I have an overabundance of greatathol in my blood.

It makes my awesomithis flare up whenever I backflip-kick basketball nets.

At 11/25/09 11:35 PM, LucidCity wrote:

http://vodpod.com/watch/2374596-evolutio n-theory-proven-false-by-scientific-obse rvation-science-and-evidence-for-creatio n-1-

Oh that old chesnut ( and I mean OLD )

refuted here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos /gentry.html

Points against him:
1- His samples do NOT come from the "primordial rock" which he claims they come from.

2-The association of concentric colored haloes with polonium is actually speculative

3 -There are missing halos that should be present if his theory is correct ( i.e. more commons elements that, according to his theory, would leave traces in the same manner but aren't observed)

4- He has no way of proving the halos, even IF they can be produced by polonium's alpha particles, actually come from polonium

5- His hypothesis doesn't match up with other dating methods that use radioactivity, for which he postulates a varying decay rate of all other elements but polonium over time. The acceleration rate needed to maintain his hypothesis of a 6000-10 000 year earth would mean that the isotopes would release all their energy in that time span rather than the many billions of years it took them, which would have kept the earth a molten wasteland that would have looked more like the sun.

6- There are hundreds of non-radiometric ways to know the earth is far older than 6000 ( or 10 000 or 100 000 ) years old.

In closing:
"Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science."

At 11/25/09 10:41 PM, LucidCity wrote:

I will still sin just as much as a non-christian.

So you're saying that KNOWING YOU'LL GO TO HELL FOR SINNING, you still do it as much as someone WHO THINKS IT DOESN'T MATTER?
Woah.

Science has been PROVEN WRONG countless times

Yeah that's why it's great. It changes with new evidence.
That's why we can make a better car every year. That's why microchips become faster and faster.
That's why we know the age of the universe more precisely every decade.

Science becomes more airtight every year. The more we know, the more certain we become. To prove something wrong 100 years ago was exponentially easier than proving anything wrong today.

And I can assure you that there are things that are so solidly established that they will NOT be proven wrong. The theory of evolution is one of them. Doesn't get stronger than that in science. It's one of the things we're the most certain of.

And all this still leaves you right back to square 1: saying X person has be wrong before doesn't prove he's wrong now.

You still have nothing, and what's even sadder is you don't UNDERSTAND WHY.

The writers of the Bible knew the Earth was round before "science" did.

The Greeks knew the earth was round and even calculated its approximate circumference. That was 600-800 years before the Christian bible.

The writers of the Bible knew that molecules, bacteria, and planets existed.

They didn't know about the first 2, I can assure you of that and just about every tribe on the globe knew about planets, some far better than the people who wrote the bible.
The Aztecs for one had a much better calendar and a better understanding on the skies and they sure as shit never heard of Jesus.

I make so many mistakes

Oh, I noticed. And no, you're not trying at all to be a decent person. Just this thread is plenty evidence, You can't write a single post without peppering it with insults.

Just saying " I make mistakes" doesn't count as trying to be a better person.
But hey that's your entire mindset, right? You can do whatever you want all day long, but as long as you ask for "forgiveness" later on or feel bad for what you did, it's a-ok, right?

At 11/25/09 10:22 PM, LucidCity wrote: The difference is, I have the desire to change

lol THAT'S rich.

Good morals? Yeah right. How about you start with humility? You think you're more knowledgeable about the world than the millions of scientists who have spent billions of hours in the last decades to bring you more material comfort, more education, better medicine and the internet.

They're all brainwashed morons in your eyes with their fancy "believe in geology/evolution/cosmology/astrophysics /chemistry/physics" shenanigans.

It would never occur to you, for instance, that oil takes millions of years to form. The stuff we use for everything, you apparently have a better explanation for where it comes from than everyone else.

You'd never suspect that a nuclear reactor works on the same principles that let us know radiometric dating is accurate. You'll freely let scientists hold on to their crazy "radioactivity" theories when it can shove a warm meal down your gaping maw, but when it comes to changing your mind? No, they must be wrong THEN!

And to top it all off SUPREMELY, you think you have personal knowledge of what the creator of the entire universe thinks. You think YOU, a 17 year-old uneducated nimrod, know what the CREATOR OF ALL KNOWN THINGS wants, based on a book. A book written by people who didn't know what a microbe was or didn't even have a number for "0".

No one is more ARROGANT than religious people, NO ONE.

At 11/25/09 07:45 PM, amaterasu wrote:

What I said was atheists using scientific fact as a means to disprove the existence of god. Not necessarily twisting it though.

They don't do that, as I've said.

but how have you come to the conclusion that proving a negative is impossible?

Because you can always resort to magic as an explanation, as religion does.

But I think you might want to have a little chat with this Philosophy Professor.

Yeah I don't really need to explain anything about that since he explains it himself.

What he says in there is pretty much the stance everyone has on proving/ disproving things. Except religious people who insist that you must give evidence of the non-existence of something rather than have them give evidence for the existence of something.

Slightly smarter ones love to go into the whole "since we can't prove anything 100%, then everything is faith, therefore I am right no matter what" route.
Which is really dishonest because the second they stop thinking about religion, they play reality by the same rules everyone does. Suddenly it's not just "faith" that makes them stop at red lights or cook their meat.
It's almost as if they listened to the opinions of scientists as long as it doesn't contradict their own opinions...

At 11/25/09 07:01 PM, amaterasu wrote: but they are out there.

You said that for each theist trying to manipulate science to his own end, there's an atheist doing the same to try and disprove things.
I can't even think of a single one I've ever seen and certainly none of the prominent atheists have ever done this as far as I know.

It wouldn't take me 2 seconds to find you 10 respected, eminent theists who do it though.

By doing that, the individual is asserting the possibility of X being disproved. That is not faith.

No, you don't get what "proving a negative is".
It's IMPOSSIBLE.

When you ask that someone disprove something, you KNOW they will NEVER be able to do it to a point that you can't argue anymore.

Try it on me. I am a dinosaur who has time-travelled from neptune to learn the secret KFC spices.

If I was a scientists, I'd show you evidence of this. If I was a religious person, I'd just throw the claim out there then wait for you to start asking for evidence, which I won't give you, or for you to start poking holes into my idea, which I will explain away through magic.

In fact anything you will say to me about me being a time-traveling dinosaur can be explained through my advanced dino-tech and my BEAST POWERS.

At 11/25/09 06:18 PM, amaterasu wrote:

Wow. Are you fucking illiterate? Re-read my post and tell me if there is anything there regarding evolution.

Well first off I was thrown because that means your comment doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion.
And second, you're still wrong. Scientists don't try to disprove God or religion or ghosts.
Neither do skeptics or atheists.

Religious people are typically the only ones who don't understand you can't prove a negative. They will constantly demand for things to be disproven rather than prove what they claim.

So where science will say "I think X thing exists, here's the evidence" religion will say " I think X thing exists, try and prove it doesn't!"

( Mech is also another account related to the other 2 )

( lol )

( you're a retard )

At 11/25/09 06:08 PM, amaterasu wrote:

Please explain then, how I am dead wrong, and what exactly I am dead wrong about for that matter

You think there's no evidence of evolution.
Which is about as wrong as you can get on this planet.

Read the last 4-5 pages of this thread for just a tiny glimpse into the evidence. Or alternatively, go to talkorigins.org and spend about one week reading 24/7 and maybe you'll have covered about 0.01% of the total body of evidence that supports evolution.

At 11/25/09 05:32 PM, LynxPuppet wrote:

Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions

Oh, sorry, I wasn't the one who wrote that last post, it was my brother whom I sometimes lend my account to.

Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions ROFLROFLROFL

And Amaterasu, taking the middle ground that "there's no proof either way" isn't wise, you're still dead wrong and clearly admitted you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you're not even going to do the effort of reading up on any of this, at least don't post.

p.s. I bet you have a lot of STREET SMARTS haha

Oh and in case anyone's wondering, yes, LynxPuppet is LucidCity's alt account.

Also it's so funny how creationists are incredibly deceptive and prone to lies. Just about any creationist board/ video/ blog will edit, disable and delete comments and ban anyone who opposes their views.

They will spam message boards they don't like and use votebots to drag down youtube videos. That's when they're not filing lawsuits as much as they can or flagging content so it's removed.

You're a terrible person, LucidCity. A worthless human being.

At 11/25/09 02:06 PM, Hybridization wrote: All you've ever said is "Evolution proves evolution."

Radiometric dating isn't evolution nor does it prove evolution.
It supports evolution through dating fossils.

You can't figure out the date of a rock by looking at the date of bones.

They don't check when the rock was created, they estimate when it was carved. It's pretty sure that when you find a bunch of arrow heads in a cave with human bones that those guys made the arrows.

How does that work? What determines the date of the bones?

There's tons of ways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric _dating

Not all of them can be used all the time, but most of the time you can use at least a couple.

So why can't we just drop it and move on?

Because you need to stop being a dumbass.

The vapor that encased the earth was not only water, but probably many protective gases (much denser than the ones we have today)

Yes name those gases and give out their quantity and then link me a paper discussing this effect on longevity.
And again you'd need to have at LEAST enough water in there to cover the earth, which would completely black out the sky. Something as small as a cloud that yields 1/4 inch of water is enough to significantly obscure the skies, how dark do you think it will be when you have enough clouds to drop 4 miles of water down on earth? hahaha

I love how all evolutionists stress time so much, because it's the only thing they have on their side

Not even close.
Just the sheer diversity of fossils and the order in which they're found in sediment layers would be more than enough. On top of which we have DNA analysis and speciation experiments which prove the concept easily.
Not to mention selective breeding of animals and plants which produces the exact same effect as evolution.

It took us THAT long to finally do something?

There were stone tools as far back as 2.6 million years ago.
And there's a steady rate of progress in said tools from then on, not to mention the gradual invention of clothing, arrows and harpoons and the discovery of fire.

Plus it's a completely irrelevant point that proves nothing. Homo sapiens only appeared 100 000 years ago and whether it took him 1 day or 1 million years to invent something doesn't prove anything.

You're insane

At least I'm not a proud ignorant.

See ya, guys. Have fun living a meaningless life based on chance :).

Predictions for your redneck existence: at 16 you will have 2 kids. Your husband will die in a Nascar-related riot and you will live off government aid for the rest of your life while using inventions brought to you by modern science, the same science that says everything you believe in is wrong and retarded.

Then you will realize your stupidity at the age 40 and how you've wasted your life and you will choke on extra chunky peanut butter that you're eating straight from a jumo-sized jar while you weep silently as your 10 kids leave for school to attend 3rd grade like they do every year.

At 11/25/09 01:10 PM, LucidCity wrote:

At 11/25/09 11:59 AM, poxpower wrote: Lucid, the start of agriculture predates the bible by several thousand years.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/510189/Inven tion-of-Agriculture

Do you realize that, according to that, the Bible time line is actually confirmed?

No one's more ignorant of the bible than the people who believe in it. And that's a fact.
http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/upl oads/2008/01/bible_timeline.gif

At 11/25/09 01:03 PM, Hybridization wrote: There is nothing to base 2 million year old items on.

There are many ways.
For one thing they can date the bones found around the tools. When they find human remains near stone tools, they can know how old the tools are.
Same goes for sediment analysis etc.

And when they have enough tools, they can just date them by the type of tool they've found, or how they're crafted. Let's say they've found 300 various arrowheads of a certain design that they were able to date, then when they find some they can't date ( for various reasons ) they can match the design and approximate.

After that long, the tools would surely be decomposed beyond notice.

Not stone tools. Which is primarily what they find dating 2 million years.
Some of them have markings and fragments on them that indicate they were once attached to sticks etc.

This is why the theory thrives on the misconception of time. It is much easier to believe we evolved 2 million years ago than 5 or 6 thousand.

Apparently you think that "evolve" means "appear".

And as for the Egyptians, I find it coincidental that they came about shortly after the accepted timezone of the Flood (5117 B.C I believe).

The time of the flood varies depending on who's telling the story.
This guy's got 2305 B.C.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation /v4/i1/noahs_flood.asp
Some place it at 4000 b.c. or 5000 b.c.

The Egyptians established long before the flood anyway, even given the oldest flood dates.

And young-earth creationists typically place the age of the earth at about 6400-6600 years or so, which is what you get when you count up the age of people in the bible from Adam to Jesus.

They did not come straight from Adam. Also, 900 years could have very well been normal as the Earth at that time was encased in a protective vapor of water (probably invisible).

No that makes no sense. Water doesn't make you live longer when you're .. encased in vapor ( ?? ).
Also vapor isn't invisible when there's enough, it's called CLOUDS.

Therefore, the shield protected harmful sun radiations and extended life.

The water you'd need to significantly block out the sun's radiations would make SURE the earth would be plunged in total darkness.

The Flood could have easily occurred if this vapor were to condense.

Any and all estimates about the total amount of water needed to flood the entire planet would put a giant cloud cover over the planet that would not only crush everything below it because of the gigantic increase in atmospheric pressure but also block out all possibly light.

When the vapor fell, ages began to gradually get shorter and shorter

No that's entirely false. This is a complete fabrication.

not to mention the extinction of dinosaurs

You're a retard.

Lucid, the start of agriculture predates the bible by several thousand years.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/510189/Inven tion-of-Agriculture

The earliest recorded date in the Egyptian calendar is 4141 B.C.

http://didyouknow.org/history/bc.htm

That beats the creation of Adam in the bible, or puts it so close that if you believe the story (lol) Adam gave birth to an Egyptian empire in a few short decades.
( also Adam lived 900 years for some reason, he's sure awesome. Too bad there is no evidence of anyone living that long at any time ever in any records. Apparently only the people mentioned in the bible managed to pull that off! )

At 11/25/09 01:14 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Gah... Lucid's method is a tad different. Let's go at this again.

1. According to Lucid it takes 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers.

I mean, the way he found the 168 is so obviously retarded anyway.
All he did was check the current population, find out how many times you have to double 2 to get near that and then the current date + time since he thinks Adam was created by his number of doublings.

So 2 million people is 30 ish doublings, then he thinks Adam was created 5000 years ago or whatever year he wants, which makes his 168 number.

If he had done that today, he would have found that the human race doulbes every 155 years all of a sudden!
And if he had done it in 400 bc, he'd have counted that the human population doubled every 113 years!

The closer you get to his supposed Adam birth age, the crazier it gets since the creation of Adam in the bible is nowhere near even the start of human civilization, which is somewhere around 5000 B.C, beating Adam's creation by 2000 years.
And that's just for known early civilizations. So yeah count that shit up.

Hmmm 10 000 Sumerians, 2000 years before there's only 2 humans left... OH NO, THE HUMAN POPULATION IS ACTUALLY DECREASING ON AVERAGE!!!111

At 11/24/09 11:30 PM, LucidCity wrote:

was found to be 1,804,187,000.

It's almost 7 billion now.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=world+popu lation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mo zilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

That means since 1922, it doubled twice.

Also, why did you pick 1922?
Oh right, because you stole this whole stupid bullshit rant from a book written in 1925.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/08/evo lution-of-man-scientifically.html

HAHAHAHA

At 11/24/09 09:51 PM, Hybridization wrote:

Why are other planets uninhabitable while Earth is perfect for life?

Again, we have no clue what planets are habitable. We can barely even DETECT planets outside the solar system, let alone figure out if life (which we can barely define scientifically or predict the possible forms of ) can appear on them.

And, again, this has nothing to do with evolution. At all.
What you're thinking about is abiogenesis, which is the theory of how complex life can form from simple chemicals. So far we can only study how that can work on earth and there's pretty good models for it that explain fairly well how life can appear on earth without any divine intervention.

The theory of evolution just explains the DIVERSITY of life.

Haha, even in the most advanced laboratories, they cannot create the "simplest form of life",

Oh that's a fun one.
The old "do it in a lab" and then when they do it, the "well you did it in a lab so it doesn't count" response.

But yeah, they've demonstrated both evolution and abiogenesis in labs.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary /article/_0_0/evo_45
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0 5/ribonucleotides/

which evolution claims came from inorganic materials. For a "perfect" theory, you sure have a lot of holes to fill.

No theory in science explains 100% of everything and is said to be "perfect" by anyone.
The "holes" in evolution are pretty much all filled by now anyway.

But you don't know any of them, you don't even know what the theory of evolution IS haha.

A world like this cannot be created by luck. It HAD to be planned out.

If you say so. After all you're the one with the degree in realityology from the university of World-Creation

How can you sit there and tell me that even the human body that functions as one unit - countless systems and cells working together for a common purpose - came from chaos?

Well I've actually, like... read about the theory of evolution!!!
WOAH HOLY CRAP I'M A GENIUS!

But before I leave this thread, I've had something quite funny on my mind. If birds had evolved, why are there flightless birds?

Because you're fucking retarded.
Yep.

At 11/24/09 05:31 PM, Hybridization wrote: I would turn from creationism if evolution didn't have so many faults.

Hey now, lying is a sin.

For one, if evolution was real, why can we not find life anywhere in the universe?

So if we find life on Mars, you'll change your views?

Swarms of life would evolve all over the universe if life could evolve on Earth under such extreme conditions.

The conditions on earth aren't extreme by cosmic standards.
At all.

But life does not exist anywhere else in the universe -

Right I guess you've looked.

you'd think NASA could find even a speck of life to support this claim.

So if NASA finds life somewhere else in the universe, you'll stop being a creationist?
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHA
HAHAHHAHHH
AHA
HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHH

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

At 11/24/09 03:07 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

What do you mean they have nothing to do with it???? The whole point of the University is to convince people to believe in global warming, and therefore, the solution would be a carbon tax.

Whether or not someone has a motive to do something is not relevant in proving if they did that thing.

Again that's a conspiracy-theorist type argument used to pad their argumentation with what sounds like evidence but really isn't.

Even the environmentalists have admitted that this is a big hit to them. So, they are not denying dodgy business has gone on.

What are you talking about

At 11/24/09 01:15 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

2. So what? The UN is trying to steal $400bn a year in carbon taxes and deinstrialise the Western world by 20 years minimum.

You do realize the carbon tax has nothing to do with these emails, right?

And also that you sound insane?

At 11/24/09 11:27 AM, Mr-Money wrote:

You're not a scientist either, buddy.

You're still wrong though.
:,(
:,(

DAMN YOU, REALITYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYY!

At 11/24/09 12:19 AM, 4urentertainment wrote:

God doesn't love us until you actually obey his orders.

Wow that's sick as hell.
That puts God dead last in the running for "parent of the year".

It's like you're being told to play a video game. A very hard video game. And if you do well you'll be given a reward.

What happens if you don't do well again?
Oh right, you go to hell.
Forever.

Do I have a choice in playing this game?
No?

Yeah that sounds EXACTLY like a video game! What a spot-on analogy.

At 11/23/09 10:08 PM, Slat wrote:

Do they have factories in Neptune? Mars? Even Pluto is getting warmer ffs..

hmmm you do make a good point.
It's true that all warming everywhere in the universe is either man-made or not man-made.

I mean, how can something warm up by itself, and some other thing wam up because of man's activity? Like, PICK ONE, amiright?

Global warming is a big fucking fat lie.

Well obviously. Al Gore used his invention, the internet, to spread it, so he could sell carbon credits to make himself richer.

So he can build a rocket back to Neptune to rebuild his cave people empire and take his rightful place as the emperor of Gladorkia.

At 11/23/09 10:26 PM, Slat wrote:

Have you ever looked into any research done about the subject?

I've done so much research that I'm at "global warming is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie" right now.

Species extincted all the time and not only because of comets..

BOOM, TAKE THAT IN THE FACE YOU FUCKING TASMANIA TIGERS, YOU GOT EXTINCTED.

I AM

THE EXTINCTINATOR

Oh and word to the wise: don't be like AI.
Now he's backed himself into a corner and either keeps on going down that road of being ludicrously wrong or he admits he was being an idiot all along.

He's got no hope for saving his dignity.

So, people, learn from that. Don't invest yourself so much in anything that you can't come back out without looking like a dumbass. If you're always honest about what you know and don't know and learn to admit when you're wrong, you'll become a lot smarter a lot faster and you'll know how to avoid situations like these.

THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY HEAD-ON
HEAD-ON: APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD
HEAD-ON: APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD
HEAD-ON: APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD
HEAD-ON: APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD

At 11/23/09 04:19 PM, Al6200 wrote: dropping my other criticisms.

It's not even worth bothering because you can't even understand the explanation for ONE of the points, why would you suddenly understand and accept any other?

You've long since crossed into the realm of rock-headed crankism now. If you still don't get it after reading the latest posts by Elfer, you are either being dishonest or you're simply a moron :O

In case of ADD: there is no decline of temperature to hide, only inaccurate data to correct.

And most important: THE TREE RING DATA DOES NOT INVALIDATE EVERY OTHER SET OF TEMPERATURE DATA GATHERED FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD THROUGH EVERY OTHER MEAN IN FACT IT'S ALMOST ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE HAVE SATELLITES IN SPACE WE DON'T NEED DUMBASS TREES TO TELL TEMPERATURES, TREE RINGS ARE USED MAINLY TO CALCULATE TEMPERATURES IN THE PAST, I.E. HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF YEARS AND ARE ONE OF THE WAYS WE KNOW THE EARTH WENT THROUGH COOLING/WARMING CYCLES BEFORE.

ok I admit it, I'm a climate scientist too. Obama is paying me top dollar to lie on the internet and cover for those leaked emails. THEY COULD RUIN EVERYTHING!!!11111

At 11/23/09 12:13 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

The onus isn't on us to prove anything...
we're not in a court of law !

The accusations made against the scientists are as serious.
Do you know the backlash a scientist could get for being exposed as unethical? That could end several careers. It's VERY serious.

Again wait a week or two and you'll see nothing's going to happen. Scientists in every domain reading these emails are just rolling their eyes once again at the general level of stupidity.

I for one do not see any global warming in my part of the globe...which is all I actually have to go on.

That's not how it works.
( I mean, fuck, does this come as news to you?? )

I've been to the Arctic more than once & I have see fossils of trees that used to grow there, in places where the closet tree is hundred of miles south of us.

There's so many misunderstandings in there...where to begin... ARRRR
Ever heard of continental drift?
Or maybe you aren't one to be dazzled by wild "plate tectonics" theories. And why should you? Has your continent visibly moved since you were born?

IMO its up to all scientists to prove we're the direct cause

Yeah that's what they've been doing for the last 20 years.

If you want to have a clear picture of the issue, then you have to dig through the papers and the scientific literature and I can assure you that IT'S REALLY REALLY BORING.

Don't listen to the media ONE WAY OR THE OTHER on science items, they get it wrong 90% of the time because they're not in the business of reporting science, they're in the business of making news entertaining.

AI, there is 0 reasoning with you.
I'm tearing my hair out trying to understand how someone can fail to understand an explanation so hard to keep living in a delusion.

You are absolutely NOT committed to the truth AT ALL.

But here's a challenge: in the coming weeks, MONITOR THE FALLOUT FOR THESE EMAILS. Go right ahead and see if any of the scientists have taken ANY flak for them and have had to resign / lost funds / retract papers as a result.

And keep in mind that if nothing happens ( nothing will ) THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IS IN CAHOOTS WITH THEM.

Congrats, your tinfoil hat is on. THE MIND RAYS WON'T GET YOU!

At 11/23/09 02:05 AM, Al6200 wrote:

The end is to hide the temperature decline

No, THERE IS NO TEMPERATURE DECLINE.
ANYWHERE.

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/06/o n-divergence-problem.html

What the "decline" refers to is a decline in speed of forest growth which throws off ONLY ONE method of measuring temperatures AND ONLY AFTER 1960 and ONLY IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.

Tree rings are NOT the best way to measure temperature, we have far better instruments today and whatever it is that's causing them to grow more slowly IN NO WAY changes the data that's been gathered via much more precise tools such as satellites.

You were wrong, deal with it.

At 11/23/09 12:46 AM, Al6200 wrote:

But as of yet no one has presented a context that would justify hiding a decline

See, you're not even reading the explanation.

"The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). "

As far as I know, none of this points even to a decline of anything, especially a global decline of temperatures, which is the conclusion you've instantly jumped to, and then used THAT conclusion to jump to even MORE conclusions.

You're acting coy like evidence would change your mind, but you're lying. This is all the evidence anyone could possibly demand and you're not even gonna read it anyway.

You don't give a shit.

Trying to give credibility to your flimsy explanations

My explanations? Oh, you mean the one given by several CLIMATE EXPERTS.

Oh wait, climate experts must be in on the conspiracy too! Yes that makes more sense than you not understanding obscure climate research relating to tree ring measurement discrepancies.

What legitamate scientific purpose exists for hiding a temperature decline?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1530

Basically, as far as I understand, they were using tree rings to calculate temperatures reliably but then the data is all fucked up after the 60s and their theory is that it's due to human activity. So they suggest not using that method post-60s and he was talking about hiding that on his graph because it's irrelevant data as it's not as reliable as data they can get through other instruments.

It has nothing to do with any temperature decline anywhere.

But simply for you to think you knew what they were talking about enough that you could bust them on bad behavior shows your total lack of humility towards actual experts and their work.

Learn your lesson, next time you hear this kind of shit, take a couple days to reflect and see what their colleagues are saying because quite often, scientists are the only people who actually bust other scientists, not some crackpot deniers / lawyers/ politicians/ hackers.