Posts Tagged ‘Darwinists’

U.N. Climate Panel Admits Making False Prediction on Rise of Sea Level

February 24, 2010 Leave a comment


U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw

edited by Louise Ireland

OSLO (Reuters) – The U.N. panel of climate experts overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level, according to a preliminary report on Saturday, admitting yet another flaw after a row last month over Himalayan glacier melt.

Green Business | COP15

A background note by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding along rivers.

The United Nations has said errors in the 2007 report of about 3,000 pages do not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe.

“The sea level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions,” the IPCC note dated February 12 said.

Skeptics say errors have exposed sloppiness and over-reliance on “grey literature” outside leading scientific journals. The panel’s reports are a main guide for governments seeking to work out costly policies to combat global warming.

The 2007 report included the sentence: “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea level rise and river flooding because 55 percent of its territory is below sea level.”

“A preliminary analysis suggests that the sentence discussed should end with: ‘because 55 percent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding’,” the IPCC note said.

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the original source of the incorrect data, said on February 5 that just 26 percent of the country is below sea level and 29 percent susceptible to river flooding.

The IPCC said the error was widespread — it quoted a report from the Dutch Ministry of Transport saying “about 60 percent” of the country is below sea level, and a European Commission study saying “about half.”

The panel expressed regret last month after admitting that the 2007 report exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers, which feed rivers from China to India in dry seasons, in a sentence that said they could all vanish by 2035.

The 2035 figure did not come from a scientific journal. – Source.

Big Banged-up-headed Darwinists are truly right when they say “(We Big Bangin’ Darwinist) scientists (who are the only true scientists) are still learning!”

Darwinist and Liberal ‘Integrity’ Torched by ClimateGate

November 30, 2009 Leave a comment

Has anyone noticed how Darwinists were the ones who were mainly promoting and worrying over global warming, and that it was the opposite in the case of Creationists?:

And now, it’s recently been found that the some of the top global warming scientists, all Darwinists, had been lying about there being a global warming trend, and that Earth had actually been cooling, possibly about to enter another ice age even (on the ice age site is a link to a book being sold which goes along with the false claim that Earth is billions of years old, and that animals suddenly evolved new useful features or into other animals because of magnetic reversals, but obviously magnets don’t cause people to grow wings or tails).

One notorious psuedo-scientist, a trolling idiot, claimed that it wasn’t true that Darwinists were the ones always promoting global warming when a notorious plagiarist atheist and wannabe-wise woman noticed the same thing months ago, claiming, “Not true” because oil companies were denying global warming. So a few oil companies are the majority of Darwinists? There are so many millions of Darwinists oil companies that other atheists not apart of any oil companies or any company at all are just a small minority? And how can oil companies deliberately lying (lying in their own minds) count as people who sincerely deny the truth, if, again, they “knew” they were lying? How absurd and stupid atheists are, especially Darwinist ones.

On top of that, Mr. “Not True” Atheist was lying about all oil companies denying global warming, though in my judgment in his ignorance being that he busies himself trolling Christian creationists, desperately and frantically posting mere claims without evidence to defend anti-Christian doctrine, like he did in this case, rather than carefully researching.

Here’s another passage, 2 years older than Mr. Not True’s lie, which refutes it,

And just a few words later, months before the Prison Planet article, this Businessweek article then says,

There’s a maddening grammatical error in the top part of that article by the way.

So, Psuedo Christian Science Monitorers, who seven months ago mocked Christians and those who believed in Intelligent Design scientists over their disbelief of global warmin, lumping them in with astrologers, and who continues to mock them, clearly, the jokers, are you, the evil type: mockers. Not April fools, you liberal fools.

The Faith of Darwinists and Big Bombers

February 27, 2009 Leave a comment

In response to the freelance writer Jennifer Ouelette, who said, "Binary star systems are quite common, actually, occurring whenever two stars form out of a single cloud of gas and dust"… deluded much? Wow so you were around "billions" of years ago to witness this, and have a bag chalk full of evidence for this? What’s it like being an extremely deluded God-hating narcissist? Stop spreading untestable clearly absurd pseudoscience babble already. Stop setting back science for the world and hindering it with such hateful stupidity. Say what’s truly constructive for science, with love for God, then you will be honored by him.

Would absurd statements about knowing what happened billions of years ago exist, if conniving, credit-thieving Charles Darwin had kept his evolution lie to himself?: Here is an analysis of this "millions and billions of years" ago nonsense.

How Stupid the Darwinist Contributors and Moderators of Wikipedia Are

January 26, 2009 Leave a comment

On the Talk page of the Abiogensis page in Wikipedia it says (or did say a few weeks ago):

"This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute."

So these people are so blind, so ignorant, so stupid, that they can’t even agree as to whether or not there is agreement? So they are so ignorant they aren’t aware of Intelligent Design or Creationist scientists who dispute it? Really? So they don’t have any information on Wikipedia about Intelligent Design / Creation Science? They don’t have a list of any scientists who support that theory? So they don’t have a page on Answers In Genesis, or Ken Ham, or Michael Behe, or Francis Crick, etc.? They are so dumb, that they can’t even agree on whether or not anyone disputes the information on their page, and yet Wikipedians want us to believe that their encyclopedia is trustworthy, reliable. What evil, confused, and stupid liars they are.

Also on that page is this entry which I put in blue so that you know where it starts and ends (any bold lettering you see is from me so that you especially notice those parts):

Polyp2 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    If Tmol42 isn’t watching this page, you can get his attention by asking him at the bottom of User talk:Tmol42. There he will be notified as soon as he logs on. Art LaPella (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Polyp2, I see you are new to WP so will explain in a bit more detail. In short your edit was reverted as it was not substantiated by the reference you provided. The reference you provided to back up the edit was to a flyer for a book Here which turns out to be no more than an advert for the book with no explanation of the theory or a citation of research to substantiate the edit. In fact it appears the book is more to do with ‘a call to arms’ to start /continue research in this area talking about ID and Darwin. I see the author is postulating a Darwinian-linked theory which is in itself enough to ring alarm bells for some and claims of popularism from others. WP is an encyclopedia and not a place for promoting books per se which would be also be sufficient reason to remove the citation. In short its much better to stick to more traditional sources here.

    Visitors to WP should expect the content of articles to be reliable, have their rigor tested, and to be backed up by robust references. This is more often also achieved for such subjects through discussion and consensus reached on the Talk Pages, and is commonplace regardless of the notoriety of a fact or theory.

Yet another Wikipedian in addition to the Darwinist called "JoshuaZ" who says that the information on Wikipedia is there because of a concensus to keep it there, and not because it is TRUE. And don’t forget, according to JoshuaZ Wikipedia is not about truth, but references. So then, which is it controllers of Wikipedia, stop contradicting yourselves: Is the information you allow on Wikipedia, especially on evolution theories, there because it is true, or because of a "the concensus"? I’ll answer for you since you can’t help but make confusing lies:

Information in Wikipedia is there as long as it suits the personal feelings of the concensus of the HEAD MODERATORS of WIKIPEDIA. And there truths about the Bible are only allowed to remain there because you know that to tell certain lies about it are too obviously wrong to the many stupid visitors who come to your site, and you wouldn’t want to make it appear that your encyclopedia can’t be trusted. Plus, you might lose the support of your liberal Christian money donors. So then, Wikipedia is in part your campaign to deceive people into believing the Bible is not trustworthy. Oh, and lets not forget your deliberately suppressing information on the head bankers who oppress the world and the Free Masons who have done so. Of course, you will forget, because you hate remembering the truth.

If anyone doubts JoshuaZ said that Wikipedia was about concensus and not truth:

"Starfire, as I tried to explain to you Wikipedia cares about reliable sources and verifiability, not truth. Now, if you read that guideline, you may understand why in general AIG and many of the other sources you used are not reliable sources." – JoshuaZ

JoshuaZ is contradicting himself being that whether or not a thing is TRUE, TRUSTWORTHY is what determines it’s reliablity. JoshuaZ and his friend Darwinist administrators would like us to believe that a lie is reliable. Second, where in Wikipedia’s guidelines does it say that Answers In Genesis is unreliable? No where. So why is JoshuaZ lying? JoshuaZ is clearly an unreliable, untrustworthy, anti-Christian bigot as are those in Wikipedia who have been supporting him, which includes Jimmy Wales, whom they pretend was Wikpedia’s founder.

"Charming, and I was about to come and add a comment about how your remark here was WP:UNCIVIL but it could just as well apply to your above remark. In general saying editors are being "childish" is not advised and could lead to WP:BLOCK. As to why discussion would be preferred, see this page which explains the Wikipedia procedure in general. Wikipedia works by consensus and so if there is material that not all editors are ok with, they generally wish to discuss it. Very often some form of compromise or rewrite with some of the material will be included or all of it will be if the consensus is clear." – JoshuaZ (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: JoshuaZ again slandered me and plain lied: I didn’t say the editors of Wikipedia were childish, as in anyone who edits is childish, but THE MODERATORS (administrators).

Then JoshuaZ said:

"Also, I suggest you don’t use the edit summary "rebuke" indeed, the entire notion of rebuking editors with whom you disagree with is probably not a good one. I suggest you try to improve your attitude to be more cooperative with other editors. Wikipedia is not a battleground but a collective attempt to build an encyclopedia." – JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"probably"? JoshuaZ why would I care about your probablies? Who are you? And yet users like Griot were and are allowed to repeatedly harass and make insults (which are rebukes) against those who oppose them on Wikipedia. What a biased truth-hating hypocrite you are JoshuaZ. Stop babbling and stop lying.

And as for concensus, you idiot:

A Growing Concensus that Darwinists are Wrong

The Washington Times reports ‘a growing consensus’ among philosophers, intellectuals and scholars that atheism is in decline worldwide. But this does not mean that ‘re-Christianization’ is occurring—instead Flew and others merely believe in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe.

The Washington Times,, March 9, 2005.

Or is the Washington Times not reliable JoshuaZ, will that be your next arbitrary excuse to supress the truths in the Bible?

Further, British philosopher Antony Flew, long renowned as ‘an intellectual ambassador of secular humanism’, is now a theist.

He said that it was impossible for evolution to account for the fact that a single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.