CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

posidonia · 23-01-2020 6:28pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

And yet according to Dr. Nikolovs and Hellers peer reviwed published paper if it was the CO2 it would be MUCH hotter. It's the size and Atmospheric pressure that dictate temp according to these scientists. He actually uses Venus as an example why CO2 CANT warm a planet.

https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/

I've highlighted the problem areas. You know, according to Oriel6 the problem is....

Their paper is peer reviewed by people like you. So, no preconceived views there then :rolleyes:

posidonia · 23-01-2020 6:31pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You seem to be immune to the fact that you spout untrue hyperbole on a daily basis, kind of like The Guardian source you so often refer to. The problem is you're not the only one doing it, and many people are believing it, including impressionable schoolkids. Then we have that AOC who has more looks than braincells, yet although she's running around shouting the end of the world is nigh, she's "doing what a politician should do, acting on the information provided to her by sciensts and experts in those areas", according to Retrogamer. This is the level of nonsense we're dealing with here.

Another high-quality contribution...Oh, and look, not a single insult either...

Oneiric 3 · 23-01-2020 6:38pm

oriel36 wrote: »

If you can't read it and appreciate what is being said then leave it be.

It's common knowledge that Darwin was a 'racialist', so much so that this was a big motivation behind his 'Theory of Evolution'. My point was that even philosophers from that era that we hold dear today shared those same views to various degrees of extent.

Gaoth Laidir · 23-01-2020 6:41pm

posidonia wrote: »

Another high-quality contribution...Oh, and look, not a single insult either...

Both factually correct.

SeaBreezes · 23-01-2020 6:51pm

posidonia wrote: »

I've highlighted the problem areas. You know, according to Oriel6 the problem is....

Their paper is peer reviewed by people like you. So, no preconceived views there then :rolleyes:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Preconceived views? Have a good long hard look in the mirror. :-)... honestly your great at dishing out the hyperbole and insults yet to see those stats you have spent many years observing and working on.. nothing in my inbox either. Strange...

So, science that is peer reviewed is good unless it disturbs the 'consensus' is it?

They have three papers published. Had to change their names to get the science reviewed on merit and not stopped by IPCC.

His twitter account is below you can go ask him directly (your fond of that aren't you?) and show him where he's wrong

https://mobile.twitter.com/NikolovScience/status/1213550751424729088

Water John · 23-01-2020 7:00pm

Those here with uncontravertible evidence of data falsification and prove their is little evidence of impact by fossil fuel burning, should'nt be wasting their time here but go straight to the Oil cos, who'll make them multimillionaires.
You're genius is wasted.

Akrasia · 23-01-2020 7:11pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You seem to be immune to the fact that you spout untrue hyperbole on a daily basis, kind of like The Guardian source you so often refer to. The problem is you're not the only one doing it, and many people are believing it, including impressionable schoolkids. Then we have that AOC who has more looks than braincells, yet although she's running around shouting the end of the world is nigh, she's "doing what a politician should do, acting on the information provided to her by sciensts and experts in those areas", according to Retrogamer. This is the level of nonsense we're dealing with here.

I retracted my statement about whole nations being wiped out, it's not quite at that level yet, but it is one of the things that is becoming inevitable the more we allow global climate to warm

While you accuse me of routinely overstating the seriousness of the situation, you are guilty of refusing to recognise how serious it really is.
I said that species were being driven to extinction by climate change. This was not an exaggeration. It is happening now
The wildfire in Australia is absolutely not a normal event and it is exasperated by the abnormal heat and changes to rainfall patterns driven by climate change

Storms are becoming more powerful and more destructive even if the overall number of storms are not increasing
And this is at just about 1c of warming, we're at half the warming we can reasonably expect to see over the coming decades and there is a very real potential that that could actually be above 3c by 2100

More high-quality contributions...

Just like your one :rolleyes:

Akrasia · 23-01-2020 7:17pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Preconceived views? Have a good long hard look in the mirror. :-)... honestly your great at dishing out the hyperbole and insults yet to see those stats you have spent many years observing and working on.. nothing in my inbox either. Strange...

So, science that is peer reviewed is good unless it disturbs the 'consensus' is it?

They have three papers published. Had to change their names to get the science reviewed on merit and not stopped by IPCC.

His twitter account is below you can go ask him directly (your fond of that aren't you?) and show him where he's wrong

https://mobile.twitter.com/NikolovScience/status/1213550751424729088

How about you finally address that point on Ronan Conolly's weather balloon claims?

You can admit you were wrong to believe him, I'd actually respect you for that

Mr Bumble · 23-01-2020 7:30pm

Akrasia wrote: »

This was an american crew brought in to help with the unprecedented wildfires. They would not have been there if it was just a normal wildfire season.

Very bad fires in Victoria in 1851
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Thursday_bushfires
Land lost to fire about the same I think (in Victoria). More lives lost.

Wildfires have had an international firefighting component for some time now. Oz and Kiwi firemen helped in California a few years ago. They help when they're notably intense and widespread

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/04/us/california-fires-international-help/index.html

Not as simple as it looks

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/

Oneiric 3 · 23-01-2020 7:33pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I retracted my statement about whole nations being wiped out, it's not quite at that level yet, but it is one of the things that is becoming inevitable the more we allow global climate to warm

While you accuse me of routinely overstating the seriousness of the situation, you are guilty of refusing to recognise how serious it really is.
I said that species were being driven to extinction by climate change. This was not an exaggeration. It is happening now
The wildfire in Australia is absolutely not a normal event and it is exasperated by the abnormal heat and changes to rainfall patterns driven by climate change

Storms are becoming more powerful and more destructive even if the overall number of storms are not increasing
And this is at just about 1c of warming, we're at half the warming we can reasonably expect to see over the coming decades and there is a very real potential that that could actually be above 3c by 2100

:

What is your idea of a 'climate optimum' Arkrasia? as you seem to have some rosy delusions about past climate and weather events.

And you may have missed that link I posted to a documentary made back in the late 70s, where pretty much the exact same predictions of global catastrophe were being made by scientists who proclaimed that we were headed for an new ice era. I can't believe that someone who is as obviously smart as yourself would buy into every little scare story and believe them without question.

PokeHerKing · 23-01-2020 7:47pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I retracted my statement about whole nations being wiped out, it's not quite at that level yet, but it is one of the things that is becoming inevitable the more we allow global climate to warm

While you accuse me of routinely overstating the seriousness of the situation, you are guilty of refusing to recognise how serious it really is.
I said that species were being driven to extinction by climate change. This was not an exaggeration. It is happening now
The wildfire in Australia is absolutely not a normal event and it is exasperated by the abnormal heat and changes to rainfall patterns driven by climate change

Storms are becoming more powerful and more destructive even if the overall number of storms are not increasing
And this is at just about 1c of warming, we're at half the warming we can reasonably expect to see over the coming decades and there is a very real potential that that could actually be above 3c by 2100

Just like your one :rolleyes:

Pointing to current weather events as proof of runaway AGW is what I have the biggest issue with. I'm very much on the fence about how much impact we are having on the atmosphere but I can see how much impact we have on earth so I'm certainly open to believing we're having just as bad of an impact up there.

But current and recent weather is no different, worse or frequent than what's gone before. Claiming different is useless hyperbole and does nothing for the AGW argument imo.

Retr0gamer · 23-01-2020 8:05pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

And yet according to Dr. Nikolovs and Hellers peer reviwed published paper if it was the CO2 it would be MUCH hotter. It's the size and Atmospheric pressure that dictate temp according to these scientists. He actually uses Venus as an example why CO2 CANT warm a planet.

https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/

Firstly that's not a legit scientific publication. It's peer review is biased and it's shunned by the community for that reason.

Secondly the science is deeply flawed. They selectively leave out Mercury which would put a spanner in the works and don't explain how Titan with a supposedly similar atmospheric pressure to earth has such extremely low surface temperatures.

And to add to that the maths doesn't make sense.

The author also has a bias against climate change as laid out in the article.

Bad, bad science over all and I'd be more inclined to call it propaganda because it barely qualifies as science.

Retr0gamer · 23-01-2020 8:11pm

Mr Bumble wrote: »

Very bad fires in Victoria in 1851
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Thursday_bushfires
Land lost to fire about the same I think (in Victoria). More lives lost.

Wildfires have had an international firefighting component for some time now. Oz and Kiwi firemen helped in California a few years ago. They help when they're notably intense and widespread

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/04/us/california-fires-international-help/index.html

Not as simple as it looks

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/

Quoting a paper there with no science in it either. It's propaganda posing as a peer reviewed paper.

As for worse fires in the past, we have much better means of limiting the damage and spread of fire these days yet the fires in Australia are so bad even with the knowledge and technology we have now we are struggling to combat them.

PokeHerKing · 23-01-2020 8:25pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Quoting a paper there with no science in it either. It's propaganda posing as a peer reviewed paper.

As for worse fires in the past, we have much better means of limiting the damage and spread of fire these days yet the fires in Australia are so bad even with the knowledge and technology we have now we are struggling to combat them.

People are also building houses and living in areas that were never populated in the past. Be it California or Australia.

Gaoth Laidir · 23-01-2020 8:51pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I retracted my statement about whole nations being wiped out, it's not quite at that level yet, but it is one of the things that is becoming inevitable the more we allow global climate to warm

Says you. You retracted your statement only when pulled up on it. You've always presented equally hyperbolic statements over and over, with little evidence to back them up.

While you accuse me of routinely overstating the seriousness of the situation, you are guilty of refusing to recognise how serious it really is.
I said that species were being driven to extinction by climate change. This was not an exaggeration. It is happening now
The wildfire in Australia is absolutely not a normal event and it is exasperated by the abnormal heat and changes to rainfall patterns driven by climate change

Storms are becoming more powerful and more destructive even if the overall number of storms are not increasing
And this is at just about 1c of warming, we're at half the warming we can reasonably expect to see over the coming decades and there is a very real potential that that could actually be above 3c by 2100.

Storms are not becoming more powerful. Another false claim. Landsea and Klotzbach have shown that. Below are the stats for ACE, which is not tracking increasing warming trends but is following its usual multidecadal pattern.

jcli-d-15-0188.1-f5.gif

oriel36 · 23-01-2020 9:08pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

It's common knowledge that Darwin was a 'racialist', so much so that this was a big motivation behind his 'Theory of Evolution'. My point was that even philosophers from that era that we hold dear today shared those same views to various degrees of extent.

It's not your fault as you passed through the same education system as everyone else and a system which aggressively pushes against the inspirational side of astronomy and Earth sciences so you become docile as an adult and imagine scientific icons as innovators instead of what they actually were.

Darwin wasn't racist, he merely satisfied the experimental requirements of the Newton's so-called Rule III (scientific method) that the treatment of a subjugated society by empire builders is justified within an evolutionary narrative covering all biology. In this respect, maybe a person just like you died on the side of the road in 1840's Ireland because a student of Malthus was put in a position of authority in Ireland -

Trevelyan wrote to Lord Monteagle of Brandon, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the famine was an "effective mechanism for reducing surplus population"

It is this detachment and lack of humility before creation that runs through this topic while ignoring the trajectory of genuine biological and geological evolution that encompasses and obliterates those nasty doctrines of Royal Society England and the idiotic icons you hold so dear. There is only biological and geological evolution written in rock strata which led to the affirmation of Plate Tectonics so whether you consider Darwin racist or not is irrelevant to the appreciation of these Earth sciences with the missing part being clues to weather conditions also written into rock strata.

From an overview of history and 30 years experience, this subject will go on indefinitely as the set-up is designed for experimental theorists and their gloomy world with the opponents willingly acting as shills. Such a world is not mine and it shouldn't be yours either.

Good luck to you but the world needs more than luck presently.

Nabber · 23-01-2020 9:11pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Gotta love the climate change denier logic
~deep breath
Humans cannot possibly be responsible for warming the planet, we're much too insigificant
Nature cannot possibly be held responsible for the biggest wildfires in Australian recorded history, it was those human who did it
~Exhale

I think you missed the point. I didn’t say humans weren’t capable of impacting weather. I said we lack the Data, technology and scientific understanding to tell accurately if the weather is raising or falling by .01, .1, 1, or 10c.

We have yet to understand definitively how our oceans convey heat, what their cycles are and if there is any real pattern.

It’s foolish to assume climate science is settled. For all we know even your alarmist nonsense could be tame to the actual reality.

Or climate understanding is based on theories and observations. The science is relatively young in comparison to other fields.

To present apocalyptic predictions knowing some estimations are purely speculative is dangerous and fraudulent.

froog · 23-01-2020 9:14pm

oriel36 wrote: »

It's not your fault as you passed through the same education system as everyone else and a system which aggressively pushes against the inspirational side of astronomy and Earth sciences so you become docile as an adult and imagine scientific icons as innovators instead of what they actually are.

Darwin wasn't racist, he merely satisfied the experimental requirements of the Newton's so-called Rule III (scientific method) that the treatment of a subjugated society by empire builders is justified within an evolutionary narrative. In this respect, maybe a person just like you died on the side of the road in 1840's Ireland because a student of Malthus was put in a position of authority in Ireland -

Trevelyan wrote to Lord Monteagle of Brandon, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the famine was an "effective mechanism for reducing surplus population"

It is this detachment and lack of humility before creation that runs through this topic while ignoring the trajectory of genuine biological and geological evolution that encompasses and obliterates those nasty doctrines of Royal Society England and the idiotic icons you hold so dear. There is only biological and geological evolution as written in rock strata which led to the affirmation of Plate Tectonics so whether you consider Darwin racist or not is irrelevant to the appreciation of these Earth sciences with the missing part being clues to weather conditions also written into rock strata.

From an overview of history and 30 years experience, this subject will go on indefinitely as the set-up is designed for experimental theorists and their gloomy world with the opponents willingly acting as shills. Such a world is not mine and it shouldn't be yours either.

Good luck to you but the world needs more than luck presently.

you mention astronomy a lot, what exactly is your issue with it? i wonder if maybe you're confusing it with astrology? two very different things.

M.T. Cranium · 23-01-2020 9:46pm

I would agree that there's very little evidence of an increase in any type of severe weather in recent times. What we do have in place, making it possibly appear that way to some unwary onlookers, are the following:

(a) increased awareness

(b) more reporting

(c) expanded human target areas

yet despite the third factor which should increase impacts even if the generation of events is steady state, the reality seems to be a decrease in severe storm impacts. Those who point to specific recent events can almost always be outdone with a deeper historical counter-example.

Here's just a small sample of major events in North America that disprove the climate change thesis of increasing impacts;

-- worst tornado outbreak 1925
-- worst heat wave 1936
-- worst hurricane disaster 1900
-- worst Mississippi flood 1929
-- worst droughts 1930s, 1950s

If we went backwards from 1965 instead of forwards, these should have been matched by now in most cases. The general public are often unaware of these contradictions because the media have no incentive to report accurately on them as they are contrary to the narrative being sold.

As to fires, there were catastrophic fires back in the 19th century but I won't try to compare because of changes in firefighting capability. I can't say that those vast wildfires would have reached their full scale in the modern context. But if they did, they would dwarf anything that has happened recently.

Oneiric3 has stated on several occasions that in his experience of tracking severe windstorms, the frequency and impact seem to be on a slow downward trend since about 2000. Certainly the 19th century outperformed the 20th century in that regard. Colder climates usually have the greater contrasts to fuel severe storms. Yet it also seems that hurricanes used to make more frequent east coast (U.S.) landfalls than they do nowadays. Even in colonial and early republican times, there were examples of severe landfalling hurricanes on the U.S. east coast. Some of them seem to have been cat-3 or cat-4 (the 1821 hurricane certainly was). Since 1938, there has not been a truly severe east coast landfall, Sandy seemed that way but the damage was mostly done by storm surge, the winds were barely cat-1.

People nowadays are being brainwashed into thinking these severe storms are on the increase but it is not borne out by statistics.

posidonia · 23-01-2020 9:52pm

Nabber wrote: »

I think you missed the point. I didn’t say humans weren’t capable of impacting weather. I said we lack the Data, technology and scientific understanding to tell accurately if the weather is raising or falling by .01, 1, 1, or 10c.

10C? You think we can't tell the difference between a mild winter's day and a sight frost? You what? Or if you mean 10C as climate, then huh? Were the climate to cool by 1C from present levels we would all very much notice the difference and we'd see winters with snow much more often...if the planet cooled by 10C the planet would be mostly ice covered, if it warmed by 10C there would be very little if any ice left anywhere.

We have yet to understand definitively how our oceans convey heat, what their cycles are and if there is any real pattern.

It’s foolish to assume climate science is settled. For all we know even your alarmist nonsense could be tame to the actual reality.

Or climate understanding is based on theories and observations. The science is relatively young in comparison to other fields.

To present apocalyptic predictions knowing some estimations are purely speculative is dangerous and fraudulent.

And so far the climate, locally and globally, is changing at a rate in close agreement with climate model projections.

Akrasia · 23-01-2020 10:02pm

Mr Bumble wrote: »

Very bad fires in Victoria in 1851
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Thursday_bushfires
Land lost to fire about the same I think (in Victoria). More lives lost.

Wildfires have had an international firefighting component for some time now. Oz and Kiwi firemen helped in California a few years ago. They help when they're notably intense and widespread

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/04/us/california-fires-international-help/index.html

Not as simple as it looks

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/

There is nowhere in that Wikipedia article that says it was anywhere near the 25 million acres have been burnt in this (continuing) set of wildfires

The wildfires in 2009 in Australia were described as amongst the worst in Australian history and they burned 1 million acres. This is year is already 25 times worse. Although thankfully fewer people have died, there has been devastating loss of life amongst non human animals and a huge loss of habitat that will take years to recover

But yeah, nothing to see here
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-50951043

Nabber · 23-01-2020 10:17pm

posidonia wrote: »

10C? You think we can't tell the difference between a mild winter's day and a sight frost? You what? Or if you mean 10C as climate, then huh? Were the climate to cool by 1C from present levels we would all very much notice the difference and we'd see winters with snow much more often...if the planet cooled by 10C the planet would be mostly ice covered, if it warmed by 10C there would be very little if any ice left anywhere.

The 10c was just rope. Fools tend to hang themselves. Case in point

Were the climate to cool by 1C from present levels we would all very much notice the difference and we'd see winters with snow much more often

So essentially if the planet cooled by 1c back to the 1950-1980 mean temp, that you believe in as per AGW and the models, then we would have much more snow in winter? The blizzards and snow that our parents and grand parents had to battle through?
Would this snow also bring back Ireland' historic ski slopes? We could re-host the Winter Olympics?

posidonia wrote: »

And so far the climate, locally and globally, is changing at a rate in close agreement with climate model projections.

Yeah it's up by one degree preventing or much more snow scenario of years gone by.

You amuse me Posidonia. I give up I can't ignore you

:D

posidonia · 23-01-2020 10:32pm

Nabber wrote: »

The 10c was just rope. Fools tend to hang themselves. Case in point

True, I tend think the best of people, that they post their views and their posts are what they mean, rather than some puerile trap. But, few trolls are as open about their aims as you are - have a point on me

Were the climate to cool by 1C from present levels we would all very much notice the difference and we'd see winters with snow much more often

So essentially if the planet cooled by 1c back to the 1950-1980 mean temp, that you believe in as per AGW and the models, then we would have much more snow in winter? The blizzards and snow that our parents and grand parents had to battle through?

No, I said winters with snow would happen much more often...

Would this snow also bring back Ireland' historic ski slopes? We could re-host the Winter Olympics?

Yeah it's up by one degree preventing or much more snow scenario of years gone by.

You amuse me Posidonia. I give up I can't ignore you :D

Good, but make sure you don't post in daylight hours - ok?

:D

PokeHerKing · 23-01-2020 10:35pm

posidonia wrote: »

10C? You think we can't tell the difference between a mild winter's day and a sight frost? You what? Or if you mean 10C as climate, then huh? Were the climate to cool by 1C from present levels we would all very much notice the difference and we'd see winters with snow much more often...if the planet cooled by 10C the planet would be mostly ice covered, if it warmed by 10C there would be very little if any ice left anywhere.

Sure the NOAA/NASA can't even covert Celsius into Fahrenheit correctly based on the Valentia data.

mandrake04 · 23-01-2020 11:11pm

Akrasia wrote: »

There is nowhere in that Wikipedia article that says it was anywhere near the 25 million acres have been burnt in this (continuing) set of wildfires

The wildfires in 2009 in Australia were described as amongst the worst in Australian history and they burned 1 million acres. This is year is already 25 times worse. Although thankfully fewer people have died, there has been devastating loss of life amongst non human animals and a huge loss of habitat that will take years to recover

But yeah, nothing to see here
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-50951043

2009 fires were smaller but due to the wind were deadlier killing 173 people, as far as human life loss they were the worst.

Let’s look at some facts

1Ha = 2.47 acres

Black Saturday 2009 450,000 Ha (1.1m Acres) over a week
Black Thursday 1851 5million Ha (12.3m Acres) in one afternoon
1974/1975 Fires over fire season 117m (289m acres) over season

Current bushfires June 2019 - to-date 18.9m Ha (46m acres)

The current fires due to where they are and close to property and animals makes it very costly so you could say the worst....yes this season is particularly bad but they are not the biggest fires we have had.

posidonia · 23-01-2020 11:17pm

mandrake04 wrote: »

2009 fires were smaller but due to the wind were deadlier killing 173 people, as far as human life loss they were the worst.

Let’s look at some facts

1Ha = 2.47 acres

Black Saturday 2009 450,000 Ha (1.1m Acres) over a week
Black Thursday 1851 5million Ha (12.3m Acres) in one afternoon
1974/1975 Fires over fire season 117m (289m acres) over season

Current bushfires June 2019 - to-date 18.9m Ha (46m acres)

The current fires due to where they are and close to property and animals makes it very costly so you could say the worst....yes this season is particularly bad but they are not the biggest fires we have had.

Yes, but the 1974/75 fires wore mostly in the NT and grass/scrub. This time is forest, and some forest that have 'never' burnt.

I also wonder how much apples v oranges is going on. Has the area of forest remained constant? Is there more grassland? What effect has aquaier abstraction had? Would more area have burnt without modern firefighting?

Gaoth Laidir · 23-01-2020 11:45pm

There's a very interesting debate going on in the Farming forum now.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058047641/1

mandrake04 · 24-01-2020 12:16am

posidonia wrote: »

Yes, but the 1974/75 fires wore mostly in the NT and grass/scrub.

Yes mostly in NT/QLD but still a bushfire ...although at the time were considered not your typical bushfire

posidonia wrote: »

This time is forest, and some forest that have 'never' burnt.

Probably never ‘burnt’ in living memory due to ‘cultural burning’ but a lot of trees and plants have evolved to tolerate and use fire for regeneration. The bulk of the area burnt is thick scrub places where human foot probably never touched, there are forest-like areas affected mostly to the east not far inland which is habitat for koalas etc but that’s sporadic areas ........further inland like one of the largest is Gospers (I live 40km away from) and it’s pure scrub.

I listen to this on local radio, these fires are huge news and human and animal cost is huge but much of the same areas have burned before as recent as 2013 especially around the southern highlands.

Oneiric 3 · 24-01-2020 12:30am

oriel36 wrote: »

Darwin wasn't racist

If you say so.

"The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilisation. . . . The civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world".

--Darwin.

And to quote you from earlier:

"To invert the entire system where white tone skin people back to gorillas using Africans and aborigines formed the empirical narrative for evolution was the same principle which slaughtered the European Jewish culture by creating a human/subhuman division whereas genuine evolutionary research begins and ends with rock strata and the fossil record from remote antiquity up to the present".

This is very true, but the philosophy of National Socialists wasn't really anything to do with 'white tone skin'. They actively hated the Slavs, the French, and pretty much all Mediterranean peoples as much as they did the Jewish community. National Socialism was exclusively about the 'superiority' of the German race, and no doubt there was more than a little 'Social Darwinism' applied in that agenda.

PS, and I apologise in advance if I am misinterpreting what you are trying to say, but you have a sort of 'flowing' style of writing that can be hard to follow and digest for dumbells like me.

Nabber · 24-01-2020 12:46am

posidonia wrote: »

No, I said winters with snow would happen much more often...

Excellent, so the temps have raised by 1c?
So you can show me the snow stats that support Ireland now receiving less snow?

I'm content in the fact that you are unlikely to do any research and continue to throw out your usual claims with no data.

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Comments