The last post, called Some Pedagogy on Weather and Climate, showed graphs that are direct temperature measurements for the last 100 years from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. I mentioned in the comments that those temperatures may not be reliable, as Anthony Watts has studied the data gathering system, the actual instruments that report temperatures, and found that perhaps 95% of them are located on heat islands, places like airport tarmacs and parking lots. As a result, temperatures reported may be too high, and even the slight amount of warming reported in the Tisdale book, Extremes and Averages in Contiguous U.S. Climate may not be reliable.
I based my premise on observations that seemed to me pertinent, that our school kids do not study graphs, certainly not statistics. Consequently, when they look at complicated presentations like the Tisdale graphs, and especially the Palmer Drought Severity Index, their eyes glaze over. So I used the word “Pedagogy,” which merely means the art of teaching. What I hoped to avoid was to be “pedantic,” someone annoying. I was hoping to cross a line delicately into spreading understanding of Tisdale’s important work, which I regard sea-changing. He completely destroys the myth that our planet is warming at an alarming rate, at least for our lower forty-eight.
Thermometers have only been around a little over 300 years, given to us by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. The graph at the top of the opening page is taken from GISP2, the second Greenland Ice Core Project. GISP2 is a large undertaking begun in 1988, the idea to drill deep into the Greenland ice and extract an ice core. In 1993 they completed drilling, labeling and storage of the ice core 3,053.44 meters deep. That’s about 10,000 feet. The ice core is a trip through geographic time, as shown above, about 10,000 years, or the greater part of our current Holocene Interglacial Period. The remarkable thing about that project is that they can extract data from the core based on trapped bubbles of air, and using an Oxygen isotope, among others, they can approximate temperature. They use several, but the ones I noted in my reading are δD and δ18O, or Deuterium and Oxygen18. These same molecules can be found today at middle and high latitudes. The assumption is that the presence of those isotopes today is in a similar temperature environment as when the gas bubble were trapped. Ergo, temperature today at those latitudes is probably the temperature when the original ice compacted.
(Also note, the red line graph under the top graph is atmospheric CO2, measurements taken from the EPICA Dome C Antarctic ice cores, which I will discuss briefly at the end. If you can spot a correlation between CO2 and temperatures, run, do not walk, to Al Gore’s lush beach house in California. He needs to know that his property, along with Obama’s, is not under threat of rising sea water. As if.)
That is pretty ingenious! Because thermometers are not available going back that far, the ice core becomes a “proxy,” widely used (and misused) in climate science.
Another famous proxy is Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick, shown below alongside a section of the GISP2 covering the same time frame.
The Hockey Stick was invented, as I view it, as a propaganda tool. It was a visual representation of a contrived emergency used by Al Gore and others. The promoters of this hokum must know on some level that the stick was junk science. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick as long ago as 2005 shredded the stick, finding in their paper on the subject, Hockey Sticks, Principle Components, and Spurious Significance, that the manner in which Mann constructed his stick would fit any other set of data and produce the same result. But the way we deal with this kind of stuff these days, Mann drawing outrageous conclusions, suing people right and left just to bind their arms in litigation, speaks of tyranny. Mann knows nothing about climate, and must surely be a man of low concepts, merely wanting to get by in life. When people with money and power offer him a way to fame, he takes it, no questions asked. This is a disreputable man.
But Mann had an objective, one that could only be achieved by a magic trick. In the little graph with the vertical green lines above next to Mann’s Hockey Stick, I have carved out the same period of time from GISP2 as Mann shows us in his stick, 1000 years. That period includes what we call the Medieval Warm Period. That period lasted from approximately 800-1300 AD. As GISP2 shows, it was much warmer then than now. This is the time period in which Vikings were farming Greenland, and when grapes for wine were grown in Northern England. If Mann and Gore and all claim that we are in a period of unprecedented heat caused by use of fossil fuels, then they would have to explain why it was hotter a thousand years ago, a time with no fossil fuels, than now. His solution appears to have been to use sloppy science to make the Medieval Warm Period go away.
There is more, much more to learn from ice core technology. I’ve got a kettle of ideas boiling over. In Antarctica they have cores that go back two million years, though what I read on the subject indicates that 800,000 years is the limit. But Princeton scientists claim to have broken that barrier. Just reading their stuff, they seem hell-bent (and unsuccessful) of tying CO2 into ice core science. We can never be sure these days, so many liars afoot, so wait and see.,
This Antarctica data (and it helps to know how to interpret graphs) is taken from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica. It covers 800,000 (!) years. Peaks are Interglacial periods such as the one we are currently in, and troughs are the return of ice. On the very far right, where we see a sharp uptick in temperatures, is where we are now, the Holocene. Within the Holocene are warm periods called Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern, our current time period. There is also a Little Ice Age. There is a lot to squeeze into that graph, so vast is its coverage. From what we see here it can be deduced that for our planet, warmth is the exception, cold the rule. Contrary to what we are told by alarmists, it is better to be warm than cold. I know that works for me.
Enough for a day. By the way, here is what climate alarmists and extremists think about GISP2:
In the modern era, disagreement is not allowed in science. They achieve consensus by forcing skeptics to shut up, or else. No funding, no job, drive that Uber. It is fascism.
Piece of Mindful 
there wasn’t a lot of thermometers available back then at the time of Fahrenheit. And how accurate could they have been? Even today we have a measurement error of say one grade. Digital displays suggest a non existing accuracy showing some floating point numbers but keep in mind, that there is a sensor inside translating temperature into electrical signals and if you take 5 thermometers of the same sort you’ll always get slightly different results. Global Warming nuts don’t tell us, there is an increase of temperature of a few grades, they tell us it’s in the floating point range (less than one grade) This is in the range of the measurement error. I recently read, the last summer was the hottest ever. They now just can say it because nobody in the media will say otherwise. That’s how the Corona crap was done. By repeating the same mantra over and over again. Repetition together with fear mongering makes the masses believe anything. It’s a well known phenomenon. We’ve had some days last year when temperature was about 30°C (86°F) but only for hours and only on a few days. In the past we had periods with temperatures of >37°C (about 100°F) for weeks. Last summer wasn’t the hottest ever, it wasn’t even hot. They want us to think they can influence weather, well they can’t. What happens is because of bigger factors, like the constellation of planets or changes in sun activity which probably also correlates with the planets movements. Humans may dry a river or a lake for some time if they take more water out than it gets in. But that’s it. 70% of Earth’s surface is covered with water. The oceans are about 2km deep in average, maybe less. The Earth’s diameter is about 12000km. This 2km water surface is like a film of water on a balloon.
The distance between Europe and USA is only a few hundred meters deep by the way. They put a cable between Europe and USA back then to communicate with the new center of power based in Washington DC. It’s the last of the three Vaticans together with Rome and City of London.
I don’t believe in Ice Ages as I don’t believe in Dinosaurs or rock painting anymore. Bones cannot turn into stone, foot prints cannot be saved through thousands of years and leaves of plants don’t leave any permanent prints either. Structures like layers of rock are from a time when there wasn’t any plants yet. How could a leaf leave a print in stone and then be found?
LikeLike
I agree with most of that, but “I don’t believe in ice ages” is a stretch. In our current time, both poles are covered with ice. We are in one! The geological evidence of advancing and retreating glaciers is impressive, and features like the Great Lakes of North America are nothing more than glacial moraines. There was a time when climate was a real science, now corrupted by shysters. But there has been honest work by honest people. We know by historical and archeological evidence that Vikings farmed Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, and that there was also Minoan and Roman Warm Periods, which is why they are named (warm periods occur regularly, but only those in which civilization advanced are named).
LikeLike
And this is why people should stop this conspie theory; it makes them utterly crazy. QED.
I am not gonna unwind the whole spaghetti of nonsense claims and totally unfounded rejactions here, just one non sequitur, proving already enough lack of any logical thinking in barbara’s brain.
Ice Ages (glacials and interglacials) have literally nothing to do with dinosaurs, according to mainstream geochronology, already extinct for 63,000,000+ years….
Physical evidence of geologically recent glacial activity can be found all over the world, even in your home country.
I grew up on the moraines produced by the advancing ice from the north, if “ice ages are a hoax”, then how came the geomorphology of Germany and the Netherlands and the Pleistocene lake here and ALL those other glacially affected places about?
And if the uniquely Scandinavian gneisses and granites didn’t end up as dropstones and moraine material in northern Germany, Pomerania and again the Netherlands, how did those boulders end up in those places then? By Giants??
For proper GAIA logos (the study of GAIA, that goes beyond just the physical Earth; geosphere) consult a proper geologist, barbs has got to unlearn some new narratives she picked up from YT carnies….
Gaia speaks to you, she is all around you. But with such a nonsensical closemindedness as you displayed in your post, I don’t have much hope She can open your eyes….
LikeLike
don’t get emotional, dear GAIA. I didn’t say, the dinosaurs and ice age have something in common, although actually they have: both are invented by bored and reach elite to impress the common folks. They tell us, it happened hundreds of millions years ago or something. Nobody can prove that. We assume there was some chronological development but we can’t possibly know the actual time periods. We can’t measure how old something is. Radiocarbon measurements are not reproducible and they are the best they have. The planet somehow emerged, having different geological structures of course. Glaciers are not made out of precipitation. The ice is geological, pressed out of the ground, made of frozen groundwater or something. There are thousands of glaciers and we observe only a few of them ignoring for instance those which “move” in different direction. It’s cherry picking as always in this fake controlled science.
As for fossils, I remember as a child we went for an excursion from school to look for fossils in some quarry, didn’t find any, were then told, it is not easy to find them and were showed some fossils found by others. All fossil bones in museums are fakes, the real bones supposedly somewhere else in hands of “scientists”. And there is no convincing explanation why in the past nature somehow created such huge animals. I rarely watch TV but sometimes I stumble upon some documentary on our less important channels. There always is a lot about Adolf, then there is Egypt very popular this days and also many documentaries about fossils where some people show fake bones, even telling that this are just casts. They explain how they come to their conclusions and you know what? The entire narrative is made up to match the main line that there was an evolution through extreme long periods of time where the existence of us humans is just a tiny bit of time. How can a leaf leave an imprint in mud? Nobody ever did that in a laboratory. How can bones turn into stone and become separable after millions of years?
I mentioned Egypt before. In this documentaries they make a lot of digging in some less known places in Egypt of course finding many things they somehow didn’t find in the past. They spin the story of the Pharaohs farther and farther, even making them gay and transgender. All of this based on their new discoveries. It’s fake of course. But it gives some work for the poor Egyptians and makes some elite folks famous for a few minutes. I’ve seen the pyramids myself. The place in Gizeh is very impressive. It doesn’t really matter how old they are IMO. They are the oldest artifacts supposedly made by humans, we can still visit and see for ourselves. And we still don’t really know how they were build. This documentaries also show many Egyptian folks working on sandstone and creating Egyptian looking parts soon to become ancient. It’s so fake, all of it. Except for the pyramids. The museum is as fake as other museums are. They make a lot of fuss not letting people make selfies with the “golden” statue of Tutankhamun. There will be a new museum, near to the pyramids, so people don’t have to go through Cairo and watch all the poverty.
LikeLike
The history of how the first cave painting and the first dinosaur fossil were found are pretty suspicious indeed.
As you suggested, I think all cave pairings are forgeries. Dinosaurs, I’m less sure, it could be that fossils of large beast do exist but are mislabeled as dinosaurs.
Whether they be real or not, it is true that the theory of evolution/Darwinism are intrinsically tied to the eugenics agenda, which is the reason why the Establishment does not want “Evolution” to be challenged, much like the depopulation agenda of climate change/sustainable development.
LikeLike
Well said. ‘Red ochre’ ie. clay soil mixed with spittle last for tens of thousand of years? Remarkable. I’m going to start painting my house with it. If only the people at Dulux would learn. These ‘scientists’ can be stunningly unscientific when it suits them.
LikeLike
BARBM, can you post a link to the original article?
LikeLike
i.e. the article you copied your post from?
LikeLike
There’s actually a lot of good evidence that suggests the ice on Greenland(and Antarctica as well) are far younger than we’ve been told. If I said that ice only formed perhaps 1200 years ago you would no doubt find that hard to swallow.
If you are interested in learning more however the Malaga Bay website has dozens of articles on the subject. This one is as good a place to start as any:
https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/getting-to-grips-with-greenland/
The more I research the more I realize that we shouldn’t trust the dates assigned to ice cores, artifacts or fossils any more than the rest of what these wretched academic institutions produce. I have a twitter thread on it here:
LikeLike
I’ve read a lot about dating methods, and tend to agree. That whole thing about geological timetables represented by various types of rocks smacks of lack of rigor. But the ice core work appears to be repeatable, and they pretty much got identical results in Antarctica using δD and δ18O, deuterium and oxygen 18 isotopes. They can also tie the ice cores into historical references, Vikings in Greenland, for example, grapes in northern England. When they go back before recorded history, as in Antarctica, then it becomes less reliable. Some want to tie our ice ages into oscillations and planetary orbits, and that also makes sense, as they do tend to repeat.
LikeLike
A Twitter thread?! I could see using it for promotion, but please consider posting to the Fakeologist forums or someplace more readable. It does sound interesting.
LikeLike
In a sense it’s good that Barbara made that post, because it is not personal, it is a common phenomenon I pointed out in the very beginning, when I started writing here.
It is the pars pro toto fallacy ; taking a part of something and projecting the characteristics of that part on the whole.
The claims “I don’t believe in/all are fake” about dinosaurs and rock paintings is nonsensical.
The point that some rock paintings (Lascaux, Altamira and other Disneyworld scenes) are faked, does not make ALL rock art (petroglyphs and pictographs) suddenly fake/forged/parr of some conspiracy whooo.
The exact same with fossils, not only dinosaurs, another completely nonsensical YT carny division that seemingly some non-critical thinking brains cannot see, that large Hollywood style fossil finds are faked, does not make all fossils, or all dinosaur fossils “fake”.
It is this nasty fallacy that separates the thinkers from the consumers. The ice age and dino “deniers” (hate that word, but with physical evidences to check for yourself it is madness so it fits) are just as misguided as the Flat Earfers, the Rothschilds are important New Normies, the enormies who believe all kinds of bullshit and other non- and thus anti-scientific mud throwers in waters we should keep as clean as possible.
Pity the trolling filth hasn’t left here.
But as you see, I take lessons from everything.
LikeLike
I do not think personal insult is necessary here, by the way. We all have blind spots. I know I do, as I was just shown how wrong I can be about weather modification. Fortunately I’ve been wrong so often in my life that I do not take an ego hit. I just keep on hoeing.
LikeLike
I am sorry but I am not sorry for calling out unfounded Hans Wormhole ‘level’ claims and the denial of something I have embedded in my bathroom sink (snail fossil) and have held in my hands many times (including the mammoth molar my parents had, fished out of the North Sea, but ice ages didn’t exist, rrright), like so many other examples.
Do you think it is unfair to demand evidence, reasoning and standards with bold unfounded claims, or is Sweet Peace more important than Pure Truth?
LikeLike
It never hurts to be nicer than you are. Publicly demeaning people speaks of narcissism, and narcissists are not the kind of people I truck with. Try being married to one, as I once was. For everyone else, Gaia is now on sabbatical, having f-bombed and insulted friendly and regular commenters here. Regarding me, he’s a little more reserved as he knows I have a kill switch, but even I have had enough.
LikeLike
I’ve been away and am getting caught up–skimming or skipping over Guya’s posts along the way. Nobody asked my opinion, and Mark, I appreciate your stance on the nastiness of banning people, but at this point, banning Guya wouldn’t be much different than turning on an ad-blocker, don’t you think? Clearly, his only purpose here, at this point, is self-promotion and recruitment. PROBLEM: Our leader, Mark, means well, but is guiding us down a primrose path, and he and all the other writers here are various degrees of wrong about pretty much everything. SOLUTION: We should all go to Guya’s Discord, or whatever, so he can set us straight. It’s pretty tiresome.
LikeLike
I banned him several days ago. I tolerate a lot from him, but he started the old routine of deep insults to intelligence and f-bombing people. I don’t think I will let him back this time. As you say, it is tiresome.
LikeLike
Gaia, which are the real dinos and which are the fake? The big Hollywood ones – like Sue – are fake? But other T-rexes are real? Or all T-rexes are fake, but some more plausible dinos are real?
Does fossilization of bones and large animals require extremely special conditions? Are those conditions found anywhere today? Were those conditions more common in the past? Or the time scale just means that even rare occurrence would be enough to get thousands of fossil skeletons?
LikeLike
That is a question that can only be answered by doing the work, finding out which fossils (not jusr dinos) are fake, forged (chimaerae) or real.
You are asking for the conclusion of research that needs to be done.
You want the end scene of a film you haven’t started.
I have donemy part. I have written, rewritten, expanded and contextualized hundreds and hundreds of formations bearing fossils, linking all the open source information there is, such that that research can be done.
Take a look at for instance the category, that I also created for organizational purposes, filled with egg-bearing (?) fossiliferous formations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ooliferous_formations
<blockquote<
The big Hollywood ones – like Sue – are fake? But other T-rexes are real? Or all T-rexes are fake, but some more plausible dinos are real?
Forget dinosaurs and start at the start. Dinosaurs were not coined till the 1830s, by Richard Owen, if my memory serves me well.
The origins of large scale paleontology and suspicious fossil finds go back half a century earlier.
The first big saurid finds were not dinos, they were pliosaurs, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs. Those are among the first suspicious finds in the far southeast of the Netherlands, not coincidentally occupied by and discovered by… Napoleon Bonaparte and his buddies, hence the name Mosasaur, reptile of the Meuse/Maas river, flowing along Maastricht, where the Maastrichtian, the youngest Cretaceous is named after.
The type of rock those mosasaurs (later more have been claimed to be found) occurred in, is chalk. The same chalk as you find along the Channel coasts. Those very fine limestones consist of tiny algae floating in a quiet, yet lively, bioactive sea.
The chance any huge animal would be dying, sinking to the bottom undisturbed and magically found as only specimen in cubic kilometers of already mined rock is just too improbable.
It is with these considerations we can get to an idea of what is real and what is fake, but plain stupid rejection based on nonsensical assumptions is wrong in any case.
LikeLike
It’s a bit of a funny question, because fossilization is the indication of those special conditions. Think about subfossilization, like mummification, naturally. That also requires special conditions for it to happen.
Huh? Of course. Have you never seen a bog (future coalbeds)? Never seen resin dripping from trees? As we speak, thousands of insects are being immortalized in what one day will be amber.
The Black Sea is called that for a reason. I remember having seen TOC measurements of up to 10 % or more, meaning the oxygenless (necessity for fossilization) bottoms preserve most of the life that it captures and manages to maintain.
You can find fossilized shell beds in many coastal areas, and their recent counterpart right next door.
Don’t you guys go out and explore your environments?
No time, slaving for the boss, I get it.
Not.
You have many periods in geologic history with increased fossilization. The Carboniferous coals stretching from West Virginia to Poland (yes, explain that, Flat Earthers or plate tectonics deniers…), the Createceous anoxic events leading to widespread ammonite and other marine life fossilization.
Tar pits as in La Brea, but also in Venezuela and other places, famous is the Messel Pit in Germany with gorgeous fossilization in alogic environment; a volcanic lake suddenly killing the wildlife by outgassings.
Time is the essential element and that what normies (non geologists in this case) struggle to understand. Bur that is where GAIA speaks for herself. You cannot possibly stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon and claim that that natural beauty has been laid down, incised in, tilted, eroded and compacted in just a few thousand years.
Only biblical maniac priests (Ussherites) can get away with such nonsense.
GAIA has time.
Hence why time is SO valuable.
And people waste it away.
LikeLike
Thanks Gaia. Yes I’m aware of small shell creatures being fossilized. I guess theoretically an elephant could be, if it wandered into the Black Sea or a tar pit or someplace. It doesn’t seem very common, yet they keep finding dinos every damn place.
I once came across a photo of the original “fossils” some very famous early find was based on. It was literally a table spread with rubble. The brilliant paleontologists had reconstructed it from that. Now they show us photos where they’re digging them up and they’re marvelously intact. Somebody noticed a toe protruding from rock, and started chipping away I suppose. Lucky, lucky.
A little disappointed to hear that “more research is needed,” but it’s still an edifying reply.
LikeLike
What?? More research is needed? You haven’t done a damn thing, other than mocking and armwaiving and you expect OTHERS to do research to solve YOUR problems you have no clue about to solve.
You must be utterly insane, workless troll.
LikeLike
Gaia, I thanked you and said your reply was edifying, so I’m not sure why you’re het up. You did say “more research is needed” to answer some of my questions, and that does disappoint me, that you don’t have a view on some of those basic things. After you came on so strong calling out Barb, I thought here is a man who has all the answers – or at least claims to – and that would be interesting to hear.
LikeLike
“You cannot possibly stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon and claim that that natural beauty has been laid down, incised in, tilted, eroded and compacted in just a few thousand years.”
Not in that fashion necessarily.
Where have I gone astray reading, listening, and considering the possibility that close proximity by a celestial object resulted in a substantial electrical discharge great enough to literally blast out material thus forming the canyon?
Alternatively, is it not possible in the earth-expansion theory that the very large crack (the canyon) formed as a result of the crust expanding?
Thank you, by the way, for the other information.
LikeLike
I am sll for serious alternative explanations, as in geology is very common to have different models to explain an observation.
But in order to take such proposals seriously, they need to be solid and better explaining the datapoints than the current, among geologists and others who did dedicate their valuable time studying it, model.
So my first question is; what is wrong in your eyes with a faulted river canyon, eroding the layers in which it meandets? Like happens in so many places on Earth, admittedly not as textbook gorgeous as the Colorado River incising those old rocks for the past 50 million years or so?
I cannot subscribe to the Charge model as presented by Miles Mathis, because I do not agree with his premise and data collection; he believes in space travel and uses that data to construct a model.
But taking that model in mind; where do you have examples of unequivocally charge-produced geologic structures on Earth that you think can work as an analogue to the Grand Canyon?
The Expanding Earth guy Neal Adams is a smart carny, a clever snake oil salesman.
For the layman his presentations seem to make sense, because he cherrypicks examples that support his thesis, but cleverly ignores everything that goes against it. I had constantly with watching 1 or 2 of his videos, “yes, but this phenomenon speaks against your thesis”.
So I cannot take that theory seriously either. It is not science, it is a narrative, a carny story, global mudfloods, Tartaria as an empire that kind of crap.
What is wrong with the present model for the evolution of the Grand Canyon? I have not seen big geologic debates on this topic either, while that exists on other topics.
LikeLike
I will dig for the basis of my comment/question.
I was NOT referring to any work of Miles Mathis.. Electric Universe if anything; perhaps Dewey Larson. I was NOT referring to some video by some guy on YouTube – whom I had never heard of.
As to the Colorado river and erosion: at the northern “side” of the canyon, does the terrain not go up hill. Are you saying that the water pushed and pushed and pushed into what would be the entrance to the future canyon… a drill like action… no diversion to lower ground? If the river was “always there”, same thing, unless land movement afterwards. Just trying to remember here… where did the purported silt go, the Gulf of California? I seem to remember no evidence of that.
LikeLike
Here is s very brief 2-part summary of where I started way back when:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080929grandcanyon.htm
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/081001canyon2.htm
It seemed reasonable to me then, as it does now.
Still looking for that celestial object visiting close enough.
LikeLike
In addition to the Electric Universe & Thunderbolts, long ago I read God Star; Dwardu Cardona & Cosmos in Collision; Theodore A Holden, but they both refer to Saturn. I thought for sure that some other familiar body was theorized to have been close to the earth. Maybe that was in mythology somewhere… can’t find it. Velikovsky?
Still looking for my old expanding earth sources.
LikeLike
Yes… I mentioned him earlier: Universe of Motion; Dewey B. Larson. All of my understanding of expanding-earth is rooted there, but I am certain of other sources as well. While spinning through the InterWeb, I was reminded of the ancient maps (if real) showing obvious mis-matches with today’s earth [size]. Shrink the earth and those maps are right on.
LikeLike
I find the Expanding Earth Hypothesis much more plausible, than the cosmic (Velinkovsky/Thunderbolts) one. While the cosmic one is certainly interesting, it is based on the interpretation of global myths, which turns out to be wrong. I don’t want to go into the details, but “Saturn” in ancient times refer to the Sun during autumn equinox to spring equinox, it is not referring to the planet that we refer to as Saturn in modern times. (And “Venus” is referring to the moon)
If you want to research more on the Expanding Earth hypothesis, I suggest you to look into Samuel Carey’s work.
LikeLike
What I find most convincing of NON-erosion is the pattern, the actual shape of the canyon and its branches… nearly identical to that of a modern day EDM (in experiments) – that’s an Electrical Discharge Machine. Lightening discharges as well.
Oh, and I love it when experts simply say “…wrong;” thanks for that… very helpful. YOUR interpretation, as it stands, is unsubstantiated. I saw it just the opposite: Saturn was the “sun” and VERY close to the earth.
LikeLike
Of course I can substantiate it, but what’s the point – if one is interested, they would be able to find out about it themselves. I merely offered a hint. If one is not interested, no amount of words can convince them
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stow your hint. I never agreed with the “You can only learn if you do the research” bullshit. I would bet that that view is shared here.
Would I even be here if I could not comprehend The King’s English at an elevated level, and be reading well-informed, educated [other] people offering their valuable data – gratis?
I have asked to you to substantiate – or otherwise clearly indicated so. THAT is the point. Of course I am interested – do you think I am just playing games here… like you are demonstrating?
Why are YOU here? I won’t be the one patting your ego.
LikeLike
The first thing to realize is that (almost) every myth in global mythology, as well as some pseudo-historical characters, refers to the same entities/phenomenon:
Saturn is also referred to as Kronos, El, Elohim, Osiris, Set, Moloch, Baal, Satan etc. Their connection can be seen in either their motif (bull, agriculture, underworld), the historical evidence of cultural transference, or the root of the word.
In opposition to Saturn, there is Jupiter, also referred to as Zeus/Jove, Jehovah/Jesus, Isis, Horus, representing resurrection and healing. Of note, in many myths, the Jupiter god defeats or overcomes the Saturnian god.
Explaining any one myth, explains all of them.
Given, “Christianity” is still practiced today, it would be easiest to use the Jesus myth as example. It is obvious that the Jesus myth, which comes from the Chaldean religion, concerns the movement of the Sun through the Zodiac.I am not going to expound on this, you can find many resource on the internet if you want “proof”. As Jesus opposes Satan, like Jupiter opposes Saturn – you can see that they are referring to different periods of the sun-year. I have said autumn aquinox to spring aquinox represents Saturn(and thus, spring to autumn represents Jupiter), but it could also be just be Winter, or from late Summer to Winter. The exact period is not particular important to this argument.
Here, I have explained it for you. Would you still rather believe that the planet Saturn migrated all the way from close to Earth to the outskirts of the solar system? If so, by the same logic, you would have to believe that not only Saturn but also Jupiter and Uranus(Ouranos) were once close to Earth as well, and they all migrated in the course of what- ten thousand years? Or would you rather accept the much simpler explanation that, it is the “names” that have been replaced? (And I may add, it was intentionally replaced to confuse the masses)
LikeLike
I am familiar with what you have stated. However, “Explaining any one myth, explains all of them” is way too broad – and you know it.
Does your implication of 10,000 years being too little a time span (for celestial body movement), come from the liars of status quo “scientists?”
LikeLike
GAIA, I just don’t believe the ancient folks had the motivation to make such paintings in some caves and that this paintings can still be watched after how many thousands of years? No paint can survive that. It’s made up to draw tourists. If something is easy to fake, it probably is. Maybe you can explain how leaves or bones can be conserved in mud and become separable after millions of years? There even are footprints of dinosaurs on some rock which can be visited by tourists of course. I just forgot where it was.
LikeLike
That is what scientism is. It is open and out right satanism (the reversal of that what is divine) and Freddy Gore exposed that years ago already, so no need to further debate this, with his “the science is settled”.
Science, the art of knowing, is by it very definition never settled.
Making Gore’s statement the pinnacle of psience the Anthropogenic Global Warmongering scam is.
That is one of my tools when I discuss this with other scientists. It is getting these slamdunk arguments across and you checkmate them. The only emotional escape are ad hominems, my founded criticisms on Simon’s TYCHOS and his hilariously immature attacks on me were a prime example of that.
The problem is that you have too many science rejectors here, who do the same as the enormies who fall for this scam.
They confuse Science (philosophy of truth seeking within the measurable realm of GAIA) with Scientism (a satanic fascistic we say how it is religion) and project the latter on the first, dragging it down in the mud.
science is our friend against scientism
(Maarten Rossaert, you see your presence is highly needed, please don’t let this antiscientific Flat Earthish filth take over here….)
LikeLike
Would you consider doing a guest post concerning TYCHOS? I have not read the book, and would like it laid out succinctly without having to do that.
LikeLike
Ha thank you Mark, I was about to write you an email with ideas, but then… no laptop again, cable this time. And as I have 19,000 (4.75 USD) left for the next 8 days, that has to wait till the new mobnth for solution. And I hate typing on my phone or tablet.
I would love to write a guest post on many lessons for all, aiducation, but I think the TYCHOS would be a waste for that.
On paper I am preparing what I asked from you (philosophy is acting), namely a breakdown of the Agenda elements of the AGW scam you revived my interest and participation in. Those should serve as lecture material for anyone, but especially the younger generations indoctrinated by this Climate Madness.
Whatever model explains best the movement of planets and stars around us, is a funny topic for a cheesy chat, but the essence of life is something different, namely life. Life = growth = life, meaning that crystals are life. GAIA life, not bios life.
And with the TYCHOS, it is Simon’s turn. Everything hinges on 1 claim he has made but not substantiated, let being reviewed first and published (such that it can be properly reviewed, by peers), namely that
Parallax measurements do not measure the distance between the stars, yet depend on the day within the year it is measured.
That point alone topples ALL the distance calculations beyond our solar system, and could present his model as a correctly working, predicting, alternative.
But Simon is more on the scientimisr side, his misbehaviors against me are far from personal, he has a nasty personality and too big ego, which make him not a scientist. I have spoken with people who have met him in real life.
I continue my breakdown of the AGW scam and share photos here, on my phone I have no access to my email (on purpose).
For those caring for Molly and me getting out of these periofs of suffering, feel free to drop a donation at https://www.patreon.com/iamiradio
Au boulot !
LikeLike
Not sure what you are asking for here. The AGW movement is maddening in that its proponents can say any damned thing they like about any topic, and no one in the media contradicts them. Skeptics are, by and large, kept out of the media. It was just noted at the website https://wattsupwiththat.com/ that in the 51 years since the first Earth Day, no prediction made by any member of the AGW movement has come true.
If you go to the Wattsupwiththat website, follow a link or two, you should be able to download a new book, Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students. It is put out by Heartland Institute, and obviously they would like to cover their costs, but in the end they want to get the word out, just as you do, to brainwashed kids. I reviewed the electronic version of the book, and found it simply excellent, documented and linked to sources for everything.
Obviously, given your financial straits, I would urge that you go to https://climateataglance.com/ and see on their home page that you can download the book for free.
LikeLike
Mark, thank you for the link and book suggestions, but by doing that to me, you make clear you do not understand (yet) what aSHIFT. is and why I am so strong.
I stay unmarked by all the Carney Institutes, or Shitdale Foundations. And that is my point; you should too!
Those people do not matter to truth.
Only truth matters to truth.
And I matter to truth.
So not to people who do not matter at all, for a single bit.
Make them NPC.
They cloud your judgements.
GAIA speaks for herself.
I am just one of her many loudspeakers
we are aLOUD.
LikeLike
The comments of this post are interesting, last time Mark made a post about ice cores and dating methods, I commented about how they are not reliable, but no one seems to take the bite, now I see Barbara and Edoteric snd Timr essentially agreeing the general idea.
Personally, I think the ice age (yes, 1 only) is real, but it happened not that long ago, caused by some kind of cosmic catastrophe. Ice core dating is pseudoscience, much like tree core dating. They work up to a certain degree (say, 400 hundred or a few thousand years), but days nothing about prehistoric times.
LikeLike
On what basis do you label ice core dating “pseudoscience”? Please elaborate in detail. I’ve spent quite a bit of time on this subject, and it is far more than just arranging isotopes in a line. They have to be coordinated with other disciplines, such as archeology. What Michael Mann did was not pseudoscience, but rather science fraud. But the many countries who financed these very expensive ice cores are comprised of a little more salt, a little more character than Mann. Even if the cores are not precise in thier dating (how can they be?), it is relationships. The tie-ins between Minoan, Roman and Medieval culture, Vikings farming Greenland, etc., tell us more of a whole than the details.
You say it is pseudoscience. Back up that statement. On first impression, it is a wave-of-the-hand dismissal. And please do not shower me with links. I want your words and reasoning in narrative form.
LikeLike
Hi Mark, the assumption is, that the ice is older if you dig deeper. It may be valid to some extend but we have no ways to say what age can be found in which depth. So connecting the findings to certain ages claimed in different areas on the earth is based on nothing. What if through the ages only a small layer of ice gets exchanged and the deeper layers of ice are as old as the planet is? Or maybe the ice gets constantly exchanged every few centuries or so like the glacier ice, which is geological and not from raining or snow? We don’t know that. The research of this areas is about 100 years old, give or take. And only recently (for a few decades) we have the technology to analyze this kind of substance or possible findings. This polar scientists are eager to produce expected results and they lie as the virologists or molecular biologists lie. I never read about any meaningful and convincing findings from ice core analysis.
Can you provide any interesting information about useful findings from the ice core analysis? I don’t know any.
LikeLike
Concerning “useful findings,” I suppose you should read t(e post below which you comment. All useful. Do they willy nilly take their findings and lay it all out as settled science? No. Science is never settled. They do look for other proxies, such as volcano eruptions, useful in correlating time stamps. It’s not as if they are stupid.
In Antarctica, ice has been forming for hundreds of thousands of years, and below they have found fossilized forests, indicating a time when there was no ice age. Not in the same studies, but in core analysis. they had to stop at 800,000 years, as the samples were apparently corrupted by sheet movements and the like. Then Princeton came along and found they could go back two million years. But if you read the Princeton narrative, you’ll find, as I did, that they are actively trying to tie in CO2 to findings, a red flag. Our modern climatologists corrupt everything they touch, ice cores too.,
Not everything is fake. Wave of the hand dismissals without rigor or objective analysis are not my thing. Do better.
LikeLike
Who typed everything is fake?
LikeLike
I found it all fascinating and useful, in terms of older civilizations, and in Antarctica, the age of the planet and warm periods intervening. I don’t know if it is ice-core-related, but there is a fossilized forest underlying the miles of Antarctic ice. I suppose you’re going to say that has to be fake too.
I do not like wave-of-the-hand dismissal of honest scientific inquiry. To me, it is like fingernails on a blackboard.
LikeLike
I found this description of this forest story:
“Scientists have discovered remnants of a swampy temperate rainforest that thrived in Antarctica about 90 million years ago. ..
The scientists think these mild conditions – an annual mean temperature of about 54 degrees Fahrenheit (12 degrees Celsius) – were possible because there was no significant ice sheet across Antarctica. It appears that carbon dioxide concentrations were much higher than previously thought. Their findings were published in the April 1, 2020, issue of the peer-reviewed journal Nature. ”
April 1., yeah, right.
LikeLike
I don’t really feel compelled to write a long explanation, after all Milankovitch said: “I do not consider it my duty to give an elementary education to the ignorant, and I have also never tried to force others to apply my theory, with which no one could find fault.”
If someone does not want to take the time to follow up on the links or hints that people have offered, then I do not see why I should take the time to try and convince them. (By the way, the quote is doubly satirical, because Milankovitch’s theory is wrong, but that’s for another day)
If you have spent a lot of time on this subject, then I suppose you know that it has been acknowledged seasonal isotope variations cannot be determined from >300m of the ice core. That is to say, sub-annual variations could be mistaken as annual variations thus increasing the age dated. But that is hardly the most problematic issue. Since the (dust) layers of the lower part of the ice core cannot be counted due to the extreme compression, mathematical models have to be relied upon(sound familiar?), such as the Dansgaard-Johnsen model – these models presume that ice accumulated uniformly, so that the age and depth of the core would have a linear relationship. We are told that this assumption is verified by its consistency with isotope dating, and herein lies the problem.
The fact of the matter is, the accuracy of dating ice cores is intrinsically tied to the accuracy of isotope dating, and visa versa (as isotope dating is also verified by ice core dating in other settings). Perhaps it is telling how the researchers of GISP2 decided to add 25000 years to their original dating after finding a discrepancy with isotope dating, and was able to “find more structure indicating a greater number”!
While I could show all the theoretical reasons why radiometric dating is unreliable, and quote the scientific studies (such as the RATE project). I do not need to, since there is incontrovertible proof that radiometric dating gives completely inaccurate results – which brings me back to the link I shared last time, on the city of Pompeii:
https://stolenhistory.net/threads/pompeiigate-scandal-chronology-issues.1511/
We are told, Argon dating puts the destruction of Pompeii in 79 CE. While a wealth of evidence shows that Pompeii is in fact destroyed in 1631 CE. That would mean it is off by 1552 years, or an exaggeration of 500%. If the dating is off by 500% for dating an ‘artifact’ from 450 years ago, how off would it be when it is used to date something “millions of years ago”?
In conclusion, ice core dating and isotope dating (and some other dating methods I don’t care to mention) are all pseudosciences with so much circular reasoning that makes your head spin. But I guess that’s the point, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Good stuff. It was isotopes(along with viruses and a feckin kitchen blender) that proved that dna was the hereditary mechanism per the narrative of course.
Funny story. Wild Bill Libby’s c14 dating takes into account the make believe nuke bomb tests effect. Wild Bill married Leona Woods. Leona worked on Szilard and Ferm’s pile of shite in ci cago. She then became a tree ring guru to help ole Wild Bill.
LikeLike
The reason I demand a narrative is that it forces you to reason through, whereas linking to others merely says “Here, read the bullshit I like better than your bullshit.” That takes far more time than I am willing to devote to someone who cannot stand alone think alone. At least during the Holocene, ice cores agree with advances in civilization, which happen in warmth, not cold. If you’re saying they fake these results, impugning the integrity of people I regard as real scientists, a rarity these days, then I ask for motive. No one is harmed by their work, millions are spent on what, a fool’s errand? I agree that there is far less to be taken at face in Antarctica in the absence of correlating evidence, but even there they have found evidence of warmth in the Medieval period, and we also know with certainty of the Minoan, Medieval, Roman and Modern warm periods, and of the Little Ice Age, all of which Michael Mann tried to eliminate.
I am aware of the skepticism around other proxy systems. I have no problem with that skepticism. I see entire scientific disciplines built around fraud, including modern climatology, which eschews ice cores with great rigor. That all speaks of a political agenda. Where, pray tell, are the politics behind ice cores, which fly in the face of modern climatology?
LikeLike
Mark, I think I mentioned last time that the supposed good-fit of civilizations prospering and the ice core data is pure coincidence, that truth is that the history of most ancient civilizations is fake, so it means quite little.
While I don’t think most researchers/scientists are intentionally committing fraud, they are also not mentally prepared to challenge the status quo, ie. Mainstream view. However, if we have to point to a grand motive, I would propose “deep time” is tied into the “evolution” hypothesis, which requires a long history to explain the “accidental mutations”; and “evolution” itself is a Malthusian concept.
LikeLike
Four coincidences? That, to me, speaks of science fraud, and without purpose. There is no agenda associated with ice cores, just pure science. As with all science, it might be flawed.
In case you do not see it, ice cores openly challenge the status quo.
Anyway, not everything is fake.
LikeLike
Sure, not everything is fake, but it does not mean most things pushed by the mainstream “science” aren’t.
Trying to date when a civilization prospered is rather subjective, if one believes, say the Roman Empire existed between 20 BCE to around 1400 CE, there is 1400 years to choose from.
I don’t see how ice cores challenge the status quo – Unless you’re talking about the status quo of climate science? Well, since both of them are roughly made up, it’s not surprising that their findings contradict with each other. I would be surprise if they “don’t” contradict with each other. Confusing the public is the game.
LikeLike
This very post illustrates above a massive contradiction between the Mann Hock Sticky and GISP2.
LikeLike