Two days’ ago, Dutchsinse posted up a whole, long video showing how more unexplained wildfires are breaking out within the volcanic fields of a whole bunch of the volcanos in Western USA.
The day after he posted that up on Youtube, Youtube pulled his livestream channel and blocked him.
Why did Youtube do that?
That is the question.
In the meantime, you can see that particular video above, here, and it’s shmirat eynayim friendly (as much as anything can be, considering the ads on Youtube).
Here’s a few things to toss into the mix about what may be really going on, with all the record wildfires happening across California, plus a few other Western states.
Firstly, the whole area is literally covered in volcanoes.
Some of them – 167 – are marked as officially ‘live’ by the authorities (including the Long Valley caldera, which was just raised up to ‘live’ supervolcano status when they discovered 240 sq miles of melted magma, beneath its surface).
But there are literally thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of volcanic cones and vents and also a bunch of related geo-thermal features like hot springs, geysers and mudpots, all over the Western part of the USA.
And while many of them are officially being ignored, and being marked ‘dormant’, or even dead, here’s the thing:
Even ‘dead’ and dormant volcanic fields continue to degas a whole bunch of gases and vapors into the atmosphere from the ground.
To put this another way, volcanoes don't have to be actively erupting, or actively doing anything much, to still be pumping a huge amount of diffuse CO2 and other greenhouse gases out into the atmosphere.
There’s a bunch of science to prove that, but perhaps the most simple way of proving it is this: geothermal pumping operations are going after oil, and gas extraction, and super-heated steam to turn turbines.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of geothermal ‘wells’ now drilled into huge swathes of land in the US (and also in places like New Zealand, which is also very volcanically active). Most if not all of these operations are occurring on the flanks of 'dead' and 'dormant' volcanoes (although in Hawaii, they also drilled down into the flanks of the ever-erupting Kilauea...)
And the gas they are extracting – what they actually call ‘shale gas’, or ‘natural gas’ – is mostly made up of methane.
And methane is highly flammable.
As the magma is moving below the crust – and all the earthquakes and volcanoes popping off around the whole Pacific ‘ring of fire’ right now show that magma is on the move across the globe, and is coming closer to the surface – then the volcanic gases associated with the magma will start to rise up, and degas in increasing quantities through the earth’s crust.
And everyone knows, that a single spark can ignite an explosion, or a fire, if there’s gas anywhere near it.
And the amount of gas being stored in volcanic shale, and in other of these deep rock formations, is mind-boggling – we’re literally talking about many trillions of cubic metres of methane.
How do you know this is true?
Well, why else would the fracking companies would go to such lengths to drill wells many thousands of feet down into rock, if there wasn’t some serious amounts of gas to extract and sell?
And now, that gas is coming closer to the surface, and igniting fires all over the Western US, in the volcanic fields associated with a whole bunch of volcanoes, many of which are either not even listed, or are listed as being dormant or ‘dead’.
If you’re bored and you’d like to learn a little more about US volcanoes, go and look up Mount Shasta. It last exploded around 1797 – very recent times. And it’s the USGS’s #1 volcanic risk for the US, that no-one even really talks about.
Here's what the USGS has to say about it - and it's a masterpiece of double-speak! You have to read it very carefully to understand that Mount Shasta is currently a huge eruption risk, because it's barely erupted the last few hundred years, and even the USGS admits some massive eruption is due 'every 6-800 years'.
I.e., round around now.
Now, read THIS article on how 2 of North California's volcanoes are currently listed as 'very high' threat levels by none other than the USGS, and one of them is Mount Shasta.
Shasta county was devastated by the wildfires raging a couple of months’ back.
Do you think that’s a coincidence?
Now, can you start to figure out why Youtube is trying to close down Dutchsinse?
After I'd written this, I came across a news story from a couple of weeks' ago, about a hole in the ground in Arkansas, that's been 'spewing fire' for the last month or so. You can see the full story HERE, but here's some of the key points:
While methane is being fingered as a culprit for the fire, no-one can figure out where the methane is coming from, because it's ALL NATURAL, and is coming up from volcanic gas degassing at the site. But the authorities are only exploring 'man-made' gas leaks, vis:
"Gas company Black Hills Energy, which was asked to help inspect the site, confirmed it didn't find any utility or fuel lines leaking in the area.
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality also examined several underground fuel storage tanks in Midway to ensure they were sealed.
"Based on ADEQ inspections it does not appear that any of these tanks contributed to the fire," the agency said in a statement to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette."
But I think it's kind of proving the point: more and more volcanic gas is rising to the surface, and causing 'wildfires', and methane is a the main culprit.
At the end of the last post, you saw the National Geographic sponsored video of the 'poor, starving' polar bear who is so emblematic of the 'problem' of rising CO2 levels melting all the ice in the Arctic basin etc etc etc.
Well, reader Elisheva just sent me a great link to a site that shows that actually, the polar bears of Hudson Bay and the Baffin Islands (where the 'starving' bear video was shot) actually have a different health problem to contend with, if any:
They are fat!
And some of them are positively obese!
(In polar bear terms, this is a good thing, because more fat helps to insulate them from the cold).
You can read more about them for yourself, and see more pictures HERE.
But it looks like even the polar bears are enjoying global warming.
For the last 30-40 years, we’ve been routinely told that rising CO2 levels are leading to:
1) Global warming (now amended to ‘climate change’), and
2) Terrible future outcomes for planet earth.
Firstly, as we covered in the last post, people are not responsible for climate change. Climate change - even massive, immediate climate change - has been happening for millennia, long before humanity began the industrial revolution and started burning fossil fuels.
Climate change has much more to do with what’s going on in our solar system, and the earth’s reaction to these events, than human activity, however crass or destructive.
(To put this another way: God is in charge of the weather. That’s the bottom line, and it’s also something that nearly no scientist is willing or able to concede, hence all the crazy ‘climate change’ theories.)
But in this post, I wanted to pull out some of the facts about CO2 to start to explore a little bit what might actually happen, if CO2 levels do continue to rise - regardless of anything humanity might be doing to retard or promote this effect.
As usual, I know I sound like a ‘flat earther’ at this stage in the post. I mean, we all KNOW that rising CO2 emissions are a terribly bad thing for planet earth, don’t we?! How often have we been told that by ‘the experts’, how often have we seen news stories making direct links between taking our SUV for a spin and the rainforest dying….
So I have to say that I was also pretty surprised at what started to turn up very quickly, when you scratch the surface of the ‘scientific’ claim that increased CO2 = huge destruction of planet earth.
Because in fact, the opposite appears to be true.
Before we continue, take a look at these two, very short, videos from no less an authority than NASA, which clearly shows how very large (and historically frozen…) areas of the world are starting to get a whole bunch greener. The first video shows the world, generally, and the second video concentrates more on Alaska and North America.
These videos were put out to illustrate a new study that was published on April 25, 2016 by a team of 32 scientists from 8 different countries in the Nature Climate Change Journal. In that study, the scientists found that:
“From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Now, I don’t know about you but this actually sounds like pretty good news, climate change-wise.
Frozen tundras don’t grow a thing, people can’t live there, and 10% of the world is currently covered by perma-frost, taking these land masses off the table as viable areas of the planet where more food could be grown and more people could live.
Of course, all these benefits - which let’s remember have already been witnessed and recorded in real time on planet earth, not just guessed at and predicted by computer models in the labs of climate change professors - fly in the face of all the doom-mongering about the terrible ‘problems’ apparently associated with rising CO2.
To put this in NASA speak: Houston, we have a problem.
So as this study came out, the climate change lobby scrambled to try to keep the debate going. First of all, they listed a whole bunch of apparently ‘bad’ side effects of climate change, including:
We can’t do anything much about the ‘downside’ of climate change, except to stop telling lies about what’s really causing it, and to get real about what it really might mean for the planet and also to stop exaggerating the awful impact that we believe it may cause (more on this in a moment).
But in the meantime, the climate change lobby trotted out a number of talking heads to try to damper down any thought that climate change could actually be good for the planet, at least in some major ways:
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
We’ll met Dr Ciais again later on and we’ll also discover his other employer (which is very pertinent information that is strangely missing from this citation on the Nasa website).
One of the biggest ‘worries’ the climate change lobby likes to promote is that the ocean can’t cope absorbing all the extra CO2 that’s out there, and that this will kill off a bunch of our marine life in a process named ‘ocean acidification’.
Here’s an excellent piece of recent ‘ocean acidification’ scaremongering from the Guardian, published in October 2017:
If the outlook for marine life was already looking bleak – torrents of plastic that can suffocate and starve fish, overfishing, diverse forms of human pollution that create dead zones, the effects of global warming which is bleaching coral reefs and threatening coldwater species – another threat is quietly adding to the toxic soup.
But while these ‘alarming’ climate change studies are getting so much attention in the press, the scientists who are say the opposite are getting very short shrift. This from The Spectator:
“Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.”
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore recently published a paper on ‘ocean acidificiation’ where he clearly stated:
“The term “ocean acidification” is, in itself, rather misleading. The scale of pH runs from 0 to 14 where 7 is neutral, below 7 is acidic and above 7 is basic, or alkaline. The pH of the world’s oceans varies from 7.5 to 8.3, well into the alkaline scale.
According to Moore, there is no chance that increased CO2 in the oceans will kill off anything, and it may well even have a positive effect on marine life:
“An analysis of research on the effect of lower pH shows a net beneficial impact on the calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units, which is beyond what is considered a plausible reduction during this century.”
Guess what? NASA agrees with him!
NASA satellites are finding that over the last few years, instead of the ocean and marine life ‘dying off’, previously barren stretches of the ocean are bursting back into life, again thanks to the increase in the planet’s temperature.
This comes from the NASA website:
"Satellites have measured the Arctic getting greener, as shrubs expand their range and thrive in warmer temperatures… As ocean waters warm, satellites have detected a shift in phytoplankton populations across the planet's five great ocean basins — the expansion of "biological deserts" where little life thrives….
Again, call me crazy, but doesn’t this sound suspiciously like good news for the planet? I mean, more plankton means more food for fish, which means more fish, which means fuller, thriving oceans all around.
If you want to know why you probably haven’t heard about this stunning evidence for the good side of global warming / climate change, then you’re in good company. Matt Ridley writing in the Spectator last year explained that:
"Four years ago, I came across an online video of a lecture given by Ranga Myneni of Boston University in which he presented an ingenious analysis of data from satellites. This proved that much of the vegetated area of the planet was getting greener, and only a little bit was getting browner.
Ridley was ‘startled’ by these findings. Although he knew that commercial greenhouse owners had started routinely doubling the carbon dioxide levels to get their tomatoes to grow faster, this was the first time that CO2 impact on the earth’s vegetation overall had been measured.
Ridley laments that even though the paper’s lead author, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, said that this increase of greenery was ‘like adding a green continent twice the size of mainland USA’ to the planet - no-one was interested in reporting it:
“[A]s I found out, there is not much market for this good news. I was subjected online to withering scorn by the usual climate spin doctors, but even they had to admit I was ‘factually accurate’.
Another interesting point I got from reading Ridley’s piece is that while the climate change lobby are very keen on quoting Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius when it comes to predicting doom and gloom scenarios for the planet as a result of rising CO2, they are strangely coy about reproducing his statements of what would occur if CO2 levels should indeed rise, as he thought.
‘By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.’ He predicted that the earth: ‘will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind’.
How strange that the climate change lobby never mention this aspect of his statements, when citing his research into rising CO2 levels. And in case you think that all the doom-and-gloom was only written when they didn’t know any better, i.e. before the study showing the benefits of CO2 greening was published, the following comes from a recent article on the National Geographic website:
The planet is already suffering from some impacts of global warming.
Again, if this was the only information you were going on you’d be certain that all this frozen wasteland turning into green pastures is awful; that the ‘impact’ of global warming on the world is only bad, that more rain can only be a bad thing and that the only ‘species’ that are thriving in warmer temperatures are tree-destroying insects.
But if that’s not enough, National Geographic then launches into a whole bunch of ominous ‘predictions’ again, including the spread of disease, the extinction of species (which is strange, given that most creatures find it harder to survive in Arctic conditions than lush, warmer ones) and less fresh water available, despite noting that ‘precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average’, immediately above their scary predictions.
Here’s my favorite doom-and-gloom warning from National Geographic:
Just recently, National Geographic was slammed for shopping around a viral video of a ‘starving polar bear’ which they claimed was a result of man-made climate change, but they were forced to back down - at least a little - when challenged on the claims being made in the video.
“Nunavut polar bear monitor Leo Ikakhik told CBC that he was not surprised by the sight of the starving bear in the video. "Everybody probably was shocked to see a really skinny bear, but this is not my first time seeing something like this,” he told Carol Off, host of CBC’s radio show "As It Happens."
Ikakhik, who has been monitoring polar bear activity since 2010, said that the polar bear in the video may have been sick or recovering from an injury that made it unable to hunt. "I wouldn't really blame the climate change. It's just part of the animal, what they go through."
But any hint that climate change is not man-made, and is not destroying the planet, or that rising CO2 levels could be a good thing - all based on empirically proven studies - is uniformly derided by the media and ‘official’ science. On another ‘proper’ website for scientists, phys.org we’re told that:
“The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
How shocking, that anyone should argue for a rethink of policy based on actual facts and proven observations! But Phillippe Ciais pops up again to tell us that:
"The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report.
This is a good time to remind us all that the US alone spent $64 billion on ‘climate change’ research between 2010 and 2013, and a lot of that money went straight into the IPCC coffers that Ciais works for.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, the climate change industry is now worth a whopping $1.5 trillion a year. So many scientists, so many people, now owe their jobs to ‘man made climate change’ that should it disappear, we could be facing the next Great Depression…
Which is probably the single biggest reason why the enormous amount of evidence that shows that global warming and melting glaciers are probably a GOOD thing aren’t getting a fair hearing.
Really, what are the negative aspects to more of the world developing a livable climate where plants and food can grow (aside from the skinnier polar bears?)
The last thing to tell you for now is that back in 1992 - more than 25 years’ ago - the fossil fuel industry put out a video called ‘The Greening of Planet Earth’ which put forward the suggestion that more carbon dioxide would lead to the ‘greening’ of planet earth.
Writing all the way back in 2001, Patrick Michaels explained that:
“Greening” was put out by energy-industry activists (you can get your own copy by contacting http://www.greeningearthsociety.org), who discovered that several big-name scientists were willing to appear and argue that carbon dioxide will enhance global plant growth by directly stimulating plants and by warming the coldest air of winter.
These scientists found that Eurasia had as much as 18 extra crop-growing days year, thanks to ‘global warming’, while the increase in North America averaged 12 extra days a year. Michaels concludes:
“So is this what global warming has wrought? It appears to have created a more comfortable planet with more food. The video was right. The greens were wrong. The world is greener.”
Michaels himself wrote these words more than 16 years ago, yet the climate change lobby has consistently failed to include the observable facts on the ground about the benefits of climate change and rising CO2 levels - like a 14% greener planet, like more potentially cultivatable and habitable land, like 18 extra days to grow more food in a year - to harp on ‘predictions’ of computer-modelled problems that have almost entirely failed to materialize.
Sure, I’ll be upset if the polar bears get a little skinnier. But if it means that millions more people have affordable food and a location they can cultivate and thrive in, I think I’ll be able to live with it.
If you’ve been following this blog’s series on ‘the false foundations of modern science’ you’ll hopefully already have picked up an inkling of how all this ‘false science’ gets established in the world.
A researcher comes up with a theory or proposal that garners a lot of attention, and / or a lot of funding, and / or a lot of ‘political clout’ (for whatever vested interest reasons) - and then they build a big career, and a big reputation, and a big bank balance defending that ‘theory’ for all it’s worth.
Depending on who else thinks their theory is a good idea (regardless of whether the real facts or true science backs it up) any opponent to this theory will then usually have their career torpedoed, their reputations publicly trashed, and their credibility tarnished at every turn.
It takes a very strong person indeed to stand up to people who are ‘religious’ about their scientific beliefs, and who will stoop to any tactic to ensure that their version of events, and their interpretation of data is the only one the public ever gets to hear about.
We’ve seen this tactic play out with macro-evolution, with geology, with the infamous ‘chemical imbalance’ theory for mental illness, and now, we’re going to take a look at one of the biggest ‘false science’ scams of modern times: climate change.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
The first thing to note is that climate change is real, and is happening all the time. There is no doubt that some parts of the planet are hotter, or colder, or wetter, or drier etc than they were a few decades, or a few centuries ago.
No-one is really arguing about that.
But where the rub comes is that while the pseudo-scientific community - with Al Gore and ex-president Obama at its head - is loudly proclaiming that PEOPLE are to blame for the changing climate, and especially FOSSIL FUEL BURNING PEOPLE, the actual science paints a very different picture.
Before we continue, remember that so much of what we think is ‘proven’ in so many fields of science actually really isn’t. Also remember that vested interests manipulate us via the media into believing things that really aren’t true, for their own agendas and aims.
Between 2010 and 2013, the US government alone paid climate change researchers $64 billion. A lot of scientists, a lot of politicians, and a lot of companies have their fingers in that very big pie. Climate change is big business and great for your scientific career, if you happen to be ‘sounding the alarm’ on climate change.
But what’s really going on, what’s really causing climate change, and how did we get to this place where so many people are panicking over Co2 emissions? Read on.
CARL SAGAN AND THE VENUS GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY
Carl Sagan was a professor of Astronomy at Cornell University, and in 1974 he renewed official science’s attack on Immanual Velikovsky, and his ‘ridiculous’ theories that Noah’s flood actually happened, the bible’s account was literally true, and that the world had been shaken to its core a number of times in the last 8,000 years, due to ‘action at a distance’ events with enormous planet-sized comets.
So many of Velikovsky’s theories have subsequently been validated by science over the last 70 years since he wrote them, including his claim that Venus would be found to have a scorchingly hot temperature, due to it being a very new addition to the solar system.
(Velikovsky suggested that Venus only became a planet in our solar system within the last 3,500 years or so. Before that Venus had been the ‘comet’ responsible for wreaking utter havoc on the earth and the moon - as described in innumerable ancient sources and as evidenced by the geological record - and which had also stripped planet Mars of its atmosphere and water on one of its fly-bys.)
Of course, the suggestion that such cataclysmic things might have occurred within the modern age, or that all the theories of the world being many billions of years and uniformly ‘stable’ were anathema to the open minds of modern scientists like Sagan, so they used any tool they could to discredit Velikovsky and his ‘theories’.
The first space probe, Venera 7, successfully landed on Venus on December 15, 1970. It remained in contact with Earth for 23 minutes, relaying surface temperatures of 455 °C to 475 °C (855 °F to 885 °F). Before this information was discovered, Sagan and other NASA scientists were confidently predicting that Venus would have an ambient temperature akin to earth’s.
When the NASA probe reported back the shocking information that Venus was scorchingly hot - just as Velikovsky had predicted - Sagan et al went into damage limitation mode, and came up with the VENUS GREENHOUSE GAS theory.
Scientist Charles Ginenthal wrote a whole book deconstructing this hugely deceitful and fraudulent ‘theory’, but here’s the crux of the matter (as explained by a reviewer):
“Rather than admit Velikovsky right on this issue, Sagan invoked a "runaway greenhouse" effect to account for the planet's 900 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature. As Ginenthal explains, greenhouses are warm primarily because they have a glass ceiling to prevent the loss of heat; and, as everyone (even Sagan) was aware, planets don't have glass ceilings.
And NASA is still doing its best to try to link Venus with faulty climate change theories for earth, as this story from last year shows:
NASA Climate Modeling Suggests Venus May Have Been Habitable
Remember, false assumptions and beliefs in one area of science inevitably give rise to other false assumptions and beliefs, as this little snippet clearly demonstrates. The same ‘science’ that is telling us Venus is billions of years old is telling us that humans are responsible for disastrous climate change.
STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN
Even though Sagan’s greenhouse gas theory has subsequently been discredited for Venus, it sadly put down very deep roots in the nascent field of ‘climate change science’, as we shall see.
One of the main people pushing the issue of climate change was the so-called ‘father of climate change’ James Hansen. He bought Sagan’s false theory of greenhouse gases hook, line and sinker.
The following quote is from Hansen’s book called“Storms of My Grandchildren” end of chapter 10, The Venus Syndrome:
“After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
How’s that for unparalleled scientific rigor? Hansen appears to have proven that the only reason Venus is a hot, barren hell-hole of a planet it because human beings were burning tar on it at some undefined time in the past…
This is the same person who wrote this in 1981:
“It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.
And here’s what he told Congress in 1988:
'On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere.
Unperturbed by the lack of evidence to support his theories, Hansen has continued to churn out alarming soundbytes and scary quotes for the last 40 years’ or so, like:
“Climate change is analogous to Lincoln and slavery or Churchill and Nazism: it's not the kind of thing where you can compromise.
Sadly, the internet is chock-full of quotes from Hansen along these same lines, but I picked these four out to show a few recurring themes:
1) Hansen’s language makes clear that anyone burning fossil fuels is akin to a Nazi, which seems to be an exaggerated comparison, even if you ARE a big believer in human-induced climate change.
2) This is much more about emotive propaganda than hard science.
3) There’s loads of false suggestions contained in these few sparse quotes.
Uh, really? Burning coal is giving my kid asthma? Where’s the studies that show that’s true? Uh, really? Natural disasters are being caused by burning fossil fuels? Where’s the scientific evidence for that big statement? Uh, are you sure that Co2 traps heat in the atmosphere and that this was known since the 1800s?
The ‘proof’ for that last statement, as referenced by the NASA website on climate change, amounts to this:
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
Over on the website climatechange.org, a headline from May 2013 screams:
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
It seems to be completely lost on the author of this article - and the many climate change scientists he quotes (more on that in a moment) that if this is true, then human beings burning fossil fuels is clearly not the cause of climate change on planet earth…
But these are the types of obvious arguments that false science can never seem to wrap its head around. So instead, you get told pseudo-scientific guff like:
“While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
Once again, we see how the false beliefs in one field of science sow more false beliefs in other areas.
Climate change scientists make huge assumptions that ‘the rate of change taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past.’ But this simply isn’t true! Every time they drill more ice cores, they are presented with the EVIDENCE that the climate has changed rapidly in the very recent past. For example, this comes from the British Antartic Survey website:
Abrupt climate changes
Again, note all the usual assumptions about these changes ‘only’ happening in the ancient past, because modern science teaches that the world has been stable for millions of years (despite all the evidence they keep turning up that this patently untrue…) There’s no evidence for these statements, they are just beliefs.
And while we’re on the subject of ice-cores, this (from the NASA climate change website) explains how they date those things, again using the same assumptions that weather patterns have always been the same for millions of years:
“How old is the oldest ice core—and how do we know it’s that old?
Again, even a cursory reading of this paragraph tells you that the ‘science’ being used to date these ice cores is based on a bunch of unproven assumptions about the world always working the same way - which again flys in the face of the actual evidence on the ground.
SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, OR GLOBAL COOLING?
The last thing to share with you in this first post on climate change is that back in the 1970s, scientists started ‘alarming’ the world that the next Ice Age was imminent. Back in 1975:
Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change." The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having "a hard time keeping up with it." On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued an update stating that it had been "spectacularly wrong about the near-term future".
In the 1980s, with James Hansen at the helm, the alarm about ‘global cooling’ gave way to an even more impassioned alarm about ‘global warming’. So what’s really going on? This comes from the Friends of Science website:
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
In other words, the planet’s temperature is oscillating all the time, and there is no ‘unusual’ warming going on right now.
(I’m kind of ruining my own production here, but go check out the Friends of Science webpage called ClimateChange 101, as it presents a lot of useful information in a very easy-to-digest way: http://www.climatechange101.ca/)
THE MAIN POINTS SO FAR:
The scientific establishment is so wedded to the false idea the world is billions of years’ old, and that the earth’s climate has been ‘stable’ for millennia (even though both ideas are patently false), that they have consistently discredited any evidence that suggests that:
But I know, ex-President Obama said this about climate change:
“Part of what’s unique about climate change, though, is the nature of some of the opposition to action. It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it; it was going to be too expensive, it was going to be too hard, it would take too long. But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anybody saying that the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese.”
And no-one could accuse him of manipulating the public with mass-produced, deceitful soundbytes that didn’t stand up to any real scrutiny…..
So in the next post, we’ll take a look at the nuts and bolts of the ‘false science’ - and outright lies - that’s propping up the befuddled theory of climate change.
Again, no-one is claiming that climate change isn’t actually happening - that’s a straw man.
What is being very seriously debated is:
While I'm working on the climate change articles, here's a good documentary which proves how the humble bacterium flagellum came to completely disprove the theory of evolution from a purely scientific perspective - and how the scientists that showed this where then hounded out of their academic positions for daring to go against the prevailing dogma that 'Darwin's theory MUST be true...' (even though there is absolutely no proof to back it up).
You can learn a lot from the Smithsonian Institute.
One of the main things you can learn, especially if you visit their ‘human evolution’ pages is that they won’t let a complete lack of evidence or fraudulent fossils deter them from telling you the story they want you to hear about how humans ‘evolved’ (sic) down the course of millions of years (sic).
Here’s a little about what it tells us about ‘homo erectus’:
Here’s what it DOESN’T tell you about ‘homo erectus’:
Eugene Dubois was a student of Earnst Haeckel, who infamously forged a whole bunch of ‘embryo’ diagrams in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public into believing that embryos went through all the stages of evolution in the womb. Despite Haeckel’s forgeries being uncovered many decades ago, you’ll still find a whole bunch of people who point to Haeckel’s diagrams as ‘proof’ of macro evolution.
So Dubois was the student of an academic fraudster who was so ‘religious’ about his belief in evolution, he was willing to lie, cheat and falsify evidence to get the public to believe in it, too. And it seems as though Dubois was similarly inclined:
After years of [Dubois’] excavations with the assistance of forced laborers, they dug up a tooth and skullcap on the banks of the Solo River on Java island (an island of Indonesia). The skullcap was ape-like having a low forehead and large eyebrow ridges. The following year and about forty feet away, the workmen uncovered a thigh bone that was clearly human. Due to the close proximity of the find, Dubois assumed they belonged to the same creature. Dubois then named the find Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).
Brace and Montagu in 1977 state that: “Curiously, Dubois waited until the 1920s to also reveal he had found four more human thigh bones in the area where his Pithecanthropus material had been discovered.”
So there are a bunch of very well-known questions and doubts hanging over Dubois’ ‘Java Man’ from Indonesia, and there are other ‘irregularities’ associated with ‘Peking Man’, too.
"Strangely, every Peking fossil mysteriously disappeared in 1941, leaving students nothing to work on but casts …."
I.E. there were strong suspicions right from the beginning that these ‘fossils’ didn’t really stand up to any real scrutiny. But the Smithsonian Institute in 2017 isn’t breathing a word about these doubts to the poor, clueless reader.
Here’s another one of the Smithsonian’s line of apparent ‘ancestors’, discovered in 2003:
Again, a careful reading of what the Smithsonian Institute is telling readers is that there’s no evidence this ‘homo floresiensis’ is anything other than a ‘homo sapiens’ with a disease or growth disorder that lived on an isolated island where the elephants were also pygmy-sized.
Let’s try another apparent ‘ancestor’, to see if the evidence gets any more persuasive:
So, you’ll note that they have absolutely no hard evidence that ‘homo habilis’ made any of the stone tools they found, or even that it’s a new ‘species’ of man, but these scientists still declared this fossil to be an early human ancestor, as opposed to just another extinct species of ape.
Why exactly they decided that, we aren’t told.
The more I’m reading through all this paleontological and anthropological pseudo-science, the more I’m realizing how scientists hide so much of their unproven ‘assumptions’ and ‘beliefs’ behind some very big words, to make it much harder for the public to understand what’s really going on.
Here’s a few paleontological terms that will make it easier for the lay man (i.e. you and me…) to understand what we’re really reading:
Australopithecines: Are a bunch of remains that are essentially extinct APES, not humans.
Homo Erectus: Are a bunch of remains that are essentially HUMAN, not apes.
Pongid: Simply refers to apes / monkeys.
WHY ARE THESE SCIENTISTS SO KEEN TO ‘INVENT’ MISSING LINKS AND TWIST FOSSIL EVIDENCE AROUND IN SUCH A DISTORTED WAY?
After the ‘Piltdown Man’ fossil was revealed as a deliberate fraud, paleontologists had no ‘missing links’ to link humans to apes. As this was a key requirement for the theory of macro evolution, the search was on to find the ‘inevitable’ missing links. That’s what’s behind all these ‘assumptions’ and ‘beliefs’ about what these fossil researchers are pulling out of the ground.
‘Homo habilis’ is NOT an ‘early’ human, it’s an extinct monkey.
Another one of our ‘ancestors’ that was lauded as a missing link and highly publicized was ‘Lucy’ - who ended up being an extinct form of orangutan, and not an ‘early genus of human’, as all the scientists claimed.
Before we come on to more of a discussion as to what, exactly, is going on with these fossils, I want to tell you about ‘Ida’, as she came to be known, as it’s so instructive as to how scientists very publicly rush to claim ‘evidence’ for their false theories, and in so doing completely mis-lead the public about what’s really going on.
On May 19, 2009, the world woke up to the following stunning headlines (this is excerpted from an online article in The Guardian):
Tuesday 19 May 2009 15.30 BST
IDA, THE EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD...
So, are we all clear what got discovered here? THE missing link between humans and animals. And there’s a whole bunch of big names jumping up and down telling you that, and doing documentaries about ‘Ida’ and underlying very clearly that Darwin’s theory of evolution is right - coincidentally just in time for Darwin’s 200th birthday!
The ‘Ida’ documentary was a joint venture between the BBC and the History Channel, and drew many millions of viewers. Even Google got in on the PR campaign to introduce ‘Ida’ to the world, with a specially-designed link on its front page to celebrate the find, and National Geographic hailed ‘Ida’ as the ‘critical missing link species’.
Colin Tudge even wrote a popular book about Ida, called The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor (Little Brown & Co, 2009), which is interesting because in that book even Tudge conceded that:
The primate fossil record is so sparse that only around fifty significant specimens exist from the past 5 million years. The most famous is Lucy, the 3.2 million year old australopithecine discovered by Donald Johanson in November 1974. Lucy revolutionized science by providing the first evidence of a primate that walked upright--a crucial link in our own evolution that distinguishes us from all other primates. But even Lucy, considered a remarkable specimen, was only 40 percent complete.
As you’ll know from what you just read above, the 60% of Lucy that was missing was all the parts that differentiate a human being from a monkey. Lucy was subsequently declared to be an extinct form of Orangutan - a long time ago! - yet she’s still hitting the headlines in Tudge’s book from 2009 as the other ‘most famous’ missing link before Ida showed up.
“Everyone agrees that from the neck up, "Lucy" was gorilla-like. Her brain size was about one-fourth the size of a human brain; her jaw was "U"-shaped, typical of gorillas; her teeth were large, far larger than those in humans.
From the neck down, nearly every: feature was likewise non-human. Australopithecus fossils, including those which are thought to be much more recent and therefore should be more human-like, have long, curved fingers and long, curved toes—well adapted to swinging from tree limb to tree limb.”
In a further twist on the 'Lucy' story, a recent re-analysis of the bones found that a baboon bone had somehow got snuck into the mix too... But I digress.
So the PR campaign to institute ‘Ida’ as a missing link was a great success! But there was just one problem with it: It was all a big lie.
Now, let’s fast forward a few months to March, 2010, when scientists from the University of Texas released the following conclusions about Ida:
"Recently Analyzed Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor As Claimed, Anthropologists Say"
Twelve of the sixteen primate traits that the scientists were able to identify classified Ida with monkeys. It turned out, Ida was a lemur.
Of course, no-one bothered to set the public straight about that. National Geographic didn’t run a new article apologizing for misreading its readers, and the BBC and the History Channel didn’t see fit to run a new documentary exploring fraudulent discoveries of ‘missing links’. The public - millions of them - was left with the very clear impression that yet another ‘missing link’ to prove Darwin’s theory of evolution had been found.
So, what’s the real explanation for what’s going on with all these bones and fossils that show a slightly different skull or skeleton from what science considers to be a ‘modern’ human being?
In 1994, scientist Bill Mehlert wrote:
“The pendulum is now swinging to the view that most, if not all erectus specimens are indeed full members of the human race. With the discovery of the Turkana “Boy” WT 15000 in 1984 in Kenya, it is no longer possible to hold to the position that Homo erectus was only a large-brained pongid (ape).
Again, to put this into plain English, all the different types of skeletons that are called ‘erectus’, ‘archaic’ and ‘neanderthal’ are actually all just modern man, or homo sapiens etc.
And the ‘human ancestors’ (sic) that are called austalopithecines and habilines (after the homo habilis you read about above) - are all just extinct apes. This view is held by a number of scientists, including DT Gish (Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record), M Lubenow (Bones of Contention), GJ Beasley, Cherfas and Gribbin (Descent of man or ascent of ape? New Scientist 91)
Again, to quote Mehlert:
“[T]here are human skulls in Australia, dated as modern, which exhibit clear and unambiguous erectus features. Found in Victoria (Kow Swamp), and New South Wales (Willandra Lakes, Mungo), several of these Australian aboriginal remains have fully modern human-sized brains of around 1250cc, yet they all possess the heavy supraorbital tori, flattish receding foreheads, prognathic faces, and large jaws so typical of the earliest and the latest erectus specimens.”
I.e., home erectus was just a type of modern aboriginal man.
This point was proved, ironically enough, by Professor Reiner Protsch, a ‘carbon dating expert’ who managed to fraudulently convince the whole anthropological world that he’d found the ‘missing links’ between human and ‘neanderthals’ by passing off modern skulls as ancient fossils:
“[A] university inquiry was told that a crucial Hamburg skull fragment, which was believed to have come from the world's oldest German, a Neanderthal known as Hahnhöfersand Man, was actually a mere 7,500 years old, according to Oxford University's radiocarbon dating unit. The unit established that other skulls had been wrongly dated too.
But it’s a fair question to ask how these people came to have such big jaws and flat, wide foreheads. And the answer is actually very simple. Let’s go back to Mehlert:
“…the so-called “primitive” erectus and Neanderthal features are almost entirely due to the functioning of the jaw mechanism which would affect the size and shape of brow ridges, the forehead and the zygomatic arch.”
When people eat uncooked, or partially-cooked food in childhood (which could happen a lot in times of food shortage, war or severe economic distress), this strengthens and enlarges the jaw mechanism, which in turn leads to the forehead becoming ‘flatter’, which in turn makes the brow ridges stick out, forces the zygomatic arch out, and leads to flattened cheek bones and squarer faces.
If a person was severely lacking in Vitamin D, that could also lead to a great many of the characteristics associated with ‘neanderthals’. Even today, a lack of Vitamin D is behind such bone mis-shaping diseases as rickets - and even today, there are a whole bunch of people walking around the modern world with so-called ‘homo erectus’ or ‘neanderthal’ features, i.e. massive brow ridges, flattened foreheads, a poorly defined chin, and a large lower jaw.
(In fact, an article in Nature magazine in 1971, bore the headline: “Neanderthals had rickets”.)
So to sum things up, ‘neanderthal man’ is just a variant of you and me. And increasing numbers of scientists who still hold by evolution think this, too:
One of the world’s foremost authorities on the Neanderthals, Erik Trinkaus, concluded:
The last thing I want to tell you about is this article on Botox from the Daily Mail:
“Even as a young girl, Louisa Smith had never been happy with the rather masculine shape of her face and felt self-conscious of her square jaw by the time she reached her teens.”
To cut a long story short, Louisa suffered from bruxism throughout her childhood, i.e. she ground her teeth. When she went to get a botox treatment to ‘soften’ her jaw, within six weeks she’d lost that angular-jawed look we associate with Neanderthals, and her face had instantly slimmed down to ‘normal’ and modern looking.
You can see the before and after pictures for yourself HERE, and also below:
But the point is this:
You can learn a lot at the Smithsonian Institute, not least, how much misinformation, distorted information and outright lies they - and other 'scientific' institutions like National Geographic and the Nature Channel - are feeding the public dressed up as unvarnished ‘truth’ and scientifically-proven ‘facts’ about evolution.
In 1949, one Professor M Ewing from Columbia University set out with a team of researchers to go and take a closer look at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, particularly around the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Amongst other things, the team used sound echo equipment to measure the depth of the sediment on the ocean floor - something they expected to be many thousands of feet thick.
Ocean sediment is typically made up of all the millions and billions of microscopic creatures that live and then die in the oceans - called ‘foraminifera’ - amongst other things. The skeletons of these microscopic creatures very slowly sink to the bottom of the ocean floor, and become sediment.
According to Professor Ewing, other things that add to the sediment on the ocean floor are volcanic dust, wind-blown soil and “the ashes of burned-out meteorites and cosmic dust from outer space sifting constantly down upon the earth.”
If the world was really billions of years old, as claimed, there should be miles of sediment at the bottom of the sea. But that’s not what Professor Ewing and his researchers found when they started measuring it. Writing in: “New Discoveries on the Mid-Atlantic Ride” in National Geographic in 1949, Professor Ewing said:
“Surprisingly, we have found that in the great flat basins on either side of the Ridge, this sediment appears to be less than 100 feet thick…. Always it had been thought the sediment must be extremely thick, since it has been accumulating for countless ages (sic).
The lost continent of Atlantis, anyone?
Fast forward to July 2016, and researcher Isabel Yeo from GEOMAR's Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research in Kiel took a team of researchers to the North Kolbeinsey Atlantic Ocean Ridge, around 500km off the north coast of Iceland, to start collecting detailed images of the ‘hundreds’ of deep water volcanoes - many of which are still live - scattered on the ocean floor there.
Yeo came up with a new method of photographing and dating the lava flows from these volcanoes, which are found between 7--2,000 metres below the surface of the ocean using ‘hydro-acoustic properties’.
The basic idea is that this technology hits the lava flows with sonar, and then analyses how much sound the lava flow reflects back. Yeo commented that her super-sharp images: “combined with the spatial extents of the flows, mean we can work out how much lava erupted where and when.”
As with all of these dating techniques, it relies heavily on a number of unproven assumptions, that Yeo identified in her paper presenting the findings:
“These calculations are heavily dependent on a number of assumptions including assuming that the sediment drape and the surface structure of the lava flow fields are homogeneous, that sedimentation rate is constant through time and that the effects of acoustic refraction within the sediment are negligible. Sediment thickness may be overestimated if the sediments are sandier than assumed.”
But the basic findings were still shocking enough:
Yeo found that these massive volcanic eruptions on the sea floor had all occurred within the last 4,000 years, and that the biggest eruptions and lava flows occurred 3,200 years ago.
But the sea held more secrets, too.
In 1947, a Swedish deep-sea expedition headed by H Pettersson, director of the Oceanographic Institute of Goteborg also found “evidence of great catastrophes that have altered the face of the earth.”
What did the Swedes find, to convince them of this? Here’s a small part of what they reported finding in Scientific American, in 1950:
“Nickel is a very rare element in most terrestrial rocks and continental sediments, and it is almost absent from the ocean waters. On the other hand, it’s one of the main components of meteorites.”
I.e. whenever a lot of nickel shows up, that’s usually a clear sign that a particular area or region got bombarded by a very heavy shower of meteorites.
All over the world, there is evidence that around 3,500 years ago, the ocean level suddenly and significantly dropped leading to the shorelines ‘emerging’ well over 20ft higher. Professor Reginald Daly, writing in Our Mobile Earth, said:
“Marine terraces, indicating similar emergence, are found along the Atlantic coast from New York to the Gulf of Mexico; for at least 1,000 miles along the coast of Eastern Australia, along the coasts of Brazil, southwest Africa, and many islands of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans. In all these and other published cases, the emergence is recent as well as of the same order of magnitude.”
Daly thought that this came about due to a “recent worldwide sinking of ocean level”. Daly put the date for this huge upheaval at between 3,000 - 4,000 years ago. This dating was subsequently confirmed by another researcher, PN Kuenen of Leyden University, who wrote in Marine Geology:
“The time of the movement was estimated by Daly to be probably some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. Detailed field work in the Netherlands and in Eastern England has shown a recent eustatic depression of the same order of magnitude as deduced by Daly. Here the time can be fixed as roughly 3,000 - 3,500 years ago.”
I.e. exactly the time the Israelites left Egypt.
We’re currently in the Jewish year 5778. The Exodus from Egypt occurred in 2446.
5778-2446 = 3332 years’ ago, at the date of writing.
And you’ll recall that our Sages taught that when the sea ‘split’ in Egypt, the seas all over the world also ‘split’ at exactly the same time, which is how the nations of the world knew of the miracles that were being done for the Jewish people.
Wherever you turn, there is more and more evidence that the land became sea, and that sea became land across huge swathes of the planet, around 3,500 years ago - and that it had absolutely nothing to do with so-called ‘global warming’.
Here’s what Velikovsky has to say:
“Human artifacts and bones of land animals were dredged from the bottom of the North Sea; and along the shores of Scotland and England, as well as on the Dogger Bank in the middle of the sea, stumps of trees with their roots still in the ground were found. Forty five miles from the coast, from a depth of thirty six metres. Norfolk fishermen drew up a spearhead carved from the antler of a deer, embedded in a block of peat.”
Which dated whatever it was that submerged huge areas of Northern Europe under water to 1500 BCE - i.e., 3,500 years ago, when the Jews were leaving Egypt.
There is a huge list of locations in England and Wales which are home to recently submerged forests, which still have large trees somehow rooted to the bottom of the ocean floor, showing they were submerged only recently. These were found at:
In February 2014, a huge storm shifted a ton of sand shale off the Cornish and Welsh coasts revealing more of these ‘submerged forests’. One of the biggest forests is at Mount Bay, Cornwall, which contains a number of underwater oak, beech and pine trees, measuring between 3 and 5 metres tall.
Modern geologists grabbed the opportunity to use carbon 14 dating on the trunks, to date them - and again stunned the scientific community by coming up with a time period of between 4000 - 6000 years.
(You’ll recall from THIS article that carbon 14 dating is usually fairly accurate within the last 3,500 years or so).
Speaking to the Telegraph newspaper, Frank Howie, Cornwall Wildlife Trustee and chair of the county's Geoconservation Group, said:
"The storms have revealed two to five metre trunks of pine and oak as well as the remains of hazel thickets with well-preserved cob nuts and acorns washed out by streams running across the beach.
All of this shows that very recently, much of what is now underwater was previously inhabited dry land. And that this massive change to the earth’s contours didn’t occur billions, or even millions of years ago.
It all happened within the last 3,500 years, i.e. well within what’s known as ‘historical’ times, and at the time that the Jewish people left Egypt amidst the huge natural upheavals that came to be known as the 10 plagues, and then received the Torah on Mount Sinai amidst more huge 'natural' cataclysms.
So honestly, you could call this post the 500 billion big lies that evolutionists like to tell to back up their completely unscientific ‘theory’ of evolution, but let’s stick to seven for now, so I can get this written before I mutate (in another 4 billion years…) into something that can’t type.
BIG LIE NUMBER 1: MACRO EVOLUTION OCCURS OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS
This is the idea that 'given time', an amoeba could randomly turn into a monkey.
It would take trillions and trillions of years before an amoeba could 'randomly' turn into a monkey, or a fully-sentient human being - if it could even happen at all, because nearly all 'random' mutations aren't beneficial to the organism (think cancer) and cause the organism's death.
Pioneering molecular biologist Douglas Axe recently proved conclusively that the amount of time it would actually take for even one of Darwin’s ‘happy evolutionary coincidences’ to occur was a number so big, it’s practically impossible. The world simply isn’t old enough for all the millions of evolutionary tweaks that could turn an amoeba into anything remotely similar to a biped - or even something more modest, like an earthworm or fruit-fly.[i]
Again, to be clear: Axe’s research on folding proteins showed conclusively that 4.5 billion years is not long enough for an amoeba to turn into a fruit-fly, let alone a human being.
This point by itself is enough to show the ‘theory’ of evolution is complete baloney.
Read on for a connected big lie.
BIG LIE NUMBER 2: DNA ‘PROVES’ EVOLUTION
If you pick up a copy of: Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent life, written by Professor Stephen Meyer, PHD, he reviews many origin of life theories, specifically relating to DNA and RNA.
“Meyer dissects each of these theories, the end result for nearly all of these ideas is that they are based on certain amounts of specified information existing as a premise for the subsequent parts of the theory to function, in other words they do not explain or solve the problem of where biological information comes from, but simply displace the problem.
BIG LIE NUMBER THREE: TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS SHOW EVOLUTION
In all my searching for these mythical ‘transitional fossils’ that ‘prove’ evolution, I’ve come up with precisely one example given: a reptile with turtle-type features.
And if you’re a keen observer, you’ll notice that this is backwards as according to evolutionists, sea creatures ‘evolved’ into land creatures and not the other way around.
Here’s what the REAL SCIENCE says about transitional fossils:
“It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they are never going to be filled.” - Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University, Sweden, summing up his 40 years of work on the subject in his book: Synthetische Artbildung:
BIG LIE NUMBER 4: VESTIGIAL TRAITS
This is the idea that a human appendix is a ‘throw back’ to when they were a monkey, or something.
Most of what arrogant western doctors consider to be ‘vestigial’ organs actually do have a use in the human body, just they haven’t yet figured it out, because they don’t know everything about human health.
Take a look at this article: Your Appendix is Useful After All as one example, but tonsils - another one of the ‘vestigial traits’ often quoted by evolutionists - are also part of the immune system and serve an important function in the body.
BIG LIE NUMBER 5: EARLY EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT ‘PROVES’ EVOLUTION
This is the idea that humans used to be fish / monkeys etc because the embryo goes through a stage of looking like these creatures as it grows in the womb.
Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist, was the first person who proposed this idea, and even did a very nice text book showing how it occurred.
There was just one problem: Haeckel blatantly faked many of his diagrams and falsified his ‘science’, something that he only admitted to many, many years later, after his theory had gained mainstream acceptance as being ‘scientifically proven’.
Yet more than 100 years later, Haeckel’s fraudulence is still being proffered by evolutionists as ‘scientific proof’ that their theory is correct.
BIG LIE NUMBER 6: MICRO EVOLUTION SOMEHOW ‘PROVES’ MACRO EVOLUTION
This is the idea that because a creature, a human, can be ‘conditioned’ by their environment and experiences to change their behavior of certain minor facets of their appearance within a lifetime, or over the very short time - what’s known as MICRO EVOLUTION - this somehow ‘proves’ that an amoeba can turn into a dog, and a monkey into a human, over the (impossibly….) long term.
Again, there is ZERO scientific evidence for this.
This is completely an article of faith, much more akin to a religious belief than a scientific proof of anything.
Please see BIG LIES 1 & 2, above, which show that ACCORDING TO REAL SCIENCE, the probability of the world being old enough to enable all these random beneficial changes to occur is ZERO.
BIG LIE NUMBER 7: COMPUTERS CAN SIMULATE EVOLUTION
That this is even something evolutionists claim as ‘proof’ of evolution is, well, sad.
It stands to reason that computer programmes are based on a whole bunch of ASSUMPTIONS made by the people creating them.
If those assumptions are false, whatever is being ‘simulated’ is also based on falsehood.
It’s a total non-argument for anyone who doesn’t have a religious belief in evolution.
TO SUM THIS UP:
There is so much more to say about this. All the stuff I’m putting up here about Carbon Dating 14 and other radiometric ‘dating’ methods being based on very faulty assumptions; and the ‘belief’ in Lyell’s principle of uniformity (which is another scientific ‘belief’ that doesn’t have a shred of scientific evidence backing it up) also clearly shows that the age of the world is not as the scientists would have you believe.
Why does the world need to be so old?
Because evolutionists need trillions of years to make their theories credible.
But the world is NOT trillions of years old, and even going by the assumption that it’s 4.5 billion (sic) years old, that’s still no-where near the amount of time it would be required for evolution to be a credible theory.
For anyone who isn’t religious about evolution, this should really be case closed.
The Sahara desert is one of the largest deserts on earth, and it’s easy to believe that nothing ever existed in this vast, desolate space except dust, sand and wind.
Yet, many rock drawings have been found in the area which show herds of cattle and other animals, none of which are still to be found in the Sahara, and most of which are now extinct. These drawings were found close to Neolithic [concluding between 4500 and 2000 BCE, depending on the area] items of polished stone, including implements, vessels and even weapons, in both Western and Eastern Sahara.
The obvious conclusion is that the people in this area pastured a lot of animals in the area that is now the uninhabitable Sahara desert, within the last 6,000 years.
So what happened? Where did all the sand come from? Where did the all the open grassland and water go?
Firstly, let’s pin the dates of human habitation in the Sahara down a little more closely. Franz Karl Movers was a very well known orientalist, who maintained that the Saharan rock pictures had been done by the Phoenicians (L Frobenius and Douglas C Fox, Prehistoric Rock Pictures in Europe and Africa, 1937).
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about them:
The people of Phoenicia, who flourished from 1200–800 BCE, created a confederation of kingdoms across the entire Sahara to Egypt. They generally settled along the Mediterranean coast, as well as the Sahara, among the people of ancient Libya, who were the ancestors of people who speak Berber languages in North Africa and the Sahara today, including the Tuareg of the central Sahara.
One of the Egyptian pagan deities, Set, was also found drawn on a rock in the Sahara, together with horse-drawn war chariots. No horse could last more than two days in the present arid conditions of the Sahara desert.
So what happened, and when did it occur?
Yet again, the versions of events told by modern science itself simply doesn’t add up. The ‘official’ version of events, given in the Encylopedia Britannica, ponderously states that:
“Long before recorded history, the Sahara was evidently more widely occupied. Stone artifacts, fossils, and rock art, widely scattered through regions now far too dry for occupation, reveal the former human presence, together with that of game animals, including antelopes, buffalo, giraffe, elephant, rhinoceros, and warthog.
Note the ‘long before recorded history’ bit that makes this sound like it happened eons ago, which is then contradicted by the last bit that explains that large herds of animals appeared in the desert less than 7,000 years ago.
But then, we have this from 2015, from Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who explained that most scientists today believe “the Sahara dried up due to a change in the Earth’s orbit, which affects solar insolation, or the amount of electromagnetic energy the Earth receives from the Sun.”
He goes on to explain that:
“around 8,000 years ago, the Earth’s orbit was slightly different to how it is today. The tilt changed from around 24.1 degrees to the present-day 23.5 degrees. Additionally, the Earth had its closest approach to the Sun in the northern hemisphere (with) summer in August,” Schmidt said.
Modern science itself is saying whatever massive catastrophe happened to dessicate the green steppes of the Sahara, it happened 8,000 years ago - not milllions, and not billions of years, but basically within the Torah’s timescale for planet earth.
To put this another way, we have a NASA scientist admitting that 8,000 years ago (sic) ‘something’ changed the earth’s orbit and affected the planet’s climate so greatly, a huge tropical land mass the size of Europe dried up overnight and turned into a desert.
How does this fit with the theory of evolution, and the principle of ‘uniformity’ that is axiomatic to so much of modern scientific thought? Clearly, it doesn’t at all.
The fossil evidence, and NASA, and the Egyptian / Phoenician influences in the Saharan rock drawings all suggest this Sahara dried out in historical (i.e. modern) times.
Let’s go back to Velikovsky:
“It appears that a large part of the region was occupied by an inland lake, or vast marsh, known to the ancients as Lake Triton. In a stupendous catastrophe, the lake emptied itself into the Atlantic, and the sand on its bottom and shores was left behind, forming a desert when tectonic movements sealed off the springs that fed the lake. The land of ‘pastures and forests’ became a desert of sand.”
Lake Tritonis was a large body of fresh water in northern Africa that was described in many ancient texts. Classical-era Greek writers placed the lake in what today is southern Tunisia. In details of the late myths and personal observations related by these historians, the lake was said to be named after Triton.
Velikovsky originally wrote this in 1955, and was ridiculed by nearly all the scientists of his day. Guess what scientists working with Nasa discovered seven years ago, in 2010?
“Beneath the sands of the Sahara Desert scientists have discovered evidence of a prehistoric megalake. Formed some 250,000 [sic] years ago when the Nile River pushed through a low channel near Wadi Tushka, it flooded the eastern Sahara, creating a lake that at its highest level covered more than 42,000 square miles.
This ‘megalake’ was written up in Geology magazine in 2010, here: Evidence for Pleistocene lakes in the Tushka region, south Egypt. And do you know why that’s so interesting? Because according to Maxwell’s own account, this lake is ‘consistent’ with Neolithic and Palelithic settlements in the area. I.e. according to modern science itself, it dates to between 21,000 (sic) and 6,000 years ago.
So why are they skirting over the earlier dating - plus the huge number of historical accounts of a massive lake in this area - to claim these lakes are from the so-called ‘pleistocene’ era 250,000 years ago?
SAME IDEA, THIS TIME WITH THE ARABIAN DESERT
And it’s not only the Sahara desert that used to be lush, green pasture land and forest. We meet a similar story again, this time with the Arabian desert.
St John Philby wrote in his book Arabia in 1930 that it’s a:
“certainty beyond challenge that when the icecap of the last Glacial period covered a large part of the northern hemisphere (i.e. Europe), at least three great rivers flowed from west to east across the whole width of the [Arabian] Peninsula.”
Shortly after writing this, Philby returned to Arabia, to the ‘Wabar’ site. This is how Wikipedia describes his trek:
After a month's journey through wastes so harsh that even some of the camels died, on 2 February 1932 Philby arrived at a patch of ground about a half a square kilometre in size, littered with chunks of white sandstone, black glass, and chunks of iron meteorite.
More about the meteorites in a minute.
Similarly, Bertram Thomas wrote in The Syrian Desert in 1937 that Arabia was once home to a large lake, that somehow disappeared.
There’s another strange phenomena to be found in the Arabian desert, called the ‘hammadas’ - 28 fields of broken and burned stones which sharp edges and black scorch marks. Some of these fields are huge - 100 miles in diameter - and the stones are packed so tightly within them they’re almost impossible to traverse. (See the pic, above).
These stones didn’t come from a volcano - there is precious little lava in the hammadas, and also the area covered by the stones is too large to be accounted for by a volcanic explosion that flung a mass of stones to the earth.
Back in 1955, Velikovsky summised the following about the hammadas:
“It appears that the blackened and broken stones of the harras [hammadas] are trains of meteorites, scorched in their passage through the atmosphere, that broke during their fall… or on reaching the ground. Billions of stones in a single harra indicate that the trains of meteorites were very large, and can be classified as comets.”
In 1966, a journalist working for National Geographic, Thomas J Abercrombie, went back to Wabar, and found the ‘biggest iron meteorite ever found in Arabia…its weight almost two and a half tons.’ A couple more large meteorites were duly uncovered in the desert sands at Wabar, and recovered for analyses.
If you want to know what these meteorites might have to do with the ‘missing’ Arabian lake somehow turning into the current Arabian desert, read on.
This from Wikipedia:
“The layout of the impact area suggests that the body fell at a shallow angle, and was moving at typical meteorite entry speeds of 40,000 to 60,000 km/h. Its total mass was more than 3,500 tonnes. The shallow angle presented the body with more air resistance than it would have encountered at a steeper angle, and it broke up in the air into at least four pieces before impact. The biggest piece struck with an explosion roughly equivalent to the atom bomb that levelled Hiroshima.”
Once again, it stretches credulity that a ‘Hiroshima’ type blast - and remember, there were multiple pieces of meteorite that impacted the Arabian peninsula at the same time, we’re only talking about the biggest piece here - could have occurred 250 years ago and none of the locals would have mentioned it or noticed it.
This might be the reason for the faulty ‘thermoluminescence dating’:
Thermoluminescence dating (TL) is the determination, by means of measuring the accumulated radiation dose, of the time elapsed since material containing crystalline minerals was either heated (lava, ceramics) or exposed to sunlight (sediments). As a crystalline material is heated during measurements, the process of thermoluminescence starts. Thermoluminescence emits a weak light signal that is proportional to the radiation dose absorbed by the material. It is a type of luminescence dating.
But there was an historical account of a lush, green ‘Atlantis of Arabia’, which disappeared beneath the waves of sand following a huge catastrophe within the last few thousand years.
This from Wikipedia:
In 1930, the explorer Bertram Thomas had been approaching the southern edge of the Rub' al Khali ("The Empty Quarter"). It was Thomas' ambition to be the first European to cross the great sands but, as he began his camel journey, he was told by his Bedouin escorts of a lost city whose wicked people had attracted the wrath of God and had been destroyed.
Today, the Rub Al Khali desert is around 1,000 jm long and 500 km wide, and its reddish-orange sand dunes sometimes rise to a height of 250 metres. But sure enough, modern geologists have found ample evidence that in the very recent past, the area was home to a number of lakes.
This from Wikipedia:
“Along the middle length of the desert there are a number of raised, hardened areas of calcium carbonate, gypsum, marl, or clay that were once the site of shallow lakes. These lakes existed during periods from 6,000 to 5,000 years ago and 3,000 to 2,000 years ago. The lakes are thought to have formed as a result of "cataclysmic rainfall" similar to present-day monsoon rains and most probably lasted for only a few years. However, lakes in the Mundafen area in the southwest of the Rub' al Khali show evidence of lasting longer, up to 800 years, due to increased runoff from the Tuwaiq Escarpment.
(Very probably because they got completely pulverized by the multi ‘Hiroshima bomb’ type blasts…)
HIDING THE FACTS IN PLAIN VIEW
So, the scientists - lots of them - admit that the Southern Arabian Peninsula used to be lush, green areas covered with lakes, teeming with all sorts or animals, and lived in by human being between 2-3000 years ago (i.e. well within historical times - what’s being described post-dates the building of the Jewish first temple, in Jerusalem).
Then, everything changed overnight - but not by gradual drips and a creeping accumulation of sand. Rather, one big, ‘Hiroshima’ x 4 explosion hit the area, turning it into barren dust and desert overnight.
In 1966, they found four existing meteorites buried in the sand, but countless numbers more of them disintegrated upon impact and became the ‘hammadas’ or fields of meteoric rubble and scorched glass that litters the desert.
The following paragraph about the desert in question sums up modern science’s ‘schizo’ attitude to really understanding, and accurately dating, the history of the planet:
“It was long believed that the region had been this way since about 1600 BCE, after shifts in the Earth's axis increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, which led to the abrupt desertification of North Africa about 5,400 years ago. However, this theory has recently been called into dispute, when samples taken from several 7 million year old sand deposits led scientists to reconsider the timeline for desertification.
All the hard evidence showing that people lived there in historical times, and all the fossil evidence showing the huge amount of recent flora and fauna in the area are tossed out because of faulty radiometric dating techniques that (apparently…) show the sand is seven million years’ old….
So how does that explain all the human settlement, and animal fossils, and 30,000 petroglyphs that date back to around 3,000 years’ ago? How did all that stuff come to be in a massive, inhospitable desert that’s 7 milllion years old [sic]?
It makes much more sense to say the following:
There have clearly been huge changes in the amount of water on the planet and in the atmosphere well within the last 6,000 and even 3,000 years. This will clearly effect the results for carbon 14 dating, and skew them to make substances being tested appear to be much older than they really are.
At the same time, any area that’s been hit with the force of (at least…) four Hiroshima nukes will clearly return very skewed data when it comes to other radiometric dating methods including thermoluminescence, which is what geologists typically use to date sediment and stuff like sand.
The Sahara and the Arabian deserts were paradises less than 6,000 years ago, and probably even less than 3,000 years ago. All this changed when the planet was hit by a meteor field that accompanied a massive comet, which came so close to the earth it ‘tilted the earth’s axis’ - there is no way this could happen from internal forces.
The last point to say is that all this completely contradicts the theories underpinning evolution, geochronology and the principle of uniformity.
Yet these are the facts.
So when are the scientists going to start figuring out this stuff for themselves?
Who hasn’t heard of the Himalayas? Who hasn’t heard of Mount Everest, that with a summit of 29,000 ft ranks as the highest mountain in the world?
The tops of these mountains are a frozen wasteland with precious few signs of life. It’s too high up for birds, even. But apparently, at some point in the past Mount Everest was home to marine animals, fish and mollusks, the remains of which are found in abundance in this area.
This also meant that the mighty peaks of the Himalayas had at some point lain under the sea - but as to when the Himalayas went from being a seabed to the highest mountain range in the world, that was a matter of guesswork.
Waving a finger in the air, the geologists decided that it must have been many, many millions of years’ ago, and definitely nothing that could have occurred within modern times….
This is the standard explanation that ‘geochronology’ likes to foist on an unsuspecting public (taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica):
“The collision of India and southern Asia began between 50 million and 40 million years ago, during the Eocene Epoch, and continues today. The collision produced two main geologic results. First, it began to block the westward-flowing Tethys seaway near the Equator, a process completed with the junction of Africa and Asia near present-day Iran roughly 16 million to 14 million years ago.
It all sounds so convincingly scientific, doesn’t it? Modern geochronology is adamant that no mountains popped out of the ground anytime recently, and certainly not within the timescale of modern man, i.e. the last 5-6000 years.
Yet the fossils being found in the mountains tell a very different story. In 1939, Swiss geologist Arnold Heim wrote in: The Throne of the Gods, an Account of the First Swiss Expedition to the Himalayas, that the sedimentary deposits found in this ‘ancient’ sea bottom that had now risen more than 5000 ft upwards contained Paleolithic fossils.
This comes from Wikipedia:
“The Paleolithic (or "Palaeolithic")/ˌpæliːəˈlɪθɪk/ age is a prehistoric period of human history distinguished by the development of the most primitive stone tools and covers roughly 95% of human technological prehistory. It extends from the earliest known use of stone tools, probably by Homo habilis initially, 2.6 million years ago, to the end of the Pleistocene around 10,000 BP.”
To be clear, ‘paleolithic’ means the stone age, the time when human beings used primarily stone and bone implements. Again, even according to modern geology’s own chronology, these dates don’t add up. On the one hand, they’re telling us that the Himalayas arose 40-50 million years ago, and on the other they’re saying that the fossils found at the top of the Himalayas, in the Kashmir region, date to between 2.6 million and 12,000 (sic) years ago.
Helmut de Terra, the explorer that discovered these elevated fossils in Kashmir wrote in: Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated Human Cultures, 1939, that:
“The archaeological records prove that early Paleolithic man inhabited the adjoining plains”,
because he’d found an abundance of Paleolithic stone implements at settlements nearby.
But the rise of the Himalayas didn’t stop there. According to De Terra, the
“tilting of terraces and lacustrine beds” indicated a “continued uplift of the Himalayan tract” during the last phases of the Ice Age.”
To be clear, modern geochronology states that the Paleolithic age was ended by the last so-called ‘mini’ Ice Age. To put this in plain English, De Terra found that the Himalayas continued to rise even as little as 12,000 (sic) years ago!
Again, even this dating is based on the stone age implements that were found there - yet many primitive societies continued to live in the ‘stone age’ well into Victorian times, and even beyond, despite the standard scientific dating of 3.4 million - 2,500 years ago.
HOW IS SCIENCE COMING UP WITH THESE DATES?
While we’re on the whole dating subject, guess what? Yes, that’s right - stone age implements are typically dated using carbon 14 (which we already discussed in THIS post) and / or something called K-Ar dating, which measures the loss of radioactive argon isotopes. Here’s just one of the assumptions used when dating things with K-Ar:
“The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated. Thus, there should have been no loss or gain of 40K or 40 Ar*, other than by radioactive decay of 40K.
Again, go research this yourselves, but what they are basically telling you is that just like they assume that the amount of carbon has been stable in the earth’s atmosphere for eons, so has the amount or argon, but that they keep finding that this simply doesn’t pan out in practice, especially in areas of ‘complex geological history’ - i.e. where big upheavals have taken place.
If you go look at what they say about the Stone Age dating and theory itself, there are enormous holes all over the place, disagreements, and huge statements based solely on opinion and ‘belief’ - NOT facts (other than carbon 14 and potassium-argon dating…)
So what we’re left with factually is that the Himalayas arose in the stone age of man, and that
“The transition out of the Stone Age occurred between 6000 BCE and 2500 BCE for much of humanity living in North Africa and Eurasia.”
But - people living in the Middle East were already in the so-called Bronze Age, and even the so-called Iron Age at this time, while other communities continued to live in the ‘stone age’ well into modern Victorian times.
To return to the Himalayas, De Terra found polished stone implements from the ‘neolothic’ or new stone age in the loess (see definition below) at the top of the Himalayas. This suggests very strongly that the Himalayas arose between 15,000 BCE and 2000 BCE - according to modern science’s own dating!
The Neolithic (/ˌniːəˈlɪθɪk/ ( listen)) was a period in the development of human technology, beginning about 15,200 BC, according to the ASPRO chronology, in some parts of the Middle East, and later in other parts of the world and ending between 4500 and 2000 BC.
De Terra wasn’t the only one to come to this stunning conclusion. Other geologists including R Finsterwalder, Arnold Heim and August Gansser also came to the conclusion that the mountain ranges in Western China (next to Tibet) were of very recent age.
“The highest mountains in the world are also the youngest” wrote Heim and Gansser in 1939.
Almost 80 years’ later, modern geology is still telling us that the Himalayas arose ’40-50 million years’ ago’ - ignoring every scrap of evidence to the contrary, including the fact that stone age tools and Paleolithic fossils were found at the very top of these peaks.
If you look to the mountain ranges of the Andes, you’ll find a similar story. Close to Lake Titicaca on the border of Bolivia and Peru, in 1910 explorers found a massive city - built up a mountain some 12,500 ft high.
Writing in The Incas of Peru in 1910, Sir Clemens Markham said:
“Such a region is only capable of sustaining a scanty population of hardy mountaineers and laborers.”
Yet the people who built this city and lived there in their thousands not only did all that up a very high mountain where most crops don’t even ripen, but also somehow moved a bunch of massive stones up to this peak, to build the walls of their city.
To quote Velikovsky:
“Further investigation into the topography of the Andes and the fauna of Lake Titicaca, together with a chemical analysis of this lake and others on the same plateau established that the plateau was one time at sea level, or 12, 500 ft lower than it is today….
There are other ancient cities built with massive stones in the South American mountains that bear this out, including Ollantaytambo in Peru, and the Peruvian fortress / monastery at Ollantayparubo, which Bellamy described as:
“perche[d] upon a tiny plateau some 13,000 ft above sea level, in an uninhabitable region of precipices, chasms and gorges.”
The huge stones that built it must have been brought “from a considerable distance… down steep slopes, across swift and turbulent rivers, and up precipitous rockfaces which hardly allow a foothold.”
Aerial photographs of the Andes show the area is riddled with old settlements and agricultural terraces - at altitudes that today are only visited, briefly, by mountain climbers.
Clearly, many mountain chains in the world are very, very young, and only attained their heights in the last few thousand years, i.e. in the modern age of man.
Like my stuff? Then please consider becoming a PATRON of spiritualselfhelp, even for just $1 a month. Click the button below.