Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Global Warming Theory not looking hot anymore


Ufo Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was kind of on the fence about the whole glabal warming thing being human caused until I found out that Mars is warming too and by at least as much as the Earth, if not more

HEY! UMBARGER: THIS MYTH HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED IN THIS THREAD.

(ARGH!! READ THE THREAD!)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.

(DURR)

Let me ask something here. Doesn't the sun have it's own cycle? Which if it does, which I believe it does, then that would explain a whole lot.

The sun does go through cycles, and they affect the Earth's atmosphere. So what?

Here's an example. The red is the solar variation. While this affects the temperature, it is just a cycle, nothing more. The overall trend fits with the rising CO2 levels.

cooling_1975_2008.gif

Source:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-warming-stopped-in-1981.html

Earth has been cooling for the past 11 years, despite increases in CO2 emissions. I think that perfectly disproves the AGW hypothesis.

This is false. I have shown this wrong several times in this thread.

A. The claim itself is false. The Earth has been warming for the last 11 years.

B. The claim itself is outright stupid. A small decrease in temperature for 11 years has NOTHING to do with the overall upwards trend in global temperature.

Please read the thread before continuing any more discussion.

http://www.unexplain...1entry3119874

I started a thread on what people are doing to thrwart global warming and can't help but see that you haven't posted anything. Could it be that you aren't taking any personal resposibility for any of it, if you believe it's true?

After all, we can't expect other people to do what we aren't willing to.

A. Believe it or not, I do not continually refresh Michelle's "New Topics" page every 16 seconds of my life. I am sorry for any inconveniences my lacking this habit has caused.

B. This is completely offtopic.

C. I am simply explaining why the scientific community has come to a consensus on global warming. I am not necessarily advocating personal action on it.

Perhaps but, it could also indicate that the rise in temperture simply causes more CO2 as well. Water makes clouds just as much as clouds mke water. That sort of thing.

This claim is debunked here.I hope you realize that it is NOT a good thing that your arguments are so over-used by denialists that they are featured on a website which debunks a handful of denialist claims.

Who's causing the temperture to increase on Mars? The Moon? Who was causing the temperture to be higher in the dinosaur times? Did T-Rex drive a Hummer?

You are kidding, right?

That's it. Please people.

I am making this slightly bigger, as everyone seems to miss it every time. You are NOT outsmarting 86% of climatologists when you smugly figure out that the climate(BELIEVE IT OR NOT!) fluctuated before man. As hard as it may seem for someone as obviously ingenious and clever as you, you are NOT outsmarting the very people who documented the data which shows such.

News flash: The atmosphere is a chaotic system. There are several NATURAL PHENOMENA that cause the temperature to fluctuate. This is acknowledged and factored by ALL who accept the scientific theory of global warming.

From now on, claiming that any sort of climatic change in the past somehow disproves the scientific theory of global warming is code in this thread for: "I'm a moron and I do not know what I'm talking about", OK?

Note: Although this claim defies common sense, and although I've debunked it numerous times in this thread, it is also debunked here:

Past climate change actually demonstrates that the climate is sensitive to radiative forcing. Having determined climate sensitivity from empirical observations, scientists can calculate the climate response to CO2 forcing.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Additionally, Umbarger, please note: Any scientific claims you do not back up with a scientific source from now on will immediately be rejected without consideration.

Trust me, I know the diference between 'a theory; and ' a proof'.

Really? Didn't seem like it, did it?

All you have done is plonk down the same old crap that has been plonked down here a thousand times before.

And this "Crap" is accepted by the vast, vast majority of the scientific community, is explained by a natural, known mechanism, is backed with empirical evidence, and has withstood rigorous scientific skepticism.

I have argued every point that I read (I must admit I gave up pretty fast, about number 4) many times before, I see no new anything here, I just see someone trying to sound cleverer than they really are.

Ah, it's good to know you are at least reading your own posts, even if you aren't reading mine. It is obvious to everyone that you are simply bluffing; you seriously think you are fooling anyone into believing you are outsmarting the entirety of the scientific community when you won't even show your cards? LOL.

All I will say is rather than spout the same old party line provide evidence/data to back up anything (preferably all) you have said, links to pretty pictures just don't cut it (you should know that being so knowledgeable and active in the wiki-scientific field).

You have no idea what you are talking about. I have supplied scientific sources and hard data to back up every graph I've shown. You've done nothing but make excuses for your failure to address anything whatsoever in the thread.

The purpose of science is to create theories....or to have a good guess. Lol.

Precisely. Nothing more about the world can be know, from a rational standpoint, besides "good guesses". You are simply guessing that the Holocaust happened: You don't really know. You are simply guessing that a place called Washington DC exists: You don't really know, even if you've been there. You are simply guessing if you think that the strength of gravity depends on the mass of an object: You don't really know.

All of these things could possibly, although it is a slim chance, be false. Same with Global warming. Thus, by calling it a guess, you are not degrading it as somehow unreal in any way.

If you think "Proof" exists in the universe, you simply demonstrate that you are too deep in mathematics to accurately understand science, which does not deal with proof: In science, there are only good guesses, bad guesses, and unscientific guesses.

BTW I saw the word 'models' and I beg you to go down the climate model route...please. I presume there will be proof rather than waffle next time I look at this thread.

You are so irrational and unwilling to examine the scientific evidence that I simply don't accept that you are a publishing scientist; I simply think you are lying. Either that, or you went through every class you've taken with your figures in your ears while singing the National Anthem.

Do you even know what that means?

Yes? If you have trouble understand that simple diagram, you may have a larger problem than your irrationality.

Questionmark, you don't have to provide any more evidence that it has continued warming since 1998: this is a scientific fact, and I've already given excellent sources for it.

I can't believe I didn't notice this before. The majority of the scientific community accepts the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis? Really? I assume by "scientific community", you mean the IPCC, which has, what, less than 3000 members? Well, let's take a look at the number of scientists who don't accept the hypothesis: Click here, here, and here. That's over 31,000 scientists.

Yes, and only 9,000 with PhDs. I wonder how many have degrees in relevant fields?

Randomly, I'm going to check out the first 10 "S" signers(S for SQL).

Richard 0. S

I can find no mention of this man in the scientific literature. Did he want to be taken seriously without even supplying his last name?

Alfredo Hua-Sing Ang,

This man is a smart engineer who has written books on the topic.

Unfortunately, that doesn't give him any expertise on climatology.

Lal Pratap S. Singh

I can find no record of this man.

Myrl J. Saarem

She seems to be an engineer of some sort. Again, no climatology-expertise.

Carol Saari

She seems to be a molecular biologist. A fine scientist, but no climatology-expertise.

D. D. Saars

I can find no record of this person.

Patrick Saatzer

Seems to be a bio-chemist.

Joaquin A. Saavedra

A mechanical engineer. Her thesis is available online.

Joseph D. Sabella

Seems to be in medicine or virology.

Harry A. Sabin

No mention of this man anywhere, unless he's in animation.

Edward Stephen Sabisky

Almost certainly a chemist or physicist.

Well, there's ten. Ten fine scientists, but ten people as equally irrelevant to climatology consensus as you or I.

Here are the real facts:

This poll was conducted by Gallup:

poll_scientists.gif

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organisations that study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Scientific organisations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

National Center for Atmospheric Research

American Meteorological Society

The Royal Society of the UK

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Academies of Science from 19 countries

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academie des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature

It is also worthwhile examining peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...

Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus

That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their arguments are. You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic studies here...

Sources:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Conclusion: Despite your very large list of "random scientists who happen to sign a petition", the denialists are in the extreme minority.

Cheers,

SQLserver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moon Monkey

    24

  • questionmark

    33

  • SQLserver

    22

  • danielost

    22

My God, man! Your really don't know the planet's been cooling since 1998? Do you live under a rock? Even the BBC admitted it!

Please read the thread we have on that AND this one. I have already debunked the BBC's ridiculous reporting(which of course is irrelevant to the scientific community) in BOTH threads.

This post rips through the article:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/13/the-bbc-hudson-what-happened-to-global-warming-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history/

and I do it here:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=166246&view=findpost&p=3124136

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naaa, I didn't expect you, SQL, to account for your own actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naaa, I didn't expect you, SQL, to account for your own actions.

Michelle, please stop derailing this thread. Believe it or not, you cannot post in every thread an advertisement for an irrelevant one you made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global lower-stratospheric temperatures are estimated from radiosonde observations (Fig. 11), satellite observations (Fig. 12), and analyses obtained from a global data assimilation system that utilize both sources of data (Fig. 13 ) (Kalnay et al. 1996). During 1995, all three analysis techniques showed a continuation of well below-normal temperatures in the lower stratosphere. The radiosonde estimate shows 1995 to be the coldest year in the 37-year record and the tenth out of the past eleven years with negative temperature anomalies (only 1992 had a positive anomaly). One difference in the relative behavior of the three time series is that the satellite derived anomalies show 1995 to be slightly warmer than 1994, whereas both the radiosonde-derived anomalies and the reanalyzed data obtained from the NCAR/NCEP Reanalysis Project (Fig. 13 ) show 1995 to be colder than 1994.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/assessments/assess_95/strat.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, so what? You DO realize that you cited the temperatures of the STRATOSPHERE, don't you? You DO realize that the stratosphere temperatures that year happened to be low due to observed natural causes explained in the report, don't you? You DO realize that the specific mean temperature of a single year is irrelevant to climate change, don't you? You DO realize that we wouldn't expect the stratosphere to necessarily warm significantly, right?

You DO realize that the report on the SURFACE TEMPERATURE REPORTS:

Estimated global (land area only) mean temperature anomalies during 1995 [computed using meteorological station data received over the Global Telecommunications System (GTS) relative to the 1951-80 base period means] were the second largest in the historical record (0.42°C), ranking behind the warmest year of 1990 (0.52°C), and slightly ahead of 1991 (0.41°C) and 1994 (0.41°C) (Fig. 1). This marks a continuation of the warmer-than-normal global-land temperatures that have been observed for the past 10 years.

Wow, would you mind explaining to you how you've come to be so intellectually dishonest here? Somehow, you were able to skip the report's section on the global temperature, and copy and paste the irrelevant temperature of the stratosphere. Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amusing how, to the Warmists, increases in temperature are because of man, while any decrease in temperature is due to natural causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, so what? You DO realize that you cited the temperatures of the STRATOSPHERE, don't you? You DO realize that the stratosphere temperatures that year happened to be low due to observed natural causes explained in the report, don't you? You DO realize that the specific mean temperature of a single year is irrelevant to climate change, don't you? You DO realize that we wouldn't expect the stratosphere to necessarily warm significantly, right?

You DO realize that the report on the SURFACE TEMPERATURE REPORTS:

Wow, would you mind explaining to you how you've come to be so intellectually dishonest here? Somehow, you were able to skip the report's section on the global temperature, and copy and paste the irrelevant temperature of the stratosphere. Wow.

so what you do know that the info you provided showed that year to be hot rather than cold. if the atmo. is cold and the ssurface is hot in areas then you have to look at the areas that are hot and determine why their hot and the rest of the planet is cold

don't bother i can tell you. rock/cement/pavement retains heat so in cities where there is a lot of that the temps stay up and go up as the summer progresses. during the winter months those area stay warmer due to those rocks longer.

one other thing you side is dismissing so easily is the solar cycle. 2001 was the peak of not one but two solar cycles. so radation was at a peak. it actually stayed at that peak for 3 years. so did radation out put increase above natural output no. did radation output increase yes. by the way the reason it is getting colder right now is because solar maxus is at the lower end of it's cycle, and the second cycle is half way down it's descending cycle. which will be in 35 or 36.

so i predict over the next 6 years it will start to warm up again slightly. then the climite doomers can start crying see we told you the temps are going back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. (In reply to solar cycle part of your post.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sglsvr.

i just read your link. just saw it. and it agrees with me. where there is more land it was warmer and where there is less land it was colder. guess what there is more water than land on the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amusing how, to the Warmists, increases in temperature are because of man, while any decrease in temperature is due to natural causes.

This is a straw man argument: nobody thinks that.

Please refrain from using this type of logical fallacy.

Almost all relevant scientists agree: There are natural and anthropogenic factors in the atmosphere that affect it in different ways.

so what you do know that the info you provided showed that year to be hot rather than cold. if the atmo. is cold and the ssurface is hot in areas then you have to look at the areas that are hot and determine why their hot and the rest of the planet is cold

What? The stratosphere was cold that particular year because of the volcanic causes explained.

Daniel, the stratosphere has nothing to do with global warming: I think it is outside of the majority of the extent of greenhouse gases and thus isn't subject to the greenhouse effect.

So, to conclude, you took information that was completely irrelevant and posted it instead of the relevant information from your source, which ironically continues to add to the fact that the Earth is warming.

don't bother i can tell you. rock/cement/pavement retains heat so in cities where there is a lot of that the temps stay up and go up as the summer progresses. during the winter months those area stay warmer due to those rocks longer.

So?

one other thing you side is dismissing so easily is the solar cycle. 2001 was the peak of not one but two solar cycles. so radation was at a peak. it actually stayed at that peak for 3 years. so did radation out put increase above natural output no. did radation output increase yes. by the way the reason it is getting colder right now is because solar maxus is at the lower end of it's cycle, and the second cycle is half way down it's descending cycle. which will be in 35 or 36.

Exactly. The solar cycle, as I've already explained simply cannot account for the increase in global temperature, which is a longterm trend.

so i predict over the next 6 years it will start to warm up again slightly. then the climite doomers can start crying see we told you the temps are going back up.

What are you talking about, daniel?

In case you really don't understand:

It is a FACT that it has been "warming up" for over a hundred years. All anomalies are explained by short term weather cycles, like El Nino and solar cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, I cannot keep up with this thread for too long. I'm going to make a quick prediction, here:

1. Pseudo Intellectual is going to keep peddling the same nonsense and then laugh off anyone showing him he's wrong.

2. Lord Umbarger is going to continually come into the thread, repeat simple denialist claims, and then not respond to anyone ripping them apart.

3. Moon Monkey is going to continue to babble about how he's a well-known genius when it comes to data and how his clever and mysterious rebuttals are so powerful that he doesn't even need to state them.

4. Ufo Believer is going to continue with a confused mess of flip-flops and one-liners.

5. Stevewinn is going to continue with the ad hominecs and the cherry picking.

6. Michelle is going to continue advertising for her thread.

7. Caesar is going to continue throwing out political one-liners but also quickly run away when someone mentions science.

8. Ohio-Traveler is going to continue with his smug little phrases and oh-so-clever words he fabricated to describe anyone who disagrees with him politically.

9. Daniel is going to make as little sense as he always does.

10. No denialist is going to (god-forbid) cite a scientific article.(Besides Daniel's failed attempt, of course.)

11. No denialist is going to cite a single source.(Seriously, at least Daniel tried once!)

12. No denialist is actually going to respond to the science here. If we're lucky, perhaps they will cherry pick a specific piece of a post, but then fail to counter the counter-response.

13. People are going to continue peddling the lies already debunked in the thread.

That's it, I've won this debate. If someone else wants to respond to any of the "LALALA"'s and "Ha, SQL couldn't take the heat!" and "See, liberuls sucks1!@4!!11", "Here's a bunch of sentence fragments which you will have to translate into respectable English", and "Look guys, I WAS RIGHT ABOUT MAH AWESOME DATAZ ALL ALONG" replies that are sure to come, go ahead. I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i guess in all of your fact look ups. you forgot to look up how far the world temps dropped during the little ice age. 1 degree. and then i guess you didn't even think to look up how far the temps dropped in the 1800's when kilamgara blew it's top again 1 degree. now if my math is correct that is 2 degrees down. over the last 100 years temps have come up depending on who you ask max. 1 degree. again using my math i think we are still down 1 degree. but i assume you will either tell me it doesn't count or to provide a link when a link has already been provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just read your link. just saw it. and it agrees with me. where there is more land it was warmer and where there is less land it was colder. guess what there is more water than land on the planet.

This is why I'm leaving. I cannot honestly believe you are serious about this.

Here's a hint: I've explained about 3 things that are wrong with this very statement already in this thread. Try reading. It might not hurt.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7. Caesar is going to continue throwing out political one-liners but also quickly run away when someone mentions science.

I have posted my opinions already and sources backing them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i guess in all of your fact look ups. you forgot to look up how far the world temps dropped during the little ice age. 1 degree.

This claim is immediately rejected from the discussion until it has a scientific source backing it up.

and then i guess you didn't even think to look up how far the temps dropped in the 1800's when kilamgara blew it's top again 1 degree.

This claim is immediately rejected from the discussion until it has a scientific source backing it up.

now if my math is correct that is 2 degrees down.

This claim is immediately rejected from the discussion until it has a scientific source backing it up.

Seriously, what the...? What is this even supposed to mean? Assuming you aren't making this all up, you are saying:

"LOL IN THE PAST THE TEMPERATURE CHANGED YA KNOW?"

Also, what do you have against sentences? Why is everything you write in the form of several fragments. pieced together. like this. Don't you realize that periods are not substitutes for commas or spaces?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have posted my opinions already and sources backing them up.

ROFL, you linked to a forum post in which you gave links, two of which were standard denialist points already debunked at least two times each in this thread, and one of which was a list of a few random scientists who disagree, who I've already proved are the super-minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROFL, you linked to a forum post in which you gave links, two of which were standard denialist points already debunked at least two times each in this thread, and one of which was a list of a few random scientists who disagree, who I've already proved are the super-minority.

HA Ha so its fine when you use data from NASA but when I use them its already debunked? I think time will debunk the man made global religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I'm leaving. I cannot honestly believe you are serious about this.

Here's a hint: I've explained about 3 things that are wrong with this very statement already in this thread. Try reading. It might not hurt.)

there is only one thing wrong with my statement. that is that it doesn't agree with you...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This claim is immediately rejected from the discussion until it has a scientific source backing it up.

This claim is immediately rejected from the discussion until it has a scientific source backing it up.

This claim is immediately rejected from the discussion until it has a scientific source backing it up.

Seriously, what the...? What is this even supposed to mean? Assuming you aren't making this all up, you are saying:

"LOL IN THE PAST THE TEMPERATURE CHANGED YA KNOW?"

Also, what do you have against sentences? Why is everything you write in the form of several fragments. pieced together. like this. Don't you realize that periods are not substitutes for commas or spaces?

look it up on your own graphs which you posted.

the grammer part of your statement is immediatily desregared until you provide scientific proof.

of course i have the right to disregard any links that i don't like.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HA Ha so its fine when you use data from NASA but when I use them its already debunked? I think time will debunk the man made global religion.

Sigh.

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global

I've already shown that the vast, vast majority of RELEVANT scientists(IE- climatologists) accept global warming. Debunked.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

I've done this one three times in this thread.

Debunked.

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds

Debunked.

Happy? You don't cite sources; you misinterpret statistics that are completely contradictory to the consensus of the scientific community.

there is only one thing wrong with my statement. that is that it doesn't agree with you...............

Daniel, you are only fooling yourself with this pretense of victimization.

Sigh, I didn't want to have to do this.

1. The first wrong thing is that it cites no sources. This automatically rejects it.

2. The second wrong thing is that I've already responded to it, FROM YOU, in THIS THREAD.

3. The third wrong thing is that it is simply wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROFL, you linked to a forum post in which you gave links, two of which were standard denialist points already debunked at least two times each in this thread, and one of which was a list of a few random scientists who disagree, who I've already proved are the super-minority.

so if your a minority your automatically wrong.

then i guess the theory of relitivity is wrong since it was started by one man.

the laws of gravity are wrong since they were discovered by one man.

and the earth is still the center of the solar system. because one man said it wasn't. if fact the church excommuncated him on his belief.

oh and we are not in the new world. because one man thought to sail west instead of south. whether it was columbus or leak erickson.

one more thing. c-sections should be stopped since it was started by a rancher trying to kill his wife instead of letting her suffer through a child birth attempt in which both mother and child were going to die.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

look it up on your own graphs which you posted.

Daniel, your argument is nonsensical: It doesn't make any sense. It's absolutely bizarre, and exactly what I expect from you.

the grammer part of your statement is immediatily desregared until you provide scientific proof.

The irony here is astounding. The word is "immediately", and the word is "Disregard".

Here's your "proof":

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/disregard?view=uk

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/immediately?view=uk

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/620/01/

of course i have the right to disregard any links that i don't like.

Yes, of course you do: Doing so is the very definition of insane, but everyone has the right to be insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so if your a minority your automatically wrong.

This is a strawman argument. I never said that; you fabricated it. This is also known as lying. Please refrain from it.

then i guess the theory of relitivity is wrong since it was started by one man.

This is nonsense.

the laws of gravity are wrong since they were discovered by one man.

This too is nonsense.

and the earth is still the center of the solar system. because one man said it wasn't. if fact the church excommuncated him on his belief.

This is also nonsense.

oh and we are not in the new world. because one man thought to sail west instead of south. whether it was columbus or leak erickson.

This is again, nonsense.

Meh. Just an average post by you, I suppose.

one more thing. c-sections should be stopped since it was started by a rancher trying to kill his wife instead of letting her suffer through a child birth attempt in which both mother and child were going to die.

Not only is this nonsense, but it is also absolutely bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.