Archive for December, 2007

How Stupid is the Consensus?
The Consensus;How Brilliant!
Has Global Warming Stopped?

Church of Darwin, Fin De Siecle,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 29 2007

They tell us that the scientific consensus supports global warming and that global warming is a fact, not a theory. But, what percent of scientists who make up this consensus are actually qualified to opine on the subject? Surely a biologist or a geologist is no more qualified to give an opinion on global weather trends than is say; Paris Hilton (fighting words, we know)? 

Note the following headline and quotation from the New York Times:

Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
The New York Times
May 21, 1975, Wednesday
Section: The Week In Review

“The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.

There are specialists who say that a new ice age is on the way—the inevitable consequence of a natural cyclic process, or as a result of man-made pollution of the atmosphere. And there are those who say that such pollution may actually head of an ice age.

Sooner or Later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that it may already have begun are evident.”



This headline and quotation is an example of what scientific consensus was saying about the global climate about 35 years ago. How much smarter has the scientific consensus gotten in that 35 years? They’ve turned around the consensus 180 degrees within that time period!

And what of those scientists who bucked the trend in those days and spoke out against global cooling? Their apparent accuracy has not in retrospect caused them to be held out as scientific hero’s today, they were probably never heard from again.

The following current article suggests that Global Warming has stopped for a period of 6 to 7 years, a fact that current global warming theories cannot account for…..


Has Global Wrming Stopped?

David Whitehouse
Published 19 December 2007


‘The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001’

Global warming stopped? Surely not.

What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months. But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.

But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980. The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.

But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?

Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.

Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.

I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is

Small Group of US Experts Insist Global Warming Not Man-Made

Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 27 2007

Why is it that when you see “anti”-global warming articles, they are usually in “Christian” or right leaning media? Here at, we’re certainly not opposed to the notion that we should all be stewards of the earth or that human activity could be impacting the weather or the planet—of its true, but, it seems to be another dreaded example of “consensus science”, to us.

What we believe is that if there wasn’t such a consensus backlash against scientists who questioned the consensus on this topic, we’d benefit by having a more balanced view of the issue. Maybe the real number of experts with questions about global warming is not so small…


Small group of US experts insist global warming not man-made

A small group of US experts stubbornly insist that, contrary to what the vast majority of their colleagues believe, humans may not be responsible for the warming of the planet Earth.

These experts believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and they point to reams of data they say supports their assertions.

These conclusions are in sharp contradiction to those of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reached its conclusions using largely similar data. The UN body of about 3,000 experts, including several renown US scientists, jointly won the award with former US vice president Al Gore for their work to raise awareness about the disastrous consequences of global warming.

In mid-November the IPCC adopted a landmark report stating that the evidence of a human role in the warming of the planet was now “unequivocal.”

Retreating glaciers and loss of snow in Alpine regions, thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost shows that climate change is already on the march, the report said.

Carbon pollution, emitted especially by the burning of oil, gas and coal, traps heat from the Sun, thus warming the Earth’s surface and inflicting changes to weather systems.

A group of US scientists however disagree, and have written an article on their views that is published in The International Journal of Climatology, a publication of Britain’s Royal Meteorological Society.

“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, doesn’t show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming,” wrote lead author David Douglas, a climate expert from the University of Rochester, in New York state.

“The inescapable conclusion is that human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming,” Douglas wrote.

According to co-author John Christi from the University of Alabama, satellite data “and independent balloon data agree that the atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface,” while greenhouse models “demand that atmospheric trend values be two to three times greater.”

Data from satellite observations “suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedback produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects” of human carbon dioxide emissions.

The journal authors “have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases.”

For Fred Singer, a climatologist at the University of Virginia and another co-author, the current warming “trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep sea sediments and stalagmites . . . and published in hundreds of papers in peer reviewed journals.”

How these cyclical climate take place is still unknown, but they “are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on cloudiness, and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.”

Singer said at a recent National Press Club meeting in Washington that there is still no definite proof that humans can produce climate change.

The available data is ambiguous, Singer said: global temperatures, for example, rose between 1900 and 1940, well before humans began to burn the enormous quantities of hydrocarbons they do today. Then they dropped between 1940 and 1975, when the use of oil and coal increased, he said.

Singer believes that other factors—like variations of solar winds and terrestrial magnetic field that impact cloud formations and the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface, and thus determining the temperature—are much more influential than human-generated greenhouse gas emissions.

© 2007 AFP

Mississippi’s Prehistoric “Great Wall” A Mysterious Structure Whose Builder No One Knows-Or a Natural Formation?, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 17 2007

by Chris Parker, Copyright, s8intcom 2007

See Also:

The Ancient Texas Rock Wall

Don’t Mess with “Prehistoric” Texas? Prehistoric, Megalithic Construction in the Lone Star State

Ancient “Tiled” Floor Declared Nature, Not Nurture

Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that you and I are not idiots. And, if that’s too far to go for you, let us just assume that you are not an idiot.

Could you, given your high intellectual status be able to determine, given as much time as you wish whether or not a stone wall, covering more that four square miles, is in fact man made or completely natural?

No, you could not.


Click Here to Read Article

Sir, That is Not a Horse! You Must be from the City

Dinosaurs in Literature,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 12 2007

Is Luristan “Horse”, Circa 900 to 700 B.C., Actually a Hadrosaurine Dinosaur? 

Photo: At the Luristan Petting Zoo

Luristan bronzes are a name given to certain bronze figures from Ancient, western Iran. This piece is thought to be from between 900 and 700 years before Christ.

The curator for this particular piece describes it first, as a double headed horse and then goes on to describe it with the additional detail of; “Such an amulet seems partly whimsical, partly mystical, a reflection of man’s love of this noble creature”.

The noble creature in question is the horse but the reason he describes it as “whimsical” and “partly mystical” is that it doesn’t look much like a horse-on either side.

Here at we think we know why? It’s not a horse! Discriminating and intelligent people can surely disagree but to us it looks very muh like a crested, hadrosaurine dinosaur, similar to the Corythosaurus, Hypacrosaurus or Lambeosaurus.

We’re really quite confident that at the very least the piece looks more like the lambeosaurus than it does the horse. We’re not claiming that we know precisely which one of the crested lambeosaurines this piece represents, they are all quite similar. We just believe that its clearly a type of crested dinosaur.

We invite you to come to your own conclusions as to a possible non-horse identification for the double headed piece

Click Here to Read Article

Model of Supposedly Extinct Dinohyus/Daeodon (Terrible Pig) from 40 A.D?

Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 09 2007

In 1924 the grave of a King who died around 40 A.D. near Lexden in the U.K. was found along with various artifacts. Among them were two figurines which appeared to represent creatures which science claims both lived and died millions of years before man came on the scene. Maybe not so much…

“The largest round barrow at Lexden near Colchester was excavated by archaeologists in 1924 and was found to contain the burial of an high status individual, the skeleton of a man “wearing mail armour and a cloth of gold”, along with several other interesting artefacts including a bronze table.

It is thought to be the grave of the Catuvellaunian king Cunobelinus who died c.40 AD, this belief being due to local folklore as legend would have it “he was buried with a suit of armour and table fashioned out of gold”.

As many of the grave objects recovered were Roman – they could be dated – so it would appear that this is indeed the grave of king Cunobelinus (or Cymbeline). The Old King Coel (or Cole), of nursery rhyme and myth…The Catuvellauni , the Iron Age Celts of Verlamion

Click Here to Read Article

Not a Regulation Helmet!, Sophistication of Ancestors, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 09 2007

Easy Rider, Mochica culture, Peru, approximately 700 to 800 A.D.. What’s he riding?

Lusi Amano Museum



Ancient Bronze Sauropod Dinosaur from 500 B.C.? …Ancient Jade Extinct Dinosaur, 1500 B.C.?

Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 06 2007

Reasonable minds can certainly disagree, but we see in this unknown animal depiction in bronze from hundreds of years before Christ, a sauropod dinosaur. Our guess would be big skulled sauros such as Mussaurus or possibly, Camarasaurus.

As to the second ancient piece, in Jade the offeror is certainly of the opinion that the object appears to represent and extinct dinosaur. The best match here is one of the ceratopsians, possibly a horness leptoceratops or protoceratops.


From the Offeror of this Piece: 

Ancient Bronze Animal
Ancient Bronze Animal , and covered in vivid green patina.
Excellent condition
Circa : 500 – 300 Century BC
Size : 4 cm x 2.8 cm

Click Here to Read Article

Nearly 300 Feet of Accumulated Moon Dust is Missing

Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 02 2007

From Clifford Paiva, BSM Associates: Astro-Geophysics, Space Physics and Missile Defense Technologies

These are the Barnes and Slusher Files as they relate to the interplanetary dust accumulation on the lunar surface.

Nominal values for depth accumulation is 3-5 inches.

This depth value should exceed 300 feet in the assumed 4.5-5.0 billion years of interplanetary dust accumulation on the Moon’s surface.

The calculations performed by Professor Slusher and presented in these frames do not include radiation pressure-generated dust…which would of course increase the depth over the assumed 4.5 billion year period.

The lunar dust accumulation and the predominant absence of dust is one of the primary indicators of the age of the lunar surface…… Cliff Paiva.

Click Here to Read the Rest of the Article and for Photos

Europe’s Largest Dinosaur Graveyard Found-8000 Fossils Found to Date

Religious, Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 02 2007

The Boneyards: Dinosaur Graveyard May Unearth New Reasons for Their Extinction, Page 7

The Times
November 29, 2007

Thomas Catin, Madrid

  Spanish scientists have unearthed what could be Europe’s largest dinosaur boneyard, finding the remains of 65ft plant-eaters never before discovered on the continent. The palaeontologists believe they have found eight different species amid the 8,000 fossils discovered so far.

The range of species they are finding at the 80 million-year-old site and their state of conservation is virtually unparalleled in Europe and challenges long-held beliefs about the way in which dinosaurs became extinct.

Click Here to Read Article

A look Back at Two “Giant Stories” Reported in the Recent Past…

Giants in Those Days, Religious,, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 02 2007

By Christopher Parker, s8intcom 2007

Photo:Size comparison; Today man, Java man and Swartkrans man.

Story 1 

“Largest” Ape Man Found in Africa; Indicated to Top 9 Foot Java Man
December 1, 1948
New York Times

Story 2

A Notable Fossil Find In San Diego County
A Human Hoof Twenty Inches Long and “Big in Proportion”—On a par with the Famous Calaveras Skull—What Scientists Say
July 21, 1895
Los Angeles Times (With Photo)

Click Here to Read Article