web analytics

7 minutes that destroy man made global warming…..

By Patrick Van Roy On July 12th, 2019

98 Responses to “7 minutes that destroy man made global warming…..”

  1. How does it destroy it?

    It confirms that humanity did not cause global warming 20,000 years ago. That in no way shape or form changes the fact that humanity is causing it now.

  2. if the ice is melting slower since the advent of fossil fuels which by their own “facts” it is and the Oceans are rising slower also since the advent of fossil fuels how is man making it worse.

    Please explain.

  3. It isn’t slower. It is slower than it was 20,000 years ago, but not slower than it was 200 years ago. The bulk of that ocean rise and ice melt happened in the earlier parts of that 20,000 years ago.

  4. Seamus, on July 12th, 2019 at 7:43 PM Said: Edit Comment
    It isn’t slower. It is slower than it was 20,000 years ago, but not slower than it was 200 years ago. The bulk of that ocean rise and ice melt happened in the earlier parts of that 20,000 years ago.

    and can you point to the data that says that…. because the scientists can’t.

  5. From your own video:

    “So, much of our rise in sea levels that you are talking about came earlier in that 20,000 years”

  6. ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00165

  7. 97% of scientists disagree with them. I’m going to back the 97% and not slavishly back the 3% just to suit my political leanings.

  8. science is math an equation that doesn’t give EVERYONE the same answers isn’t science it’s an act of Faith.

    Faith is the realm of religion not science.

  9. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

    Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

  10. roflmao….. that is a flat out lie.

  11. It isn’t. See when all you do is peddle right wing conspiracy theory myths you may think like that. However those myths are always demolished at the first glance. You keep saying them over and over again but that doesn’t make it true.

  12. It is a Lie Seamus computer modeling does not work, computer modeling hasn’t even existed as long as your cult site implies.

    A standardized record of global temperatures has only existed with the advent of weather satellites. Until then no consistent record of global temperature even existed.

    try harder

  13. Models have been able to reproduce temperatures – ie you feed in the global characteristics and it can tell you what the temperature was in 1900. You then check to see if it is true. Models have been able to reproduce these things.

    So the models work. That they don’t work is another one of your conspiracy theory myths.

  14. Seamus

    Stop wasting your time. These goons think that the world is only a few thousand years old and that Darwin is also a hoax so what’s to discuss? They don’t care about models or records or wtf science. Their worldview will never be shaken, end of, even as they drown. LOL

  15. Where have I ever given that indication Peter….. ?

    The Earth is BILLIONS of years old and Darwin didn’t prove anything he put forth a theory… period, one that he never said was the end all and be all. We are still looking for proof like the missing link between CroMagnon and HomoSapien. There is no physical evidence to support Darwin’s theory.

    Personally I belive Homosapians have existed a hell of a lot longer than current theory.

    If you want to argue facts it helps if you start with a position of honesty. Accusing me of things I’ve never stated isn’t a good place to start… but people get that way when you attack their religion. Which man made global warming is…. a religion based in faith not fact.

  16. Seamus, on July 12th, 2019 at 9:27 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Models have been able to reproduce temperatures – ie you feed in the global characteristics and it can tell you what the temperature was in 1900. You then check to see if it is true. Models have been able to reproduce these things.

    So the models work. That they don’t work is another one of your conspiracy theory myths.

    OMG….. tell me Seamus what was the temperature at 1pm Aug 3rd 1901 in Vatican City….. I’ll wait.

  17. There is a saying in the one field that I have degree in from the university that invented computer science.

    GIGO Garbage in Garbage out…… ie you feed in the global characteristics and it can tell you what the temperature was in 1900

    No you ask a garbage question of a garbage program you’ll get an answer, but guess what that answer will be garbage.

    The data sets to get an accurate answer don’t exist Seamus.

    It’s mathematics every variable has to have a defined measurement. At this point of time in mans knowledge we do not have those numbers. Now they are running the garbage equations on Summit at Oak Ridge the most powerful computer with the most advanced AI system in the world and it can theorize using whatever data sets it’s fed. It will give you a number but that number is only as good as the information it was calculated from.

    We do not know all the variables even the simple ones like water vapor content, we still don’t know what we don’t know and your cult rants and raves like it does.

    There are over 100 known variables that have not been put into the models because the defined measurement for those variables simply don’t exist. The primary variable that we have no way of calculating which is also the number one variable that can effect the planets temperature the Earths Orbit.

    The planet drifts, it wobbles in it’s orbit and it’s not a set pattern wobble that can be predicted it changes constantly because of dragging the moon. Climate is the long-term interaction of the planets water with solar radiation, gravity, and Time. Everything else is an also ran. Man and anything he can do is less than a cow fart in the variables that can or can not effect the planets climate.

    Your cult is dancing angels on the head of a pin for political power nothing else.

  18. This link in no way “destroys man made global warming”. If anything, it destroys Rep Brooks, whoever he is.

    //We are still looking for proof like the missing link between CroMagnon and HomoSapiens//

    There is no missing link; CroMagnon IS Homo Sapiens.

    Try harder.

  19. Looks like a lot of clever people don’t know what caused global warming 20,000 years ago, but can see that their research funds drying up.

    In the UK, we call them Rent-Seekers.

  20. All this video proves is that man was not responsible for global warming 20000 years ago. It has nothing to do with global warming happening at the current time.

  21. Seamus.

    You argue your point factually and beautifully in this thread mate.

  22. Mark B

    Looks like a lot of clever people don’t know what caused global warming 20,000 years ago, but can see that their research funds drying up.

    That’s got to win idiotic comment of the month on so many levels.

  23. sorry Noel I meant Neanderthal…. and there is still no link…. keep trying me typing a wrong word still gives it no connection.

  24. Dave Alton, on July 13th, 2019 at 12:14 PM Said: Edit Comment
    All this video proves is that man was not responsible for global warming 20000 years ago. It has nothing to do with global warming happening at the current time.

    Dave the reason that they are using the 20,000 year ago date is because that’s when the warming started. Once again a fact. It has been getting warmer for 20,000 years it didn’t just start 100 years ago when man started driving cars….

    So it has everything to do with now.

  25. Patrick

    //Dave the reason that they are using the 20,000 year ago date is because that’s when the warming started. Once again a fact. It has been getting warmer for 20,000 years it didn’t just start 100 years ago when man started driving cars….//

    Patrick. The amount the planet has warmed in the last 20000 years is minuscule compared to how much the planet has warmed in the last 200 years.
    We know what has caused the warming in the last 200 years, due to the absence of any other major factors. That warming has been caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, the vast majority of which are currently produced by mankind.
    These facts are undisputable.

  26. These facts are undisputable.

    lmao….

    Patrick. The amount the planet has warmed in the last 20000 years is minuscule compared to how much the planet has warmed in the last 200 years.

    Dave how many feet have the oceans raised in the last 200 years? What’s that not even a foot… oh my, but they’ve raised 416 feet in the 20,000 before that…. and the temp raised 75 degrees…. how much has it raised in the last 200? oh less than .05…..

    Go pray to a Tree cultist.

  27. Patrick

    //These facts are undisputable.

    lmao….//

    So show me where those facts are wrong Patrick.
    Here they are again:
    Greenhouse gases warm the planet.
    Mankind in the last 200 years has producedhuge amounts of greenhouse gases.
    The planet has warmed significantly in the last 100 years.

    What do you think is causing the recent warming of the planet Patrick?

  28. There is no physical evidence to support Darwin’s theory.

    LOL. DNA analysis links the evolutionm of all life on this planet, so we can now tell when we last had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee or a whale or an oak tree.

  29. Patrick

    You are right about the future climate models being unreliable. The evidence suggests that they have been way too conservative in their predictions of an ice-free Arctic Ocean. In 2005 they were projecting that could happen by 2070. But the speed of melt in the past 14 years has been much faster than predicted, so they have now brought that back to 2030. The feedback loop is well underway: sea ice melt = more dark ocean = more heat absorbed from the sun = more sea ice melt.

  30. The Trump administration thinks that the Arctic melt is great news:

    “At a meeting of the Arctic Council, secretary of state Mike Pompeo refused to identify global warming as a threat, instead hailing an oil rush as sea ice melts. EURACTIV’s media partner Climate Home News reports. The US refused to join other Arctic countries in describing climate change as a key threat to the region, as a two-day meeting of foreign ministers drew to a close on Tuesday in Ravaniemi, Finland.

    Founded in 1996, the Arctic Council seeks to encourage cooperation between Arctic countries, especially in the area of environmental protection. Member states include Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States, while six indigenous groups also sit in the negotiations as permanent participants.

    Addressing the Council on Monday, US secretary of state Mike Pompeo did not mention climate change once, but instead welcomed the opportunities unlocked by rapidly receding ice sheets. “The Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance,” he said. “It houses 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil, 30% of its undiscovered gas, an abundance of uranium, gold, diamonds and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore.”

    https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/us-breaks-from-arctic-consensus-on-climate-change/

  31. the planet hasn’t warmed significantly in the last 100yrs Dave and the oceans haven’t risen.

    Noel…. there is very little difference between human DNA and chimp/gorilla DNA, but there is still no evidence of one transitioning to the other.

    Both of you are disputing things that neither of you have a leg to stand on. The temperature increase has actually slowed in the last 100yrs and they still have no missing link every creature on earth shares 90% of the same DNA it’s the last 10% that makes the difference between a primate, a human, a lizard, even fish and birds.

    Neither of you understand science at all…. there is no such thing as a consensus in the laboratory it either is or isn’t.

  32. If we set off every nuclear bomb and our species went extinct it still wouldn’t effect the Climate.

    Climate is the interaction of the Earths orbit and the Sun. The planet drifts away a little the planet freezes it drifts closer it heats up. It has done so for Billions of years the planet has had multiple ice ages and multiple heat ages all caused by planetary drift.

  33. The movement of the Earth around the Sun combined with the tilt of the Earth’s axis causes weather, seasons and climate. The Sun causes weather patterns and the long-term average of weather patterns creates climatic zones around the world. The combined average regional climates create the Earth’s climate. Changes in the Earth’s revolution or axial tilt impact Earth’s weather patterns and, when the deviation continues, Earth’s climate.

    Milankovitch Cycles and Earth’s Climate
    The Milankovitch cycles refers to three types of changes to the Earth’s revolution around the Sun and rotation around its axis. Each of these changes impacts the Earth’s climate.

    Eccentricity

    The shape of the Earth’s orbit changes from its current near-circular path to a more elliptical path and back to a near-circle. This change, called eccentricity, occurs over a 100,000-year cycle. When the Earth’s orbit is more elliptical, the length of seasons changes and the Sun’s energy becomes a greater influence than the axial tilt.

    Obliquity

    Obliquity means the tilt of the Earth’s axis relative to the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The tilt ranges from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees. Greater tilt results in more extreme seasons while reduced tilt means milder, less extreme seasons. At this time the axial tilt is slowly decreasing. The change from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees takes approximately 41,000 years.

    Precession

    Precession refers to the wobble of the Earth’s axis. Over the course of 26,000 years the wobble of the Earth’s axis causes the North Star’s position to form a circle in the sky. Precession combined with eccentricity impacts the differential severity of seasons between the northern and southern hemispheres.

    Moon Rotation and Earth’s Climate
    Moon rotation around the Earth also influences the Earth’s regional climates, impacting the Earth’s overall climate. First, the Moon moderates precession, the Earth’s axial wobble, meaning that the climates of the northern and southern hemispheres more closely resemble each other. Second, the Moon’s gravitational pull creates bulges in the atmosphere similar to the tidal cycle of the ocean. These pressure changes, first recorded in 1847, influence rain patterns, one of the key components of regional climates.

  34. Lets add to it… your own Cult is now finally looking at the Sun. 2 years ago was the first and ONLY time they considered it…. a variable they hadn’t even bothered to look at before they’ve made their end of the world predictions…… Another reason man made global warming isn’t real science.

    Sun’s impact on climate change quantified for first time
    by Swiss National Science Foundation

    For the first time, model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate. Studies funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades. A weaker sun could reduce temperatures by half a degree.

    There is human-induced climate change, and there are natural climate fluctuations. One important factor in the unchanging rise and fall of the Earth’s temperature and its different cycles is the sun. As its activity varies, so does the intensity of the sunlight that reaches us. One of the key questions facing climate researchers is whether these fluctuations have any effect at all on the Earth’s climate. IPCC reports assume that recent solar activity is insignificant for climate change, and that the same will apply to activity in the near future.

    Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern are now qualifying this assumption. Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth’s temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.

    According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. “We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change.” But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum.

    Strong fluctuations could explain past climate

    At the end of March, the researchers working on the project will meet in Davos for a conference to discuss the final results. The project brought together various research institutions’ capabilities in terms of climate effect modelling. PMOD calculated what is known as “radiative forcing” taking account of particle as well as electromagnetic radiation, ETH Zurich worked out its further effects in the Earth’s atmosphere and the University of Bern investigated the interactions between the atmosphere and oceans.

    The Swiss researchers assumed a greater fluctuation in the radiation striking the Earth than previous models had done. Schmutz is convinced that “this is the only way that we can understand the natural fluctuations in our climate over the last few millennia.” He says that other hypotheses, such as the effect of major volcanic eruptions, are less conclusive.

    read more

  35. there is very little difference between human DNA and chimp/gorilla DNA, but there is still no evidence of one transitioning to the other.

    LOL. No-one claims that we are descended from chimps, just that we did have a common ancestor, as did all of the life on the planet. Educate yourself about DNA which has confirmed Darwin’s theory 100%.

  36. the planet hasn’t warmed significantly in the last 100yrs Dave and the oceans haven’t risen.

    You are right, if you regard one degree centigrade of warming and eight inches of sea level rise as insignificant:

    “A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

  37. there is no common ancestor Noel…. to have a common ancestor you have to have a creature that has aspects of more than one species… none have been found.

    Would you link to the scientific research that proves Darwin via DNA…. I’d love to read it.

    The closest you’ll find is work done by Molecular biologist Sean Carroll, he has brought Darwin’s theory into this century with DNA, but it still doesn’t prove it.

  38. Lets add to it… your own Cult is now finally looking at the Sun. 2 years ago was the first and ONLY time they considered it…. a variable they hadn’t even bothered to look at before they’ve made their end of the world predictions…… Another reason man made global warming isn’t real science.

    1. Not a cult, the Deniers like you are the cultists because you reject all the evidence that doesn’t suit you, which means all of the evidence that we have. If we had never invented thermomoters the melting glaciers on every continent (photographic evidence goes back to 1850) would be enough to confirm that temperatures are rising. And the melt rate is accelerating.

    2. The sun has been fully considered. We are in a solar minimum now (no hotspots) but despite all the blowhard wishes of Denier Cultists predicting “global coolng” temperatures are continuing to rise, virtually every year since 2010, and will continue to rise despite the lack of sunspots:

    “Peer-Reviewed Research Says Global Warming will Continue

    There have been several studies in recent years using climate models to see what impact another grand solar minimum would have on global surface temperatures, since solar research suggests it’s possible we could be due for another extended minimum. Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) (PDF available here) estimated that another solar minimum equivalent to the Dalton and Maunder minima would cause 0.09°C and 0.26°C cooling, respectively.”

    https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=448

  39. Would you link to the scientific research that proves Darwin via DNA…. I’d love to read it.

    Your’e welcome Patrick and can you please at least get my name right?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2017/04/09/how-mendel-channeled-darwin/#5199b3034702

  40. Sunspots are completely absent now, so if the sunspot thesis was right we would be seeing temperatures fall. But they are continuing to rise, on every contintent, every year.

    https://earthsky.org/space/solar-cycle-25-likely-weak-according-to-predictions

  41. I’ve got a report from a Turkush journal which shows man-made warming is a falsehood:

    https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

    In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.

    Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.

    Adjusting for the cloud coverage factor and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers found that mankind is simply not having much of an effect on the Earth’s temperature.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

    NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANTANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

    J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI

    Abstract.In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC reportAR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the globaltemperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperaturechange leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green housegases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use avery large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Furtherthey have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in orderto magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes inthe low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku

    As Paul, Phantom and Peter know, Turku is the capital of Turkey

    Japanese researchers at the University of Kobe arrived at similar results as the Turku team, finding in a paper published in early July that cloud coverage may create an “umbrella effect” that could alter temperatures in ways not captured by current modeling.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm

    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it,” comments Professor Hyodo.

    Kobe is the Japanese capital of North Korea, and my geographical knowledge is demosntrably as good as any American, or Paul. More pertinently, for meteorologists to ignore cloud cover is the same as aeronautical engineers ignoring gravity.

  42. demosntrably

    and my spelling is demonstrably as good as Patrick’s

  43. But your climate lies are much more pathetic. I’m surprised to see a comment from you that doesn’t attack the Joos.

  44. I’ve got a report from a Turkush journal which shows man-made warming is a falsehood

    Yes Allan. And just like almost everything else you post hereabouts, it’s lying conspiracist bullshit.

    Your “Turkish journal” is enough to diss all the other evidence, yeah right, way to go.

  45. “When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds. Fagre predicts that within 30 years most if not all of the park’s namesake glaciers will disappear.

    “Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime,” says Fagre. “It’s like watching the Statue of Liberty melt.”

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/

  46. Peter I’ve never gotten your name wrong……

  47. Now let me stick a pin in your balloon….

    The sunspots that you seem to be obsessed over are just ONE unpredictable variable. The variable you’re choosing to ignore is the most important one… Planetary Drift

    Mendel’s work didn’t prove anything, it was the forerunner of evo-devo and it was interesting work ahead of it’s time. However at the time of mendel’s work 1860 chromosomes and mitosis weren’t even discovered until the 1880s and at that time they believed that humans like apes had 24 chromosomes but humans only have 23. They then tried and some are still trying to say that our #2 chromosome magically was created by the combining of two chromosomes common in other primates. But you’re trying to sell that someone who put forth a theory based on the knowledge of the 1800’s work is more advanced then those that have just recently mapped the genome. Sorry you’re just embarrassing yourself.

    Theories Peter don’t prove anything. They give paths to pursue to look for EVIDENCE they are NOT evidence.

    It’s really sad that you have no grasp of science. You confuse Theory with Evidence and you believe science is something that arrives at fact by “consensus” instead of the scientific method.

    Your belief that Darwin has been Proven is even sadder than your belief in your cult religion.

    Man and Ape do have a common ancestor the same ancestor that all life on the planet have. It’s called stardust. The material spewed from our sun seaded the oceans with amino acids and proteins. We and all life are stardust.

    oh and I love this line from your cults biblical site….

    “Peer-Reviewed Research Says Global Warming will Continue”

    One wacko reviewing the work of another wacko is still GIGO.

  48. Your belief that Darwin has been Proven is even sadder than your belief in your cult religion.

    Evolution has been proven, time and time again.
    In fact, there’s more evidence for evolution than there is for atomic theory.
    When 97% of the entire scientific community accept evolution, it’s pretty much a done deal.

  49. Dave, Peter

    These guys aren’t paying attention to anything that you were saying

    They don’t pay attention to what they themselves are saying

    Their mind is made up and that’s that

    Hello from down south

  50. Evolution has been proven, time and time again.
    In fact, there’s more evidence for evolution than there is for atomic theory.
    When 97% of the entire scientific community accept evolution, it’s pretty much a done deal.

    Thank God neither of you design or build anything…… Well 97% of them said it would fly… 97% said that bridge would stand… 97% said that mixture wouldn’t blow up…

    Theories are not proof.

    I accept evolution. It is a sound theory, but it has not been proven. The fact that it has not been proven isn’t a reflection on the theory it is a reflection on us. Now the Atomic theory was proven you can ask the people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki if the math worked.

  51. shoot that power outage wasn’t big enough in NY….. 😉

  52. are you in the big easy……

  53. Oh and Antifa Boy Peter, Dave, Noel, and I believe our varied positions on this topic and do so emphatically.

    Just because you don’t believe the things you write and you are a phoney your lack of integrity has nothing to do with anyone, but you……

  54. Phantom

    These guys aren’t paying attention to anything that you were saying

    They don’t pay attention to what they themselves are saying

    Their mind is made up and that’s that

    Beautifully put Phantom and I agree, I know I’ll never change Patrick’s mind on anything. It’s not logic, facts and reason that cause to have his beliefs, it is political views and his religion, that give him his ridiculous bias.

    Hello from down south

    Are you down south in the US or the UK?

  55. Peter, Dave

    Just let these guys blather as much as they like on this subject

    We have here at dialogue of the deaf

    I happen to think that there should be a debate, But not with those who starting position is that man cannot affect the climate .

    They have always seen this has a left versus right issue, Which is a second fatal mistake. When properly understood, it’s not a left or right issue at all. Mrs. Thatcher Certainly never saw it that way

    Cheers, from a lovely morning and Wilmington North Carolina, All the way over on the Atlantic coast

  56. I drove down to North Carolina yesterday, about a 9 Hour Dr. For a surprise party Which went off like a charm

    It’s a very pleasant southern town, I may write about it in a day or two

  57. I drove down to North Carolina yesterday, about a 9 Hour Dr. For a surprise party Which went off like a charm

    It’s a very pleasant southern town, I may write about it in a day or two

  58. Patrick

    Thank God neither of you design or build anything…… Well 97% of them said it would fly… 97% said that bridge would stand… 97% said that mixture wouldn’t blow up…

    Wrong again Patrick I designed and built software that work perfectly.
    when 97% of the smartest people on the planet across a multitude of scientific disciplines all agree that evolution is a fact, then why would I not believe them?

    Theories are not proof.

    evolution is not just a theory Patrick it’s a fact as has been pointed out to you multiple times. It’s been observed.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
    https://www.learnreligions.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896

  59. If Sean Hannity says something, the views of scientists are irrelevant

    According to the usual suspects

  60. Phantom.

    I happen to think that there should be a debate, But not with those who starting position is that man cannot affect the climate .

    I agree. There’s no argument from anybody who is honest and understand the science that mankind is changing the climate of the planet. However, how much change and how long it will take to happen if something that is very difficult to predict.

    They have always seen this has a left versus right issue, Which is a second fatal mistake. When properly understood, it’s not a left or right issue at all.

    My political stance, which according to the political compass test is just left of centre, has nothing to do with my opinion on global warming or evolution.
    I accept science because it’s the best method we have for determining reality. It is or is it always right? No. But it get things right a hell of a lot more times than it gets things wrong.

    Cheers, from a lovely morning and Wilmington North Carolina, All the way over on the Atlantic coast

    Have a good one Phantom. and remember next time you’re in the UK and up my neck of the woods give me a shout, I feel really bad about missing you last time.

  61. Roger

    I should be over there again maybe in September but likely in London

  62. I will bring my stab vest 🙂

  63. Phantom,

    I will bring my stab vest 🙂

    Damn right mate! It’s like a scene from Mad Max down in London now. 😁

  64. Phantom, on July 14th, 2019 at 3:39 PM Said: Edit Comment
    I drove down to North Carolina yesterday, about a 9 Hour Dr. For a surprise party Which went off like a charm

    It’s a very pleasant southern town, I may write about it in a day or two

    95 or 1 ?

    I love that drive, and if you have time to not take 95 there are some great old towns and majestic scenery.

  65. Mostly 95

    More traffic than expected, even south of DC

  66. Wrong again Patrick I designed and built software that work perfectly.

    You should be ashamed of yourself then, because you know better, yet you’ve been culturally brainwashed to be believe in a concept that just doesn’t add up.

    Your the perfect example of if you repeat the lie often enough they’ll believe it. As you said your programs work everytime. Yet you’ve been programmed to accept less from people who want to dictate how the human race lives.

    Shame on you.

  67. Phantom, on July 14th, 2019 at 5:46 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Mostly 95

    More traffic than expected, even south of DC

    The volume is insane. For the most part though it at least moves. If you get caught in the beltway at the wrong time your just screwed.

  68. //I drove down to North Carolina yesterday, about a 9 Hour Dr. //

    How do you pass the time, radio?

    On Friday I’m driving to Ljubljana, Slovenia, over 1,000 km away.

    Same trip about twice each year. I generally listen to radio until I get bored of the same old news and same old songs, then listen to my own music.

    I’ve found audio books a boon for long-distance driving. They are usually recorded by first-class voice actors. Sometimes you don’t even want the trip to end. 🙂

  69. There were a few of us so there was conversation

    Listened to seventies radio stations in the various states until the signal faded

    Some highway construction which slowed things

    Leaving at 5am I thought we’d beaten the traffic

  70. Driving to Denver Tuesday to visit family and get outta this heat! It’s about a 12 hours drive through mostly desolate New Mexico and southern Colorado. We’ll stop half way for the night as I just can’t drive those long stretches anymore.

  71. Kobe is the Japanese capital of North Korea, and my geographical knowledge is demosntrably as good as any American, or Paul.

    What on earth are you babbling on about you maniac? Are you referring to where once typing in haste I mistakenly inserted one two syllabled nordic city for another two syllabled Nordic city?

    Paul McMahon, on November 14th, 2018 at 10:45 AM Said:

    And I can also confirm that Oslo is in Norway

    Allan, that’s no doubt aimed at me so let me explain. In our conversations regarding my daughter living for a time in Malmo Sweden I once, in a minor lapse of concentration, referred to Malmo as Oslo. The reasons for this minor lapse were because I was typing in haste and both cities are Nordic, have two syllables and finish with the vowel o.

    Now, can you also confirm what the ‘Hypocratic’ Oath is?

    Hope that helps.

  72. I like long drives, most of the time anyway

    I would have done this by air, but the price could have been $500 or more

    It’s much cheaper this way, and you see things, And if there are storms or whatever you can still get there

    There was heavy rain and serious lightning in Wilmington NC yesterday around five. Crawled in Slow-moving traffic for the last 15 miles . Has a beer at the house, Watching terrific large lightning ,bolts off in the distance

  73. Charles in Texas, on July 14th, 2019 at 6:27 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Driving to Denver Tuesday to visit family and get outta this heat! It’s about a 12 hours drive through mostly desolate New Mexico and southern Colorado. We’ll stop half way for the night as I just can’t drive those long stretches anymore.

    The most beautiful sight in the world is watching the sun rise on the Rockies. As the rays hit the sides of the mountains they emerge into the daylight first in shades of soft purple hues that slowly shift and drift with soft shades of orange and red until they bloom into their full natural majesty.

    It’s breathtaking.

  74. I’ve long wanted to drive to California

    Or train it

    Some day

  75. hupp…. he’s started an internal war…… you can’t tell people even in a polite way to go back where you came from….. it’s just not done.

    On Sunday, Trump’s tone turned nativist.

    “So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run,” he said in tweets.

    “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”

    He added: “These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

  76. I adore train travel. The most civilised way of travelling.

  77. there is a train in Mexico I always wanted to do. It has glass roofed cars and it goes into the jungle to mayan or inca ruins.

  78. European trains generally IMO are very good

    I’ve done the bullet train from Tokyo to Kyoto which was awesome. Goes 180 mph and rides smoothly

    US Amtrak from Boston to Washington comes closest to world standard but falls short

    Some US trains are very scenic – NY to Montreal is lovely, Denver to western Colorado also, follows Colorado river

  79. Patrick .

    //You should be ashamed of yourself then, because you know better, yet you’ve been culturally brainwashed to be believe in a concept that just doesn’t add up.//

    I should be ashamed of myself for believing the smartest people in the world and the scientific method which has proven time and time again to be our best way of determining reality rather than believe a religious conspiracy theorist?

    //Your the perfect example of if you repeat the lie often enough they’ll believe it. As you said your programs work everytime. Yet you’ve been programmed to accept less from people who want to dictate how the human race lives.//

    There is no lie Patrick, science presented me with the evidence which I’ve looked at for myself and found to be correct.
    mankind is producing vast amounts of greenhouse gases greenhouse gases warm the planet and the planet is getting warmer. Those are the facts and they’re indisputable.
    And for the umpteenth time, science isn’t dictating how the human race lives. it’s merely providing the evidence to show the human beings are having an impact on the planet climate. science does not having an agenda, except when it goes against your religious beliefs of course.

    You can dance around all you want Patrick, but you’re not fooling anyone. Anybody who looks at this honestly and objectively, can see that scientists are correct about mankind’s influence on the planets climate.

  80. Peter I’ve never gotten your name wrong……

    So why did you address me as Noel at 8.19pm last night?

  81. Mendel’s work didn’t prove anything,

    That has got to be one of the most scientifically ignorant comments ever posted here.

  82. Theories Peter don’t prove anything. They give paths to pursue to look for EVIDENCE they are NOT evidence.

    DNA analysis is evidence. It proves that all life on the planet had a commpn ancestor and can estimate when various species diverged. Fossils are evidence. Carbon dating is evidence.

    Your ignorance of basic science is something to behold, as in WTF?

  83. Here we go – dickheadedness surfacing yet again……

    Peter, on July 14th, 2019 at 12:29 AM Said:

    I’ve got a report from a Turkush journal which shows man-made warming is a falsehood

    Yes Allan. And just like almost everything else you post hereabouts, it’s lying conspiracist bullshit.

    Your “Turkish journal” is enough to diss all the other evidence, yeah right, way to go.

    Now read that thread, read it all. Bizarrely, there is….

    https://www.atangledweb.org/?p=55113

    Peter, on December 30th, 2014 at 11:47 PM Said:

    Allan

    I agree with your 11.18.

    So Peter, tell me what you disagree with in that thread

    And back to 2019,

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

    NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

    J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI

    Abstract.In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC reportAR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the globaltemperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperaturechange leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green housegases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use avery large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Furtherthey have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in orderto magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes inthe low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku

    I was only joking when I wrote that Turku is is Turkey – it’s actually in Finland.

    And Kobe is in Japan……

    Japanese researchers at the University of Kobe arrived at similar results as the Turku team, finding in a paper published in early July that cloud coverage may create an “umbrella effect” that could alter temperatures in ways not captured by current modeling.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm

    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it,” comments Professor Hyodo.

    The IPCC’s models of climate projection did not include clouds and cloud cover – and I’m not joking.

    Seriously, these fuckwits are presented by Peter and Dave as being reputable scientists

    DNA analysis is evidence. It proves that all life on the planet had a commpn ancestor and can estimate when various species diverged. Fossils are evidence. Carbon dating is evidence.

    And the evidence is not favouring the theory of ‘evolution’. Microbiology didn’t exist when Darwin penned his theory and yet we are told by Peter that evolution and ‘global warming’ are settled?

    https://www.amazon.com/Debating-Darwin%C2%92s-Doubt-Scientific-Controversy/dp/1936599287/

    Debating Darwin’s Doubt: A Scientific Controversy That Can No Longer Be Denied Paperback – June 28, 2015

    In 2013 Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design became a national bestseller, provoking a wide-ranging debate about the adequacy of Darwinian theory to explain life’s history. In Debating Darwin’s Doubt: A Scientific Controversy that Can No Longer Be Denied, leading scholars in the intelligent design community respond to critiques of Meyer’s book and show that the core challenge posed by Meyer remains unanswered: Where did the influx of information essential to the creation of new body plans come from?

    Elwood D. Baas
    5.0 out of 5 starsLet the debate begin!
    August 9, 2016
    Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
    Science is never “settled” and we cannot leave it up to the scientific elite to tell us that any science is “settled” so that they can cling to their false ideology.

    5.0 out of 5 starsA great follow through of events and criticisms – Great open forum
    August 29, 2018
    Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

    I always thought the goal of science was not just to be correct according to today’s standards, but to be correct 1200 years from now as well…

  84. Allan

    In 2014 I was agreeing with you on GMO, as in genetically modified organisms, not AGW as in anthropogenic global warming. I’m sure you get the difference?

    Your climate change denial fits comfortably with your creationism and your Holocaust denial. I shudder to think what you might have posted on Darwin if he had happened to be Jewish.

  85. And the evidence is not favouring the theory of ‘evolution’.

    LOL. The earth is only a few thousand years old and Adam and Eve had to run for their lives from dinosaurs. And the Tooth Fairy really exists.

  86. Peter – ‘creationism’ is your belief. You believe literally in the biblical description of the ‘Big Bang’, another piece of nonsense. There is no Big Bang, no ‘expanding Universe’, and evolution is clearly nonsensical as soon as one reads the scientific case against it. ‘Out-of-Africa’ and Cheddar Man are falling apart too :

    https://phys.org/news/2019-07-oldest-africa-reset-human-migration.html

    A 210,000-year-old skull has been identified as the earliest modern human remains found outside Africa, putting the clock back on mankind’s arrival in Europe by more than 150,000 years, researchers said Wednesday.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161867-ancient-dark-skinned-briton-cheddar-man-find-may-not-be-true/

    A Briton who lived 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes. At least, that’s what dozens of news stories published this month – including our own – stated as fact. But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human.

    Bilge – all of it, but there are plenty of credulous dupes out there, and here

  87. Peter – I read the entire thread and the reason why I linked to it was the Turkish journal’ is that it, along with an Australian institution, published research which showed adverse effects from GM products: do you disagree with the findings in that journal?

    Your climate change denial

    That is in the realm of the lie – nobody ‘denies’ climate change. the climate is always changing.

  88. Allan

    Get help before it’s too late.

  89. Allan

    Do you have a good command of the Turkish language

    Why haven’t you quoted from Turkish publications again? Have you lost confidence in them?

  90. Peter – do you believe that the Big Bang, as described in the Book of Genesis, is true? If so, you are a creationist

  91. This comment blows my mind… I consider Peter a fairly intelligent chap albeit misguided, but this makes me doubt that….

    DNA analysis is evidence. It proves that all life on the planet had a commpn ancestor and can estimate when various species diverged. Fossils are evidence. Carbon dating is evidence.

    Your ignorance of basic science is something to behold, as in WTF?

    It is right but absolutely not in the way you are saying it…. DNA proves ALL life had one ancestor…. lol so the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees and the monkeys in those trees all came from ONE common what Peter….?

    Please please please answer that because I want to see you squirm your way out of it.

    and #2 Can ESTIMATE when various species diverged……. right there that Sunny Boy proves you don’t even grasp what science is…… there are no ESTIMATES there is only proof or lack of proof…. period sunshine.

  92. Allan

    Do you have a good command of the Turkish language

    Phantom – all publications of note are in English which is the lingua franca of science and has been since the early 20th century. The fact that you were unaware of this reveals your ignorance of such matters so, stick to insurance.

  93. Allan

    You’ve commented for years here

    You’ve only quoted from Turkish publication one time

    Are you familiar with these publications, or did you just Google the one and re print it because it agreed with you?

  94. Phantom – the Turkish publication in English revealed that GM ‘foods’ are dangerous, the findings being supported by similar results from Australian laboratories – as you know. You support the GM agenda as driven by Gates and Monsanto even though I showed that they won’t go near that shit themselves.

    I have yet to quote a Slovak publication so I’ll make a special effort

  95. GM food is perfectly healthy

    If you don’t wish to eat it, fine

    If you think that it could mess up the environment, that’s fine

    If you think that Monsanto bullies farmers. That’s fine

    But it’s perfectly healthy, As far as anyone knows and it does have some good side effects in that it can lessened use of herbicide’s etc.

  96. Phantom – you just stick to your GM ‘food’ and I’ll eat my normal stuff. We’ll agree to disagree

  97. “I’ll eat my normal stuff.”

    Maybe lay off the mushrooms.

  98. Holy cow

    Another blast from the past

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.