NOAA and other sources. It will be "one-stop shopping into a world of climate information," she said.

Creation of the Climate Service requires a series of steps, including congressional committee approval. But if all goes well, it should be finished by the end of the year, officials said.

In recent years, a widespread private weather forecasting industry has grown up around the National Weather Service, and Lubchenco said she anticipates growth of private climate-related business around the new agency."

Give me a break! In no way is a new government agency going to wind up encouraging private climate-related business in any meaningful way. Allow free enterprise to work and take the idiotic agencies out of the way and we will use the resources available for us within US borders and territorial waters to get oil and gas and coal to boost business now and develop all sorts of alternate forms of energy (especially conversion of refuse into fuel) by private enterprise.

No government agency supported Duryea or Ford or Oldsmobile as they developed a viable alternative to the horse as a mode of transportation around the turn of the 19th-to-20th century. The Wright brothers and not some federal bureau of flight successfully began the era of heavier-than-air flight. Entrepreneurs, inventors and scientists have been responsible for the vast majority of great inventions and innovations during the history of mankind. Unfortunately the government in the form of the EPA especially has been a damper on innovation and invention and a hindrance to the best use of our resources.

Hopefully most of my readers can use the Google search engine to research a few things that science DOES know about climate change:

1) The climate warms and cools and it has been doing it for all of recorded human history. With or without the burning of fossil fuels.

2) One big volcanic eruption does more to change a world climactic situation than all the industrial output of the United States in a year's time.

3) Sea levels go up and down and have been doing so for centuries. And no, we do not mean the tidal phenomenon.

4) The evidence of history tells us that if global warming was coming we should be rejoicing and celebrating rather than being worried about it! The last major warming period was a time of increased prosperity for most of the globe.

5) The sun is the major driver of both warming and cooling cycles. More solar activity = warming. Less solar activity = cooling.

6) The global climate is a remarkable in that it has checks and balances built in - more clouds mean more precipitation but also shield the ground from direct sunlight, cooling the globe. But sometimes cloud cover holds warmth underneath, warming a portion of the globe. Heavy snow covers reflect much sunlight back at the sun, cooling the globe. Cooling temperatures then cause less moisture and then less cloud cover, warming the globe, etc. When more warmth produces one condition, then another system begins to operate to adjust things back the other way. Ocean currents and clouds and fresh water stored as glaciers and snow cover and many many other factors all work in concert to balance the forces of the sun and keep the world in a pretty narrow band of temperature ranges.

7) CO2 does rise along with warmth but it follows rather than proceeds, thus making it a result rather than a cause.

8) El Nino patterns in the Pacific Ocean often cause weather conditions that are surprising and damaging and we still do not know exactly what causes El Nino cycles nor do we have any good idea how to help either cause or stop them. Subterranean and deep ocean forces also have some part in the big picture. We don't understand the entire climate much better than we do quantum mechanics. We have only scratched the surface of understanding how the global climate works.

9) The most important thing to know is that the famous "hockey stick graph" was as fake as Dan Rather's Bush papers and so is the science presented by the IPCC that was obtained from the CRU. We also know that weather reporting stations in the USA and Canada have been intentionally "gamed" in numerous ways to try to present a warming trend that did not in fact exist.

10) Climate Change Alarmists show all the signs of having a religious belief system rather than a fact-based point of view. They keep claiming that global warming is a problem and they have tried to fake evidence to promote this and yet many government officials seem to think they must at least appear to believe this garbage in order to keep the news media on their side. Very few have the sense or the guts to admit that science does not know what is going to happen long range but we do know that global warming is NOT a problem in part because we are in a cooling period. See how easy that is? It is cooling right now. You and I cannot change that. You got a complaint, call the sun and tell it to get working harder before we have another little ice age.

35 comments:

Pastor Geek said...

Nice one. Have you checked out the material over at Borebatch's blog. You'd enjoy his deconstructions of the theory that we pitiful humans are damaging a whole planet.

Anonymous said...

"Climategate exposed the scientists who had been cooking the books and changing data in order to promote their agenda."

Ah yes, that old dead horse, those hacked e-mails.

Radar (and Pastor Geek), as Christians you might enjoy this website, too:

The Evangelical Climate Initiative

Enjoy!

creeper said...

O... M... G...

"Well, that is a completely ludicrous statement. Climate changes every day."

Wow. Anybody who claims that "climate changes every day" makes it clear that he knows absolutely nothing about climate. Zip, nada.

I'm sure there's an interesting discussion to be had about global warming, but not with people who routinely make remarks like "how can there be global warming when it's snowing outside". Why not, you know, read up on the subject a little? Learn some of the most basic, BASIC stuff.

If you really can't tell the difference between weather and climate, why even bother pontificating on the subject? How do you think you'll be able to tell one argument from another?

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper that was obnoxious. What is the definition of "climate?"

The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

Small changes in climate take place continually. Climate is not static, it is much like an organism with complex interactive parts that we have not been able to complete understand let alone manage. It changes every day. You change every day (hopefully your clothes, too). You are continually replacing dying cells with new ones, being besieged by information that you can accept or reject.

Back to the subject (for those new to the blog, creeper is continually redirecting the conversation and making false charges). The scientists have been and many still are intentionally using false or partial or massaged information.

Check out WattsUpWithThat's audit of weather stations, for just one instance.

radar said...

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/ is a reliable and truly science-based Christian organization that publishes various bits of evidence about the global climategate situation and especially what liberal loons would have done to the poor people of the world if they had kept the wool pulled over our eyes.

creeper said...

It's so cute, Radar, when a mistake is pointed out to you and instead of figuring out where you went wrong, you DOUBLE DOWN. You're just the gift that keeps on giving.

So, some definitions of climate:

the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

and

A region's usual weather patterns.

and

The general or average weather conditions of a certain region, including temperature, rainfall, and wind.

Spot the pattern?

Now, do these definitions contradict the one you picked? Not at all. What you missed was this:

The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

Weather is what happens (and changes) every day. Climate is the long view.

Which is why you can't look out the window at any particular point in time and conclude on the basis of that alone that the climate is changing. The weather, yes, but not the climate - you need to look at a larger set of data for that.

Go on, Radar, double down! Deny deny deny! :-)

-- creeper

creeper said...

A useful analogy may be economic data. Every day, commerce goes on, people get hired, people get fired etc. But an economist out of necessity looks at the bigger picture, and they can figure out that, say, the country went into recession in month X, although they can't tell you the country went into recession at 5 o'clock on Monday the 18th.

Same with the climate. Even though the underlying data (the specific weather conditions on any given day or even at any given hour) change constantly - and we can see them changing - we have to be able to take a longer view to see if the climate is changing. And, like with the economist, this has to be done with a certain amount of hindsight, so that we can tell if something was a "blip" or an "outlier".

Hope that helps.

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

creeper,
Radar is technically correct. Climate DOES change everyday.

Even if you assume that climate is the average temperature and precipitation over a 30-year period, that 30-year period is not static, but dynamic. Using a rolling 30-year average, you must add in today's weather conditions and remove 1 day's weather conditions exactly 30 years ago.

Prior to 1998, the earth's temperature was steadily warming over the previous 30 years. However, that trend has been declining since then. Every day, and day-by-day since 1998, the earth's average temperature over the past 30 years has been changing... it's been getting cooler.

We have now had global cooling for the last 10 years. That's a full one third of the most recent 30-year climate period. Over the full 30-year period, global temperatures may still show a net increase, but the slope of the trend line has been steadily going down. If the trend continues, in the next 15 to 20 years the slope will become negative.

PS-- Good article Radar.

creeper said...

Hawkeye,

I understand the point you're trying to make, but again, it's not quite that simple. You can add today's data point and take off a data point from 30 years ago (in this case from a total of almost 11,000 data points) and say that the climate has "changed" by some microscopic amount, but that doesn't account for outliers on either end. And by outliers I don't mean a cold or a hot day, I mean a cold or a hot season.

What Radar was getting at was that this unusually cold winter we're having right now would be representing a "change in climate" - but that dog don't hunt, because if, say, you have a cold winter and a mild winter and an average winter etc., that by itself would represent no change in climate, only in weather. For climate, you really have to take the long view. A single winter does not global warming or cooling make.

-- creeper

radar said...

Hawkeye, thanks you are right and creeper does not want to face facts. The climate is steadily getting colder and once all the data is checked carefully some of the ridiculous claims of Al Gore will be forgotten (Chicken Little with a Medicine Show-style Serum) and real science will advance their ability to predict weather patterns slightly.

The efforts by econuts to ruin and slant weather station results has been exposed but things like the deep-diving ocean drones cannot be so easily gamed. Those emails did in fact expose a conspiracy to massage and change data, publish false data and fool the public. We are not amused.

creeper said...

"creeper does not want to face facts."

So if the next winter is a mild one, does that mean that global warming is back on?

Can you see the problem with your line of reasoning?

Perhaps not.

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper, real temperature readings around the globe show a cooling trend since 1998, if you want to be specific. This harsh (for the USA) winter is just an expected result of a long process in which the globe is cooling. Perhaps you are not aware that satellites are monitoring air temperatures and a series of flotation arrays with deep-diving drones have been measuring ocean temps around the world for several years? That the ice on both poles is recorded from above? And that all of these methods have shown a cooling trend?

creeper said...

all of these methods have shown a cooling trend?

radar said...

When these sites quit using faked and changed data and begin using the scientific method as a template then everyone will concur that the globe has been cooling since 1998. It will take awhile but Climategate awakened a lot of people to:

CRU faking data and hiding data.

Weather stations being relocated to heat zones where aircraft exhausts, reflective heat from pavement, the exhausts from air conditioning and even being located on a flat asphalt roof have caused fake warming trends.

The deep diving array oceanic results are factored in.

Etc, etc. You and the rest of the world will catch up one day.

Anonymous said...

This video from Rachel Maddow couldn't be more "on topic".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYvk1OtI0H0

Perhaps her discussion with an actual educator might help you dudes out a little.

- Canucklehead

Oh, and you deniers really should check out Anony's link to "those hacked emails" if you did you'd know how dumb you sound referring to them with terms like "climategate". Here it is again, in case you missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

creeper said...

"When these sites quit using faked and changed data and begin using the scientific method as a template"

And you've deduced this how?

Answer: you didn't. Just a thoughtless knee-jerk reaction. Anything that contradicts your pre-conceived notion must be due to some conspiracy.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Radar says,
"Back to the subject (for those new to the blog, creeper is continually redirecting the conversation and making false charges)."

Ha, nice try Radar. Every single one of creeper's "charges" are 100% based in fact. I love how Radar NEVER links to his own posts where he supposedly "deals" with stuff like ice cores. He NEVER provides links. Ever. So who is it that's making "false charges" again, Radar? This is your blog, man, show your "90ish"(?!?) "readers" where, exactly, creeper proved to be disingenuous? Give us one shred of proof that you have actually addressed the ice cores issue. Where's the link? Although I think I know why you can't provide it. It's because that link probably also comes with a whole comments section, where you were challenged to back up your various claims, only to have you run away and hide. Just like you have done countless other times. I mean come on, "for those new to the Blog" (and I can't imagine there are even one or two individuals that meet this description), Creeper is the reason most of us keep showing up here. It is all kinds of fun (for me at least) to see a closed-minded blow-hard like Radar get completely owned in the comments section of his own blog. Thankfully, there are people like creeper out there that have both the time and the intelligence to refute and destruct all of Radar's faulty arguments. Logic and reason rule. And so does creeper for demonstrating this fact so clearly. In the end, Radar is an angry person and he directs that anger towards what he sees as "the enemy", and I think some of what he says is very unhelpful in terms of moving discussion forward. Mostly due to his disregard for fact based science and reason in general, but also because of his large megaphone, that is this Blog. Radar is moderately intelligent (it's hard to tell how intelligent though, because he hides behind such stupid arguments and debate tactics) but unfortunately he's also incredibly dishonest. As it is with some on the religious right, he feels he has god on his side, is fighting the good fight so to speak, so anything he types he feels is justifiable, because of the side he thinks he's on. Its all so sad really. Personally I think Radar has a lot of reasons to be angry, if what he's written about his health on this blog is true. I just think that he needs to let go of all this anger. Its really only hurting you Radar.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

the last two comments are hilarious! You two guys believe anything you hear from the mainstream news media? Even now the powers that be at CRU and IPCC are beginning to prepare that crow to eat. You had best check out my last post. And the idea that I am angry or about to fall apart health-wise?

People know me as a happy guy and I have been on a strict diet and exercise program. I have lost 90.2 pounds since September and I feel pretty darned good.

Seriously, Canucklehead, is there anything of substance you actually believe in at all that isn't sold in funny little stores with burning incense and bells? Do you sacrifice cockroaches to a stone idol or something? You have the distinction of always being incredibly wrong about everything!

radar said...

As for me going back and searching for links, you do it. There is a little keywords box at the top of blogger by which you can search by words. I have an archive that is searchable by month and year as well as topic. I am NOT going to do the work of writing the posts or quoting the posts and also do your work for you. Nice try, not gonna happen.

creeper said...

"You two guys believe anything you hear from the mainstream news media?"

I believe the question was: "And you deduced this how?"

Imagine my surprise when you evaded it. Unprecedented, I tell you, I am just gobsmacked. And an almost instant dash to conspiracy allegations! Impressive!

BTW, the link I provided wasn't to the eeevil mainstream news media, but to Skeptical Science:

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I have an archive that is searchable by month and year as well as topic. I am NOT going to do the work of writing the posts or quoting the posts and also do your work for you. Nice try, not gonna happen."

You don't have to, and in fact it would be a fruitless endeavor, since just about every time you claimed that you had already answered some question or provided some link, it was a BRAZEN LIE, and then you hide behind this silly "not going to do your homework for you".

If you'd like and when I find the time, I'll break down some of these lies and deceptive claims that you had supposedly already answered something for you.

-- creeper

radar said...

Well well well. My last two posts have sliced and diced AGW and it lies dead on the floor. Creeper and Canucklehead, the major news media will catch up eventually. I was right and you are wrong.

I hope you read Michael Crichton's quote at the end of today's post. I hope you think about it. You may be skeptical about the idea of God but when it comes to science you guys are supporting ridiculous positions. Down goes AGW! Uniformitarianism has been disproved.

We have seen you "scientists" fake charts, glue moths to tree trunks, alter Neanderthal skulls and on and on ad nauseum. Sir Isaac Newton was a scientist. Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers? Not so much.

Anonymous said...

Radar, you're an adult. Could you at least TRY to behave like one? You act like a little child that can't have it his way.

Really, do you have no pride at all?

radar said...

I just put "ice cores" in the search box at the top of my blog and there were multiple posts that popped up. Creeper and Canucklehead are revealed as liars because all you have to do is the same. The first two or three posts will reference earlier posts or ideas and then farther down you get to where we took off the gloves and went toe-to-toe with ice cores and the investigation thereof. Ice cores. Two words. Type them in and see who is the liar and who is childish.

radar said...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/search?q=ice+cores

I am going to make it even easier. One can easily see that ice cores have been much-discussed and referenced in a wide variety of ways.

creeper said...

"Well well well. My last two posts have sliced and diced AGW and it lies dead on the floor. Creeper and Canucklehead, the major news media will catch up eventually. I was right and you are wrong."

The usual self-congratulatory BS. Here's a hint, Radar: you don't get to declare "victory" when you leave extremely basic questions like "how did you deduce this?" unanswered. Just making some over-generalized claim without backing up doesn't impress anyone. All you have to crow about is having repeated some stuff you read on other blogs and then congratulated yourself for, surprise, agreeing with yourself.

Oh, and Skeptical Science hardly counts as "major news media". Why not read it with an open mind?

"I hope you read Michael Crichton's quote at the end of today's post. I hope you think about it. You may be skeptical about the idea of God but when it comes to science you guys are supporting ridiculous positions. Down goes AGW! Uniformitarianism has been disproved."

Which ridiculous position do you claim I am supporting?

And what on Earth does this have to do with uniformitarianism? Last I checked, you didn't even know what that was, so that may explain this bizarre non sequitur.

"We have seen you "scientists" fake charts, glue moths to tree trunks, alter Neanderthal skulls and on and on ad nauseum."

1. Which fake charts are you talking about?

2. What's your beef with the moths? They were pinned to the tree for illustrative purposes, so what's your problem with that? You're acting like it's fraud or something.

3. And of course any instances of scientific fraud you name (in this case Neanderthal skull) were exposed... by scientists. Unlike religion, science is a self-correcting process that improves over time. The fact that it corrects itself as an ongoing process is a strength, not a weakness.

And what do you mean, "you 'scientists'"? Who are you talking to?

"Sir Isaac Newton was a scientist. Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers? Not so much."

All three of them happen to be scientists, whether you like it or not. Maybe you don't like Dawkins or Myers for the way they express themselves, but of course they're scientists.

I suspect you just don't know that much about their scientific work, considering that you get all your info from some pretty one-sided (and often ill-informed) sources.

It's truly a bizarro day even by the standards of this bizarro blog when you think your commenters are scientists, but Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are not.

-- creeper

radar said...

As usual, the most strident posters are anonymous who do not wish to reveal anything about themselves outside of their own foolishness. Will you people ever try to actually use scientific methods when investigating science?

AGW is a farce, a joke, a complete and totally disastrous and flawed hypothesis that was accepted before it was inspected. We now see that the people pushing this agenda were deliberately presenting false evidence. If you want to point fingers, then aim them at the IPCC and the UN and the CRU and the Obama Administration and NASA and especially Al Gore.

creeper said...

"I just put "ice cores" in the search box at the top of my blog and there were multiple posts that popped up. Creeper and Canucklehead are revealed as liars because all you have to do is the same. The first two or three posts will reference earlier posts or ideas and then farther down you get to where we took off the gloves and went toe-to-toe with ice cores and the investigation thereof. Ice cores. Two words. Type them in and see who is the liar and who is childish."

Good grief, Radar, this certainly makes you even more childish. Do you really want to assert that we claimed that ice cores had never been discussed on your blog? Seriously? You think that that's what the claim was?!

For Pete's sake, how moronic do you think your readers are, Radar?!

The point was that you had never backed up your claim that "study of ice cores that shows that many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year".

And you still haven't. You can easily verify this by going through those search results that you're so proud of. You won't find it. Because no such study exists. You made it up. Or you misread something, then declared it to be gospel truth.

Which, come to think of it, you do quite often.

Ice core layers are a tremendous problem for anyone who wants to assert that the world is a mere 6,000 years old. One would have to demonstrate that not just more than one such layer is deposited every year, but one such layer is deposited every few days.

And of course there is no such evidence or study. Surprise surprise.

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper says "It's truly a bizarro day even by the standards of this bizarro blog when you think your commenters are scientists, but Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are not."


Sir Isaac Newton is not a commenter, he is one of the great scientists of the past and sometimes known as the "father of physics." Newton's Laws were foundational to physics and mechanics.

I had no idea your level of education was such that you did not even recognize Newton's name. Maybe I should not be surprised. Dawkins is a scientist based largely on his reputation and unearned degrees while Myers is a Darwinist religious zealot who would be unable to accept God if He appeared in front of his face and wrote JESUS in blood on the wall. I know who they are and what they teach. I know what Newton discovered and added to science. You try to compare one of those guys to Newton, you lose.

radar said...

As I said in another thread, simply type "ice cores" in the blog search box at the top of the blog and multiple results will pop up. I have covered these issues and you guys are just flinging poop.

Anonymous said...

Wow Radar, you're a bad loser!

creeper said...

"Will you people ever try to actually use scientific methods when investigating science? "

You mean like this fantastic method: "I come from the position that the Bible is correct and science needs to adjust to IT."?

This being the same Bible that makes pi out to be three. Good luck adjusting science to the Bible, 'cos it was meant to be a science textbook, as any theologian will be happy to tell you.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"As I said in another thread, simply type "ice cores" in the blog search box at the top of the blog and multiple results will pop up. I have covered these issues and you guys are just flinging poop."

You call it "flinging poop" (how adult of you!), we call it asking you for the "study of ice cores that shows that many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year". Not only did you claim it existed, but you also need to prove that hundreds of ice core layers can be formed in one year in order to cling to your desired outcome of a 6,000-year-old Earth.

You just repeated the previous advice to search your blog for the term "ice cores"... but given your knowledge of search engines, how do you think that will make that non-existent study materialize?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Sir Isaac Newton is not a commenter, he is one of the great scientists of the past and sometimes known as the "father of physics." Newton's Laws were foundational to physics and mechanics.

I had no idea your level of education was such that you did not even recognize Newton's name."


I have no idea why you would draw such a dumb conclusion from what I wrote.

Have a look at what I wrote, and keep in mind that in a preceding comment you called "us" scientists. That was the (joking) comparison I was making. Newton didn't come into it at all.

"Maybe I should not be surprised. Dawkins is a scientist based largely on his reputation and unearned degrees while Myers is a Darwinist religious zealot who would be unable to accept God if He appeared in front of his face and wrote JESUS in blood on the wall. I know who they are and what they teach. I know what Newton discovered and added to science. You try to compare one of those guys to Newton, you lose."

Yep, Newton was a greater scientist, no contest. So was Darwin. That doesn't mean that Dawkins and Myers aren't scientists. Whether you like it or not.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Love it. Radar keeps setting them up and creeper just continues to knock 'em down. Keep it coming guys.

Oh and Radar, angry is as angry does. Read through your comments on this post alone. Yeah, you sure are one healthy and happy-go-lucky guy.

Finally, please don't flatter yourself by assuming a non-response from me is a "win" for you. I, like most commenters that stop by here, have an actual job and a family and a life to attend to. I have also told you in the past that I mostly do not read the terrible posts you almost literally, "throw up" on this blog. As the vast majority are stupefyingly long, poorly researched, cut and paste jobs. Not to mention the fact that you continue to prove (again, in your comments on this post alone) to be very dishonest and disingenuous when it comes to science and actual facts that contradict your particular narrow minded world view. Thankfully though, creeper is very thorough and often provides the "best" quotes from your posts right in his comments. As I've said before, this is your blog to work on every day, not mine. Which is why some of your attempted arguments above are so utterly laughable.

- Canucklehead.

Oh and as creeper mentioned above, the question of ice cores is definitely not whether you have "attempted" to address the issue on this blog, we've all mentioned your futile attempts at it, it's that you did such a amazingly terrible job of it. For the umpteenth time Radar, please explain the idea that a 6000 year old earth would cause the formation hundreds of Ice Core layers in previous years, yet all current observations indicate that a single layer is formed on an annual basis. Show us the science! Still waiting on that "study" of yours. Hehe.