Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Christmas and Genesis - Creation.com and Jonathan Sarfati, author

Creation and Genesis 




Free Email News
Nativity
Published: 25 December 2007(GMT+10)
Republished: 25 December 2011(GMT+10)
We at CMI wish all our readers and supporters a safe and blessed Christmas and New Year festive season. But what does CMI have to do with Christmas? How does Genesis relate to a birthday?

The whole point is that the One whose birth is celebrated at Christmas was none other than the One who brought the whole universe into existence! Our Creator took on the nature of one of His creatures, a helpless infant. Think about the movie producers Alfred Hitchcock and M. Night Shyamalan: in their movies, they would make an entrance in the movies they created.

Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, world leader in sickle cell anemia research

But Christmas is no movie: it happened in history: God, the Creator, became flesh, the Incarnation. World leader in sickle cell anemia research, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu (left), in an interview in Creation magazine, pointed out the significance:
‘The baby whose birth we celebrate at Christmas is the Creator of the world! See John 1:1–5, especially v. 3: “All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” The world, you see, is no cosmic accident. This world was created by the Triune God, and through this Lord Jesus, who was born in Bethlehem.’
Right back in the early days of the Christian Church, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, gave an amazing Passover sermon in AD ~170 that expresses that astounding event (see below).


Melito’s Passover Sermon (see main text)

 

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was attached indicating who was being killed. Who was it? It is a grievous thing to tell, but a most fearful thing to refrain from telling. But listen, as you tremble before him on whose account the earth trembled!

He who hung the earth in place is hanged.
He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place.
He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree.
The Sovereign is insulted.
God is murdered.
The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.
This is the One who made the heavens and the earth,
and formed mankind in the beginning,
The One proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets,
The One enfleshed in a virgin,
The One hanged on a tree,
The One buried in the earth,
The One raised from the dead and who went up into the heights of heaven,
The One sitting at the right hand of the Father,
The One having all authority to judge and save,
Through Whom the Father made the things which exist from the beginning of time.
This One is ‘the Alpha and the Omega’,
This One is ‘the beginning and the end’
The beginning indescribable and the end incomprehensible.
This One is the Christ.
This One is the King.
This One is Jesus.
This One is the Leader.
This One is the Lord.
This One is the One who rose from the dead.
This One is the One sitting on the right hand of the Father.
He bears the Father and is borne by the Father.
‘To him be the glory and the power forever. Amen.’

 

Jesus: the pre-existent one; the Word

 

The baby whose birth we celebrate at Christmas is the Creator of the world! See John 1:1–5, especially v. 3: ‘All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.’

At Christmas, churches often read the early chapters of the Gospels. It is the Gospel of John which goes back the furthest. While Matthew and Luke tell us about the conception and birth of the One, John 1 goes back way further to before He was conceived. In fact, it reaches back even further than Genesis, as shown above. Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the space-time universe, but John 1 tells us that Jesus and the Father existed before creation, before time, in eternity past. Indeed, as above, Genesis 1:1 really takes over at John 1:3.


John calls Jesus the ‘Word’, or in Greek, the logos. Why? This comes from the Jewish concept of the memra. This teaching can be found in the Targums, Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament.1 Where the Old Testament says something is done by God, the Targums often said it was done by the memra of God. The Rabbis never tried to explain the paradox, because the OT also sometimes describes several personages simultaneously as the LORD (YHWH) who is one (e.g. Genesis 19:24, Isaiah 48:16). They taught six things about this memra, and John 1 identifies Jesus of Nazareth as the embodiment of all aspects of the memra:2

 
John 1 reaches back even further than Genesis …. Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the space-time universe, but John 1 tells us that Jesus and the Father existed before creation, before time, in eternity past. … Genesis 1:1 really takes over at John 1:3.

Sometimes with God, sometimes the same as God

In the beginning, was the word, the word was with God (John 1:1).

Agent of creation

 

All things were made by or through him, and without him was not anything made that had been made (John 1:3)

Agent of salvation

 

But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name. (John 1:12)

Agent of revelation

 

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18)

Means by which God became visible (called a theophany)

 

And the word became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)

Means by which He made His covenants

 

The Law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (John 1:17).

Illustration from www.istockphoto.com

Was Jesus born on Christmas day?

 

CMI is not claiming that Jesus was born on 25 December. Fact is, we don’t know which day He arrived. But a common argument against 25 December is that shepherds would not have been watching their flocks by night in December because it would be too cold. But those who make that claim clearly have never been to Bethlehem. Just because shepherds in Europe and North America are indoors in December, it doesn’t follow that shepherds in Bethlehem are also indoors. They are indeed to be found watching their flocks by night.2 Indeed, it’s a very good time, because the heavy winter rains make the grass especially lush.

The proto-Gospel of Genesis 3:15: God would come as a seed of a woman

 

After Adam and Eve fell into sin, God pronounced judgment on them. But along with judgment, God provided an escape. He made this intriguing promise to Eve in Genesis 3:15 (addressing the serpent):

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Many have interpreted the seed in this verse as the Messiah, including the Jewish Targums, hence the Talmudic expression ‘heels of the Messiah’.3 This verse hints at the Virginal Conception prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, as the Messiah is called the seed of the woman, contrary to the normal biblical practice of referring to the father rather than the mother of a child (cf. Genesis chapters 5 and 11, 1 Chr. chapters 1–9). The early church called this passage the Protevangelion, the first mention of the Gospel in the Bible.

But there was a very interesting sequel. When Eve bore Cain, she said something so apparently out of the ordinary that many Bible translators can’t believe she said it. The Hebrew literally says, ‘I have gotten a man: the LORD (YHWH)’, or ‘I have received a man, namely Jehovah’, as Martin Luther put it.4 The Hebrew Christian scholar Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum believes that Eve’s actual statement shows that she understood that the seed would be both God and man, but she was grossly mistaken in believing that Cain was the seed in question.5,6 Rather, the seed of the woman would be born about 4000 years later, to the virgin Mary in Bethlehem. I.e. Eve’s theology was accurate; it was only her application that was faulty. See below for Fruchtenbaum’s support for this.

 

Eve and the God-Man

 

Fruchtenbaum supports the interpretation referred to in the main text (that Eve believed she was giving birth to the promised divine seed) by pointing out that the word YHWH is preceded by the untranslated accusative particle את (et), which marks the object of the verb, in this case ‘gotten’.7 Genesis 4:1 reads, ‘And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man: the LORD (YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah).’ Compare the last few words of this, and the Hebrew, with the account of Abel’s birth in the next verse:
‘ … and said, I have gotten a man: YHWH’
וַתּאמֶר קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת־יהוה׃
‘And she again bare his brother: Abel.’
וַתּסֶף לָלֶדֶת אֶת־אָחִיו אֶת־הָבֶל
There is no doubt that brother and Abel are one and the same. But the same exact Hebrew construction implies that likewise, man and the LORD were one and the same.

The Midrash Rabbah also cites Rabbi Akiba, admitting that the Hebrew construction would seem to imply that Eve thought she was begetting YHWH, which created interpretive difficulties for them, so the translation ‘with the help of the Lord’ is required8—as the NASB also renders it.

The Jerusalem Targum reads: ‘I have gotten a man: the angel of Jehovah’, while the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says: I have gotten for a man the angel of Jehovah’.9 The Targums often substituted ‘Angel of God’ or ‘Word of God’ for ‘God’.

Why did Jesus have to be born? The Genesis connection

Luke traces Jesus’ human lineage from Mary all the way back up to Adam. There is not the slightest hint of a break showing where historical characters end and mythical figures begin—all are treated as equally historical; none are mythical.

In chapter 3 of his Gospel, Luke traces Jesus’ human lineage from Mary all the way back up to Adam. There is not the slightest hint of a break showing where historical characters end and mythical figures begin—all are treated as equally historical; none are mythical. This includes Adam himself, who was created directly by God, not through a long line of ape-like ancestors or pond scum (Luke 3:38).

So why is it so important that Jesus, the ‘last Adam’ is a descendant of a real first man, Adam (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:45)? This common descent from a real Adam is also vital for the Atonement. The prophet Isaiah spoke of the coming Messiah as literally the ‘Kinsman-Redeemer’, i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems (Isaiah 59:20, which uses the same Hebrew word גואל (gôēl) as is used to describe Boaz in relation to Ruth). The book of Hebrews also explains how Jesus took upon Himself the nature of a man to save mankind, but not angels (Hebrews 2:11–18). So only Adam’s descendants can be saved, because only thus can they be related by blood to the Last Adam.

So if anyone thinks that Genesis history doesn’t matter, then ask how they should preach to the Australian Aborigines. If they have really been here for 40,000 years (according to carbon-14 dating that old-earthers accept), then how could they come from Adam, and how could they be related to Christ, so how can they be saved? Indeed, a compromising clergyman of Darwin’s day, Charles Kingsley, claimed that Aborigines had not evolved enough to preach the gospel to them!

Grinches who steal Christmas

 

Every Christmas season, we see assorted misotheists offended by nativity scenes and demanding their removal. Ironically, when it comes to pornography, many of these same misotheists tell objectors, ‘just look the other way’ or ‘change the channel’. And instead of our Christmas greeting at the top, some (with tongue firmly in cheek) advised us to send the following:

Holiday Greetings to Everyone

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, nonaddictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter/summer solstice holiday, practised with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that it is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:
This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Disclaimer:
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.

It is notable that some are rebelling against this politically correct nonsense. Even the usually anti-Christian BBC reported in British MP Says Christianity Crucial to UK Sikh Official Agrees:
‘MP Mark Pritchard has warned the government not to ‘surrender’ the UK’s Christian heritage and Community cohesion minister Parmjit Dhanda, a Sikh, agrees.
‘Dhanda, claiming the government admires the work of faith-based groups said:
“I fully recognize the full historical and cultural significance [of Christianity] in our country. We should all be aware of that and celebrate that. The Christian tradition has had a significant impact on the way these freedoms have been shaped.”
‘According to a BBC report, during a current debate, Pritchard said most Christians in the U.K. feel like they are not getting a fair hearing, adding that it was ‘time for the dragon of political correctness to be slain.’

An interesting sequel to this was none other than Clinton Richard Dawkins, one of the most vitriolic misotheists of our time, claiming that he was a Cultural Christian :

‘He told the BBC’s “Have Your Say” that he did not want to “purge” the UK of its Christian heritage. …
Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied:
“I’m not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions. This is historically a Christian country. I’m a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.
“So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.
“If there’s any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists.”’

But as shown above, it really is often atheists who want to expunge all traces of Christianity from society. Also, the Daily Telegraph reported in School nativity plays under threat:

Terence Copley, Professor of Educational Studies at Oxford University, said the idea that the nativity could offend other faiths was ‘crazy’.
‘I have never met a single Jew, Muslim, Sikh or Buddhist who has objected to the commemoration and celebration of the birth of Jesus,’ he said. ‘In Islam, he is a prophet and his birth is described in the Koran. It is not other religions that are pushing for this at all.
‘If we avoid Christmas we are pandering to a secular minority and allowing the event to become all about commercialism, presents and self-indulgence.
‘There’s nothing wrong with a bit of self-indulgence but if we don’t teach about Christmas and deal with it confidently, not just in RE, we are failing in our duty as educators.’

Furthermore, atheists are the ones at the forefront of opposition whose birth we celebrate.

Related articles

References

  1. Aramaic paraphrases of the OT originating in the last few centuries BC, and committed to writing about AD 500. See F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, p. 133, Fleming H. Revell Co., Westwood, Revelation Ed. 1963. Return to Text.
  2. Fruchtenbaum, A., The life of Christ from a Jewish Perspective, (audio) Ariel Ministries, 22 July 2003. Return to Text.
  3. Fruchtenbaum, A.G., Apologia 2(3):54–58, 1993. Return to Text.
  4. Luther, cited in: Hamilton, V.P., The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, in: Harrison, R.K., Genesis Ed., New International Commentary on the Old Testament, p. 221, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 221, 1990. Return to Text.
  5. See Sarfati, J., The Virginal Conception of Christ, Apologia 3(2):4–11, 1994.Return to Text.
  6. See also Kaiser, Walter, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology, p. 37, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978. Return to Text.
  7. Fruchtenbaum, A.G., Messianic Christology, pp. 15–16, Ariel Ministries, Tustin, CA, USA, 1998. Return to Text.
  8. Cited in Fruchtenbaum, Ref. 7, p. 15. Return to Text.
  9. Cited in Fruchtenbaum, Ref. 7, p. 16. Return to Text.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

My, my, this blog really has taken a sad turn in the last year or so, hey? As much as I enjoy seeing "NO COMMENTS" at the bottom of almost every post these days, I felt I had to break the goose egg on this one and make note of this somewhat encouraging decline. I think the beginning of the end was the loss of any supporting commenters, I mean, once you couldn't even get hiboy or hawkeye to stop by anymore, you lost any semblance of having a supportable position to peddle. And now you don't even have us "Darwinists" coming around anymore, mostly because, as I noted, the comments section (historically the best part of this blog) is an absolute wasteland and because you can't even seem to do more than "phone it in" with reposts from your rogues gallery of religious nutcases like Dr. J, Juby and, Sarfati.

That said, happy Holidays to you and yours Radar. I know you fancy yourself as a family man and hopefully you got your fill of them over the holidays. That said, I'm glad you are choosing more and more to spend time with your family, as opposed to wasting time spreading hateful religious lies on this awful blog.

Speaking of spreading hateful religious lies, the only thing sadder than an amateur blog doing this is a man that makes his profession peddling these falsehoods to the ignorant (I mean, at least you're not making a buck off of all this BS, Radar). I just have such contempt for jerks like Jonathan Sarfati, who are clearly smart enough to understand the truth when presented to them, but instead choose to deny, deny, deny in order to profit off of willful religious ignorance and lies. What a shameful way to make a living.

Here's hoping we'll see the official end to this blog soon.

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

Unlike you, Canucklehead, I know better than that! Comments are often not there when Darwinists have no arguments at all. Rarely do people who agree with you make a comment. In fact I had a day near the end of the year with over 1,000 viewers in one 24 hour period and have had readers from every continent every year since 2005 with the exception of the Antarctic continent.

Jonathan is a really funny guy, incredibly smart. He is a chess champion, a multiple-discipline scientist, a best-selling author and a genius. Ian Juby is a member of Mensa Canada so you are displaying ignorance there as well.

I do not spread lies, I do not have a hateful blog and frankly it is people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins who run from opportunities to debate Jonathan because they know he would logically destroy their arguments and they do not want the general public to understand that there is almost no difference between Darwinism and Magick.

I refuse Google ads and do not make money doing this. Oh, and most of my Creationist friends ping me on Facebook rather than here anyway.

You will be delighted to know that, with the holidays over, part three of the Juby video series will resume. If you actually watched all those videos you might learn something and realize your position is without foundation. But I will not hold my breath.

Anonymous said...

Right Radar, you have lots of regular readers. Just keep telling yourself that. I mean, if you think having 0 comments in the comments sections of all posts is a good thing, I think you need to re-read your blogging 101 textbook. And while these non-existant agreeing "readers" might not comment on posts they agree with, along those same lines of logic, you'd have to agree that if these readers did exist, as you maintain, they'd be all over opposing posts like mine, just like Tim would do when he used to come here. And (aside from all the mean spirited and ridiculous anti-evolution and Anti-climate change posts)I think you also need to re-read any of the posts you've ever made on the subject of homosexuality, and then tell me you don't spread hateful lies, Radar.

Oh and do tell us what day/post it was that got you the "1000 viewers"? Because I'm guessing it was your recent post where you disgustingly and sensationally attempted to blame Sandy Hook on Darwinists and Secular Humanists. L-O-L, BTW. Any new "viewers" that come here do so by google accident, and don't stay long. Which is why you said "viewers" not "readers".

And let me get this straight, because these 2 men are "smart" in your eyes, you think that everything they say is unassailable? Does the same go for the vast majority of Mensa members that support the theory of evolution and think that creationism is BS? What about countless darwinist "chess champions" and "multiple-discipline" scientists that outnumber Sarfati by a vast vast margin? Those "smart people" are just dumb though right? And do you even know the credentials of PZ Meyers or Dawkins because if being a "multiple-discipline scientist" is important, you shouldn't be writing off either of these guys. And again you end with another flat out creationist lie, in the idea that these guys are somehow running from your precious Sarfati, and Juby. The simple reason Dawkins won't debate these people is because they have no real science to support their claims. Bottom line. Produce peer reviewed science that refutes evolution and then come talk to those guys. Before that it's just science vs. creationist hot air.

And LOL at the line "Comments are often not there when Darwinists have no arguments at all". So when you don't answer the hundreds and hundreds of questions posed to you, or retort the countless points made in favor of evolution, you are conceding defeat? Or how about the fact that you are not posting anything new that hasn't been pointed out to you as being blatantly false in the past. So what's the point of commenting as a supporter of the theory of evolution, really? You continue to demonstrate that you choose to live your life with your head buried entirely in the sand and so I think most people that come to this blog are content to let you live that way. Especially when you consider the utter impotence of "Radaractive" in that you certainly aren't changing any minds here, at least in the direction you intend.

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

Ah, the Canadian Head of Knuckles...I have answered valid questions posed to me. When Jon barfs out 12 unrelated things at once it sometimes takes awhile to answer. But you guys pay no attention to the answers because you believe in *poof* rather than evidence. As I said, Darwinism is akin to Magick and has little to do with science. Observed rock layers and fossils support a global flood and organisms support a design and only a design. The truth hurts which is why you like to pretend I spread "hateful religious lies" like the idea that God loves you and Jesus died for you and you could have salvation if you wanted it. Yep. Hateful.

radar said...

BTW I would personally consider PZ Myers to be a terrible example for you to use as typifying Darwinists, as he is course to the point of pornographic in his language, he is afraid of real scientists like Sarfati and he simply bullies people online rather than enter into intelligent discussions with Creationists, probably because he knows he cannot win a fair fight. I use him as an example because he is so remarkably hateful and I like using Dawkins because he is a bit too honest and admits to things that make his belief system look pretty bad. He probably should take a teleprompter wherever he goes.

Anonymous said...

Unlike you, Canucklehead, I know better than that! Comments are often not there when Darwinists have no arguments at all. Rarely do people who agree with you make a comment. In fact I had a day near the end of the year with over 1,000 viewers in one 24 hour period and have had readers from every continent every year since 2005 with the exception of the Antarctic continent.

I don't really post here anymore because I've come to realize how few people actually read this blog. There are what seems like under a dozen regular readers to this blog (most can probably be named). You can view the visitor stats for this website by clicking "view my stats" on any page. I've been looking at the recent visitor activity for the last couple weeks---- almost 90% of visits to this blog are referred here by image searches. They are visits to your blog, yes- technically. Most of them are momentary glances to an image on your blog. I just don't think anyone is reading any of this--- the hundreds of thousands of copy and pasted words on this blog.

Radar, you don't have hundreds of readers who are not posting a comment because they agree with you. 80% of visits are for under 30 seconds. No way someone is reading all your copypasta in that time.


lava



radar said...

Finally, I got over 3,700 hits on Juby part seven and almost 2,400 hits on Juby part six. The Sandy Hook article, which was not hateful at all, had fewer than average viewers. America does not like to think very long or hard, which is why Barack Obama is President and we are heading towards 17 trillion dollars in debt.

I would recommend reading some good books like Animal Farm and 1984 and Anthem and Atlas Shrugged and Lord of the Flies to consider the human condition and the remarkable failure of collectivism.

Mankind will sin and most of us will endeavor to achieve (unless a government dole teaches us to lay around on our butts) and those two facts make a Utopian society impossible.

I would ask you to actually look at evidence for Creationism but you are so brainwashed I doubt you could comprehend it. But surprise me! One more thing? Carbon Dioxide is plant food, not a "greenhouse gas!" Actual testing has proven this. If only Darwinists would begin using evidence, we would soon be rid of them. If Global Dumbers would look at the evidence we would quit worrying about climate change because it is driven by the Sun and we cannot do much of anything about it anyhow. Evidence. The enemy of Darwinism. Yup.

radar said...

You guys certainly have a great deal of interest in my readership, LOL!

Yes, lots of quick views, but also several signed up for updates and many times the length of the visit tells me they read the article.

Much of the output I use to refer my students to or for the sake of friends who want to research Creation Science questions. I have a lot of great links and plenty of good posts.

As usual, when I put up something from another blog you complain and when I write it myself you complain. Does it ever begin to occur to you that the arguments I present bother you because you cannot refute them and you wish no one would bring up such things so you could go back to being comfortably numb?

Jon W said...

"As usual, when I put up something from another blog you complain and when I write it myself you complain."

But for different reasons. In the first case, you're being lazy. In the second, you're mindlessly parroting what you've read without applying any intelligent thought to it.

"Does it ever begin to occur to you that the arguments I present bother you because you cannot refute them and you wish no one would bring up such things so you could go back to being comfortably numb?"

No, because that claim is stupid, just like most creationist criticisms of conventional science are.

Remember: they laughed at Galileo and they laughed at Einstein .... but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. You, like most creationists, are much closer to the last than to either of the first two.

Anonymous said...

Finally, I got over 3,700 hits on Juby part seven and almost 2,400 hits on Juby part six.

The videos in part 7 have about 3000 plays on youtube each. Seems unlikely that you are driving all of juby's traffic on youtube or he is sending everyone over here after they watch the videos.

Yes, lots of quick views, but also several signed up for updates and many times the length of the visit tells me they read the article.

(1) only about a dozen people actually return to this blog regularly. If several have signed up for updates, I'm guessing that is in the single digits.
(2) visit length doesn't mean that. While a long visit length is for the most part needed for one to read a post on your blog, a long visit length does not mean anything was actually read.

lava

Anonymous said...

I'm with Lava in that my interest has definitely waned over the last few years because so few people actually come here (maybe it used to be a dozen but these days it may not even be more than a handful). I used to come here to ensure that anyone that happened to drop by this blog was aware that Radar was completely full of crap by helping to point out his hypocrisy and lies (for example, this steaming pile of misinformation posted above "Carbon Dioxide is plant food, not a "greenhouse gas!" Actual testing has proven this." I mean LOL. Seriously, stop getting your "info" from Fox News, Radar, it just makes you look stupider) That said, I'll admit that recently when I do come here, I feel a bit like the guy from this Monthy Python sketch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY

That said, I highly recommend that you continue to refer your friends and "students" to this blog. As it really is an outstanding example of just how morally and intellectually bankrupt creationists actually are. I mean you just proved it once again with your outrageous and continually repeated lie that there is some kind of lack of evidence for Evolution. Something that is easily refuted by anyone with a functioning brain and a computer and/or library card.

And then there's your continued idiocy when it comes to global climate change. You are a complete Rube here, being played by people you trust in order to put more money in THEIR pockets. There is a 98 to 99 % consensus among actual accredited climate scientists that the earth is warming and that man is primarily responsible. 98% consensus!! And the only ones that actually oppose this idea end up either not being scientists at all or receiving most/all of their funding from big oil. Personally I like this analogy provided by a former republican congressman that lost his spot to a tea partier because he went with the scientific consensus.

I.e., Your kid is life-threateningly sick and 98 out of 100 medical doctors recommend a specific treatment schedule. While two other doctors are putting forth a different treatment (that they are financially invested in) and that is opposed by the other 98 doctors. Would you or anyone in their right mind, actually consider going with the recommendations of 2 docs over the 98? No, because that would be dangerously stupid. Right?

Oh and finally, while I'm throwing up some links, I came across former humorist and now professional Pencil Sharpener David Reese's website and this is how I imaging Radar took the last two election losses.

'08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBv3BKY_604&feature=player_embedded#!

'12
http://www.mnftiu.cc/2012/11/13/get-your-war-on-the-end/

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

Do you do ANY research at all, Canucklehead? Your rant about global warming and CO2 is so fact-free when it isn't simply untrue.

The hockey stick graph was a hoax.

Emails from CRU employees prove that the global warming hysteria was based on faked information.

40 years ago the mainstream media and many scientists were afraid we were entering an ice age, now they claim we are heading for warming without facts. You have not looked at the science, because if you had you would know that:

1) Carbon Dioxide is plant food. Any credible testing done proves this. CO2 is part of the plant conversion cycle in which CO2 and sunlight are taken in and Oxygen is produced. We learned that in junior high science class!

2) Carbon Dioxide is such a small percentage of the atmosphere that it cannot make a dent in the temperature anyway. It is around 400 parts per million right now and it cannot get much higher because plants use it. I do not know of an observed percentage of more than 500 ppm and even that would do nothing.

3) When observing temperature change, CO2 amounts follow the temperature curve rather than precede it, which means higher temperatures had a tendency to increase CO2 levels in the past.

4) If the globe did warm, it would be wonderful for mankind! The Medieval Warming Period was a time of prosperity for the Northern Hemisphere, with grapes grown in England and Greenland actually being green enough for farms and cattle herds.

5) If ice melts, the water doesn't rise. Put some ice cubes in a glass of water and observe what happens when melting is done. So New York is not going to be flooding anytime soon!

6) We now use satellites to monitor ice caps and land and sea temperatures and deep-diving drones to check on temperatures below the surface of the oceans. The Earth is not in a warming phase now, in fact it was cooler in the years 2000-2009 than it was in the years 1990-1999.

7) 98% of scientists do NOT believe in man made global warming. That is another lie propagated by the CRU and the IPCC and the UN and people like Al Gore. In fact a large number of signatories to the famous UN paper of a few years ago have officially withdrawn all support of the idea in lieu of the faked information used to try to promote a fraud. Yes, men like Al Gore invested heavily in carbon offset companies hoping to make a huge profit off of the ignorance of people like you and Barack Obama. It was all about the money for the rich guys and all about personal hysteria for the Malthusian green lugnuts.

Anonymous said...

Whatever Radar, piling lies on top of lies is not helping your case here. Sorry bud, the consensus among climate scientists that the earth is warming and man is primarily responsible is a fact. As David Suzuki puts it "To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, one study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is human-induced."
Source: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/

Fortunately, as I mentioned above, your numbered and nonscientific assertions relative to climate change are very easily refuted. Warning science ahead.

1)Claim/Lie - C02 not a pollutant

Reality - While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-intermediate.htm
(BTW - I chose the intermediate level answer page for you because I know you have a lot of difficulty with this kind of stuff, Radar)

Or more specifically to your rather silly point

1b)Claim/Lie - CO2 is Plant Food

Reality - More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-basic.htm

2)Claim/Lie - C02 has no effect anyway

Reality - An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Or further to the specifics of this dumb claim

2b)Claim/Lie - CO2 is just a trace gas

Reality - Small amounts of very active substances can cause large effects.
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm

continued...

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

...

3)Claim/Lie - Warming causes CO2 rise - Lon Hocker model

Reality - Hocker is claiming that his model shows that the long-term upward trend in CO2 is explained by temperature, when his methods actually removed the long-term trend. In today's world, the greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. Observations show the oceans are a "sink" rather than a source of CO2 in the atmosphere
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-co2-rise.htm

4)Claim/Lie - If the earth was warming that would be awesome for everyone

Reality - Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

5)Claim/Lie - Ice floating in water that melts has no efect on the water levels
Seriously, Radar?!? This one is just so stupid that I'm going to go ahead and debunk this one on my own. Radar are you actually saying that all glacial and polar ice is currently found floating in water? What about all that melting ice that is currently sitting above sea level. So why don't you go ahead and fill a glass with ice then pour water in so that half the ice is below the water line and half is above and then tell me what happens when it all melts. You simply cannot be this dumb. Weak sauce, Radar, weak sauce.

6)Claim/Lie - Its not warming it's cooling.

Reality - All the indicators show that global warming is still happening. In fact, the last decade (2000-2009) was the hottest on record.
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

7)Claim/Lie - There is no consensus

Reality - 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming (although 97 is still an overwhelming consensus, it looks like I may have added 1% to my consensus numbers, my bad).
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

You are a crank and a patsy Radar. Do yourself a favour and do some research on the funding and history of the nay-saying scientists when it comes to global climate change. Almost every time you'll find either non-scientists, big oil funding, and/or more often than not a history of opposition to similarly scientifically decided issues like the detrimental health effects of second hand smoke. Why would you argue for the profits of the oil companies and big industrial polluters over the future health and well being of your offspring's offspring. You really need to stop believing any and everything that happens to fit with your silly preconceived notions, Radar.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Missed these two,

A)Claim/Lie - The hockey stick graph was a hoax.
Reality - Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analyzing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
Source - http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

B)FLAT OUT LIE - Emails from CRU employees prove that the global warming hysteria was based on faked information.
Reality - A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies (including the Republican controlled US Congress, I might add) have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
This one is very telling Radar in that this particular lie has been pointed out to you as being completely false by myself and others on many many occasions. And further to a previous point, it really demonstrates your moral bankruptcy and desperation when it comes to the denier arguments you are willing to attempt on this blog.

Here's a video I've linked to many times in the past that explains everything concerning those "hacked" emails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

So just stop lying about all of this already Radar. Just because most of your evolution deniers also deny global climate change, doesn't mean that you have to as well.

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Oops forgot the source link for the lie about the "hacked emails". Here it is,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

My head aches from the pure stupidity of this "skepticalscience" website!!!

Do you have a link to flatearth.com as well? How about evidence that Leprechauns really do exist?

The MWP was a time of prosperity and there was certainly a LOT of land-based glacial melting happening then. But the early post-flood history of Earth includes seaports becoming "drowned" because the ice age glaciation was still melting and there was more of it. Now most of the ice caps are either in places where there will be little melting or they are on water and if they did melt it would have no effect on the coastlines at all.

For anyone who reads down this far, I have to tell you that both Canucklehead and his crank site are both ludicrously wrong! CRU did conspire to lie to the world and Michael Mann's hockey stick formula produces a hockey stick out of random data. It was all a hoax.

Check out real experts on climate like Dr. Roy Spencer or Ian Watt to get the actual overview of what is happening to the planet and why. The Solar activity is the primary driver of temperatures, but one big volcano can put us into a disastrous cold/dry spell such as "The Year Without Summer" which was the year of the Tamboro volcanic eruption. I will post a small bit on that next.

radar said...

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/32_03/summer.html

by Willie Soon and Steven H. Yaskell

"A weak solar maximum, a major volcanic eruption, and possibly even the wobbling of the Sun conspired to make the summer of 1816 one of the most miserable ever recorded.

The year 1816 is still known to scientists and historians as "eighteen hundred and froze to death" or the "year without a summer." It was the locus of a period of natural ecological destruction not soon to be forgotten. During that year, the Northern Hemisphere was slammed with the effects of at least two abnormal but natural phenomena. These events were mysterious at the time, and even today they are not well understood.

First, 1816 marked the midpoint of one of the Sun's extended periods of low magnetic activity, called the Dalton Minimum. This particular minimum lasted from about 1795 to the 1820s. It resembled the earlier Maunder Minimum (about 1645-1715) that was responsible for at least 70 years of abnormally cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere. The Maunder Minimum interval is sandwiched within an even better known cool period known as the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about the 14th through 19th centuries.

But the event that most severely shaped 1816's cold phenomena was the cata-strophic eruption the previous year of Tambora on the island of Sumbawa, in modern-day Indonesia. The ash clouds and sulfur aerosols spewed by this volcano were widespread, chilling the climate of the Northern Hemisphere by blocking sunlight with gases and particles.

A third factor also could have played a role. During both the Dalton and the Maunder minima, the Sun shifted its place in the solar system — something it does every 178 to 180 years. During this cycle, the Sun moves its position around the solar system's center of mass. This particular trick of gravity is known as "inertial solar motion." Scientists have not yet confirmed whether or not inertial solar motion affects Earth's climate directly, but it remains a possibility."

The Sun drives climate. A huge volcano can screw things up because global cooling equates to starvation and death. Global warming means prosperity. If we can produce more greenhouse gasses, we should, they are good for the Earth (aside from poisonous emissions, naturally)!

All who believe that Anthropic Global Warming is even possible are either brainwashed, ignorant or stupid...except for those charlatans such as Al Gore who promote such garbage in order to make money for themselves.

radar said...

Dumb and dumber! A concensus of idiots is still idiocy!

The number one greenhouse gas polluter is the ocean! What are you going to do about that?

The testing that supposedly showed the "dangers' of increasing carbon dioxide levels was centered on the fact that weeds grow faster. Duh! Weeds are plants, too. But plants will not allow the PPM to grow too high because they will use the CO2 in order to grow. The FACT is that carbon dioxide is plant food and that plants turn sunlight and CO2 into edible energy and oxygen.

The UN and IPCC and CRU are all crooked and they have plenty of people who will get on board for their agendas, but why do they ignore real science to promote this global dumbing scheme?

1) To keep third world countries poor. The majority of third world countries are populated by people of color, which Eugenicists have always sought to control if they cannot kill them off. This is why Planned Parenthood offices are almost always near minority population centers. This is why DDT was eliminated (Silent Spring was a hoax). Malaria still kills millions of people, while the dangers of DDT were primarily trumped up nonsense like Mann's hockey stick.

You believe lies and promote lies while I stand for truth. I will take Roy Spencer over Micheal Mann any day.

2) To bring about political change towards socialism and collectivism by damaging the economies of first world countries.

3) To make lots of money on carbon exchange and carbon offset schemes.

Chaos Engineer said...

Wow. There are some pretty basic misunderstandings here.

The number one greenhouse gas polluter is the ocean! What are you going to do about that?

There are things that add greenhouse gases to the environment, and other things that take the gases back out. These are normally at equilibrium, which means that gases are added at the same rate they're removed. If you add new a new source of greenhouse gases, then the amount will obviously rise, and eventually stabilize at a new, higher equilibrium.

So the problem isn't "carbon emissions from the ocean OR from humans". It's "carbon emissions from the ocean AND from humans". Which factor do you think is easier to change?

But plants will not allow the PPM to grow too high because they will use the CO2 in order to grow.

Assuming that there are enough plants. This is one of the reasons that people are concerned about the loss of rainforests.

Also, plants do store carbon, but that carbon is released when the plants are burned or decay. This is part of the carbon cycle and it tends to stay in equilibrium.

The bigger problem is all the carbon in fossil fuels that's being dug up and burned. That's got to go SOMEWHERE, right? And it's not being buried back underground; it's circulating through the biosphere.

The FACT is that carbon dioxide is plant food

The FACT is that bull manure is also plant food, but that doesn't mean it's healthy to dump buckets of it into your living room.

The majority of third world countries are populated by people of color, which Eugenicists have always sought to control if they cannot kill them off

Modern Eugenicists are mostly Right-Wing Authoritarians, who oppose environmentalism because they're terrified that it will change the existing power structure.

radar said...

Canucklehead's statements are simply that of a brainwashed and uninformed person. But Chaos, you are worse when you say this:

"Modern Eugenicists are mostly Right-Wing Authoritarians, who oppose environmentalism because they're terrified that it will change the existing power structure."

No, Eugenicists are the socialist radicals who fight to keep abortion legal, the Democrats and their various radical factions. The right wing is against Eugenics, against racism, against all the idiocy of Global Dumbing and for good reason!

It was Republicans who spearheaded the civil rights movement and pushed to get real civil rights legislation passed. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. Republicans got Jim Crow laws taken off the books (Democrat Woodrow Wilson encouraged those laws and segregated the military). The right wing is calling on us to drill for oil and natural gas and use our coal to power homes and industries and let the inventors invent new ways to produce power rather than have the government throw money at it. That is the way America used to do things and it is why we were the greatest economy on the planet. We weren't governed by collectivist anti-colonialist communist wingnuts like we are now.

Eugenics was invented by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, promoted in this country by lots of rich liberals (who also applauded Hitler back in the day) and Margaret Sanger was the face of the movement when they all suddenly realized the news of the Holocaust was going to destroy their movement if they did not rename it and give it a new facade. Thus, Planned Parenthood was born.

Chaos, are you one of those who support abortion and Eugenics and the heavy-handed Obamacare? Do you agree with Obama that the coal industry should be killed off and that we should not use our huge oil and natural gas resources while giving billions to overseas oil producers, most of whom hate America? Sounds like it!

You guys are so backwards from the truth it is painful!

Anonymous said...

First, LOL at this line from above,

"For anyone who reads down this far, I have to tell you that both Canucklehead and his crank site are both ludicrously wrong! CRU did conspire to lie to the world and Michael Mann's hockey stick formula produces a hockey stick out of random data. It was all a hoax."

Yeah! Don't listen to sourced and cited science you imaginary readers, you! Take the word of this proven liar instead! Your hubris is really astounding at times, Radar. Why you think anyone would listen to you boggles the mind.

I mean, the inflated sense of self importance it takes to make a statement like this,

"A concensus of idiots is still idiocy!"

as a response to a real and provable 97% scientific consensus on this issue, demonstrates a jaw dropping lack of self reflection. You actually believe that 97% of academically credentialed climate scientists are idiots, while you, a admitted former drug dealer, and current tech support guy, knows better.

With Chaos popping in to the thread, I think we may have all of your readers present and accounted for, Radar, unless whatsit is still coming around. Don't you find it odd that not a single one of your shy alleged-to-exist creationist/anti-AGCC readers chose to speak up in support of even a single thing you've said here?

And I warned you that you were going to be challenged by all the actual science on that website (especially the many many references, source links, and citations). No wonder your head hurt, ya big dummy. Although I have to admire the chutzpah of a guy that talks about "real science" on the side of creationism and then tries to use the bible to make a point in support of climate change denial. The site I linked to is just one of many legitimate scientific web repositories for responses to anti-climate change myths and lies like the list you barfed up yesterday (here's another one for good measure - http://grist.org/series/skeptics/). And again, continually clinging to stuff like the CPU's "hacked emails", that, as I pointed out above, have been proven to contain absolutely no evidence of conspiracy (by the Republican US congress no less), only serves to further marginalize you and and your side of this "argument".

And its also pretty rich of you to in one breath talk about how the anthropomorphic climate change side is motivated by profit (a profit base that has yet to materialize, I might add) and then cite Willie Soon who has, according to David Suzuki, received over a million dollars from Oil companies and their associated think tanks and lobby groups.

"U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests."

Citation: http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon#s3

No wonder hes a denier, Willy is actually paid to be one.

-Canucklehead.

Chaos Engineer said...

Republicans got Jim Crow laws taken off the books

I didn't say "Republicans", I said "Right-Wing Authoritarians". The Republicans who got the Jim Crow laws taken off the books weren't RWAs. (And the Democrats who supported those laws were RWAs.)

Planned Parenthood isn't an RWA organization today; it just makes birth control available for people that want it. (They also do tests for cancer and STDs.) The RWA/Eugenicist position is that you shouldn't have the right to make your own decisions about abortion or birth control or family structure; some corporate or government bureaucrat needs to make the decision for you.

Do you agree with Obama that the coal industry should be killed off and that we should not use our huge oil and natural gas resources while giving billions to overseas oil producers, most of whom hate America?

I think we should reduce energy consumption through increased efficiency, and transition to low-carbon energy sources where it's practical.

The coal industry is dying because natural gas is cheaper and cleaner. Do you think we should kill off the natural gas industry and go back to using coal?

Anonymous said...

Oh and Roy Spencer also also appears to have a sordid past when it comes to funding and publishing falsehoods as well.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/spencer-braswell-2011-proof-that-global-warming-is-exaggerated-or-just-bad-science/

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/roy-spencers-latest-silver-bullet/

My favorite part being when the editor of the non main stream journal that published one of his papers admitted the paper should never have been published and resigned.

"In Sept 2011 Remote Sensing editor-in-chief Wolfgang Wagner resigned, saying that the paper should not have been published - that while "[peer review is] supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims (…) the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published" - and noting that while "minority views are and should be welcomed in the scientific literature...[this] does not mean that long refuted arguments should be able to keep being published"
Source: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/spencer-braswell-fundamentally-flawed-journal-editor-resigns/

And I'm not sure who Ian Watt is, although I'm assuming you did not mean this guy - http://www.forumforthefuture.org/siteusers/iain-watt

Oh and I also love that you like to promote the idea that the republicans in Martin Luther King's day did some good things, all while failing to recognize the fact that you would certainly not have been a republican yourself if around at the time because they were too "liberal".

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Here are a few more references in favor of the consensus among climate scientists that the earth is warming and that man is primarily responsible,

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/

Again, if your kid was sick you'd go with the diagnosis and treatment plan of 3 docs financially invested in their "unique solution" over the unanimous recommendation of 97?

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

I suppose I need to get off of holiday and start posting again. Good grief, Chaos, do you really believe the stuff you write?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/the-dr-david-viner-moment-weve-all-been-waiting-for-a-new-snow-record/#more-76908

(December snowfalls were a record high. Cue the lugnuts to try to explain it by global warming. If there is an earthquake, a flood, a tsunami, a drought, a hurricane or a blizzard, there are always plenty of AGW zombie-brains ready to blame "Global Warming" although recently they just say "Climate Change" since the warming part was falsified so easily).

Ian Watt runs The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change. He is the man who started the weather station audits of North America, which showed that there was a concerted effort to put temperature monitors in places where heat would be artificially higher (by airport runways, in front of air conditioner exhausts, on flat inner city rooftops, on concrete, etc.) and is a recognized authority on weather.

Dr. Roy Spencer is probably the most respected meteorologist in the USA -

http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

If you REALLY want to know about how the global climate works, start here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

The climate of the planet is controlled first by the Solar energy produced by the Sun. But there are complex systems involving clouds, ocean currents, snow and ice reflectivity, and many other facets that frankly are so complex that no honest meteorologist will claim to completely understand it all. But we do know that the IPCC, the CRU and the UN conspired to rig data to present a viewpoint that was politically and financially motivated and was certainly not scientific, in fact, if anything it was anti-science. They either ignored the evidence or faked it or hid it as part of their scheme.

Anyway, I will now begin the third part of the Juby series tonight and let those of you who prefer to be propagandized rather than informed remain that way.

Anonymous said...

How did I know that the Ian Watt that you refer to above would actually turn out to be none other than the former TV weatherman turned amateur climate blogger, Anthony Watts.

See here for some of his career low-lights,

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

I particularly like this part,

"March, 2011

Watts recently praised the Berkeley Earth project, which was chaired by Richard Muller and set out to "resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions." The study also evaluated Watt's concerns about weather station locations.

Watts had declared he was "prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." Muller testified before congress on March 31, 2011 where he released preliminary results showing "a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups [NOAA, NASA, and the Hadley Center Climate Research Unit (CRU)s]." [7], [8]

Muller addressed Watts's concerns, mentioning how "Many US stations have low quality rankings according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in the 'poor' stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the 'good' stations."

Instead of accepting the results as he promised, Watts dismissed the hearing as "post normal science political theater." And one of the regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller as "a man driven by a very serious agenda."

So there goes your whole conspiracy theory surrounding the placement of the stations, hey? And here is SkepticalScience's take on Watts recent unpublished paper concerning the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) station data. Hint: it's not pretty.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html

And and as for all that darned snow in December goes. You realize that weather does not equal climate, right? And that more snow fall does not necessarily mean colder temperatures, right?

Oh and I fixed your statement on Roy Spencer for you,

"Dr. Roy Spencer is probably the most respected creationist climate denying meteorologist in the USA among creationist climate deniers."

Because, had you looked at any of the links I posted above you'd understand that Spencer's professional reputation is laughably in tatters.

And one more thing, you also understand that a meteorologist does not mean climate scientist (or climatologist), right? Wherein meteorology is the study of short term weather and climatology is the study of the global climate over the long term. Not to mention the fact that meteorologist often hold college degrees in unrelated fields (like the weather channel founder dude), and are not as educated as climatologists who hold PHDs in their field. But, of course, this kind of stuff only seems to matter to you when you're talking about a religious nuts like Sarfati and Juby.

Oh and just for good measure here is yet another article confirming the overwhelming scientific consensus among climate scientists that the earth is warming and that man is primarily to blame.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

And here's another one dealing with the oft-repeated lies of the climate science deniers,

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

And with that I'm out of here. Especially if you are going to be posting more from that numbskull Juby.

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

Canucklehead,

Since I work for a living and have many responsibilities, I do occasionally make a mistake. Anthony Watts is correct. Your opinion of Dr. Spencer and Anthony Watts displays the effectiveness of your ability to think critically. You are just another cow in the thundering and unthinking herd being controlled by a few lunatic cowpokes, some of whom go so far as to say that "Mankind is a virus on the planet" although they never then kill themselves to reduce the population thereof.

The radical Islamofascists who teach children, women and grown men to become suicide bombers never do it themselves, either. Al Gore claims the planet is being destroyed by emissions as he travels on personal jets, drives big SUVs and has a main property the size of a small college. But that is just another piece of uncomfortable evidence that you do so detest. Go with the herd if you will.

Money talks, BS walks. So go ahead, Canucklehead, and walk away. But remember this:

No one will be able to say that I didn't tell them the truth about the creation of the Universe, the fact that salvation is freely offered, that Darwinist evolution is a farce and a fraud and that AGW is also a fraud. I give you truth but you choose what to do with it.

After this life ends, you will stand before God. You will be asked to give an account for every misdeed of your life, every time you did not do good as well as all the times you did wrong. I will have an attorney named Jesus Christ who will present me as cleansed of sin by the power of His blood and therefore the court will grant a motion to dismiss all charges against me before going to trial. You will be representing yourself. You do realize what that outcome will be, correct? Guilty on all charges. You also know the punishment.

John 3:16-18

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Anonymous said...

Right, the creationists last move, when all else fails threaten being tortured in hell for eternity for disagreeing with your worldview.

Did you forget that I'm an atheist or something? It's kinda like me using the threat of being pitched into the pits of Mordor in order to sway you to my side of the argument. Silly right?

I'd say stick to the facts but that's not going to do you any good either.

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

Carol, isn't it odd that the Chinese knew as much of God as the Jews did back in the day? Nearly as much, at least. I for one did not know that "Queen" came from the name of Noah's wife. The Bible does not list her name, but the Chinese kept it. Ian Juby's videos in my last post go in depth about the Miao people of China and their knowledge of the contents of Genesis as well as their genealogy that begins with Adam (Dirt). I have to also look into Confucius and his possible knowledge of a coming King (Christ) which was shared apparently by many in ancient China. From whence came the Wise Men? How did they know the Great King was due to be born in lowly Bethlehem in far off Israel?

Virtually all cultures at least have the name of one of Noah's three sons listed as a great forefather if not Noah himself. Japheth is Jupiter for those who are familiar with mythology. Bill Cooper did a great job of showing the family lines of the English and Scandinavian peoples and their lineage going back to Japheth. Japheth's family went West towards Asia and North to Europe. Shem's line stayed in the Mediterranean area and Ham went South. There is evidence of the lines of Shem, Ham and Japheth all reaching the North and South American continents at different times by differing means, at first by land bridges and later by ship.

Canucklehead, you said you were gonzo yet here you come back again? I quoted the Bible, so it is not me but rather the words of Jesus that you do not like. Being an atheist will not inoculate you against judgment because the Creator God both made and rules over the Universe and He has made His existence clear by the wonders and intricacies and marvels of His creation.

Paleontologists hide or throw away finds that debunk Darwinism, like toddlers covering their eyes and pretending no one sees them because they are blind. You say you see clearly and cannot see God. I say you have closed your eyes and ears to the evidence that shows His existence. It is not a good plan.

Go and see "Les Misérables" on the big screen and try to let your heart be open to God. Victor Hugo's masterpiece made as a movie musical is a magnificent rendition, inspiring and masterful! Perhaps you can be reached by the arts if science and scripture cannot penetrate the hardness of your heart?

hamad uzair said...

World Most popular Upcoming Latest cars and vehicles, Latest Mazda Models, Racing Cars, International Sport Cars, Concept Cars, PS-Pod, Strange Vehicles, Nissan, Royce Corniche, Ford Concept Cars, Strange Vehicles, Mercedes and More Sport Cars and Vehicles with Pictures and Info
WorldLatestVehicles.com

hamad uzair said...

Forex Latest News, Forex Trading Tips, latest forex trading business updates, trading updates, forex trading latest news, forex brokers directory, forex brokers list, Dollars news affairs, Stock Markets, stock market news, stock market analysis, technology news, international forex markets, international forex business news and all updates about Forex Trading
ForexAffairs.Com