The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley

Spread the love

This is a guest post by David Kirtley. David originally posted this as a Google Doc, and I’m reproducing his work here with his permission. Just the other day I was speaking to a climate change skeptic who made mention of an old Time or Newsweek (he was not sure) article that talked about fears of a coming ice age. There were in fact a number of articles back in the 1970s that discussed the whole Ice Age problem, and I’m not sure what my friend was referring to. But here, David Kirtley places a recent meme that seems to be an attempt to diffuse concern about global warming because we used to be worried about global cooling. The meme, however, is not what it seems to be. And, David places the argument that Ice Age Fears were important and somehow obviate the science in context.

<

h3>The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers
– by David Kirtley

A few days ago a facebook friend of mine posted the following image:

From the 1977 cover we can see that apparently a new ice age was supposed to arrive. Only 30 years later, according to the 2006 cover, global warming is supposed to be the problem. But the cover on the left isn’t from 1977. It actually is this Time cover from April 9, 2007:

As you can see, the cover title has nothing to do with an imminent ice age, it’s about global warming, as we might expect from a 2007 Time magazine.

The faked image illustrates one of the fake-skeptics’ favorite myths: The 1970s Ice Age Scare. It goes something like this:

  • In the 1970s the scientists were all predicting global cooling and a future ice age.
  • The media served as the scientists’ lapdog parroting the alarming news.
  • The ice age never came—the scientists were dead wrong.
  • Now those same scientists are predicting global warming (or is it “climate change” now?)

The entire purpose of this myth is to suggest that scientists can’t be trusted, that they will say/claim/predict whatever to get their names in the newspapers, and that the media falls for it all the time. They were wrong about ice ages in the 1970s, they are wrong now about global warming.

But why fake the 1977 cover? Since, according to the fake-skeptics, there was so much news coverage of the imminent ice age why not just use a real 1970s cover?

I searched around on Time’s website and looked through all of the covers from the 1970s. I was shocked (shocked!) to find not a single cover with the promise of an in-depth, special report on the Coming Ice Age. What about this cover from December 1973 with Archie Bunker shivering in his chair entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the Energy Crisis. Maybe this cover from January 1977, again entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the weather. How about this one from December 1979, “The Cooling of America”? Again with the Energy Crisis.


Check out: Ubuntu and Linux Books

___________________

Now, there really were news articles in the 1970s about scientists predicting a coming ice age. Time had a piece called “Another Ice Age?” in 1974. Time’s competition, Newsweek, joined in with “The Cooling World” in 1975. People have collected lists and lists of “Coming Ice Age” stories from newspapers, magazines, books, tv shows, etc. throughout the 1970s.

But if it was such a big news story why did it never make the cover of America’s flagship news magazine like the faked image implies? Perhaps there is more to the story.

In the 1970s there were a few developments in climate science:

  • Scientists were finding answers to the puzzle of what caused ice ages in the past: variations in earth’s orbit.
  • Scientists were gathering data from around the world to come up with global average temperatures, and they found that temperatures had been cooling since about the 1940s.
  • Scientists were realizing that some of this cooling was due to increasing air pollution (soot and aerosols, tiny particles suspended in the air) which was decreasing the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere.
  • Scientists were also quantifying the “greenhouse effect” of another part of our increasing pollution: carbon dioxide (CO2), which should cause the climate to warm.

The realization that very long cycles in earth’s orbit could cause the waxing and waning of ice ages, coupled with the fact that our soot and aerosols were already causing cooling, led some scientists to conclude that we may be headed for another ice age. Exactly when was still a little unclear. However, the warming effects of CO2 had been known for over a century, and new research in the 1970s was showing that CO2 warming would more than compensate for the cooling caused by aerosols, resulting in net warming.


Check out: Books on programming, especially for kids
________________________________

This, in a very brief nutshell, was the state of climate science in the 1970s. And so the media of the time published many stories about a coming ice age, which made for timely reading during some very cold winters. But many news stories also mentioned that other important detail about CO2: that our climate might soon change due to global warming. In 1976 Time published “The World’s Climate: Unpredictable” which is a very good summary of the then current scientific thinking: some scientists emphasized aerosols and cooling, some scientists emphasized CO2 and warming. There was no consensus either way. Many other 1970s articles which mention a Coming Ice Age also mention the possibility of increased warming due to CO2. For instance, here, here and here.

Fake-skeptics read these stories and only focus on the Coming Ice Age angle, and they enlarge the importance of those scientists who focused on that angle. They totally ignore the rest of the picture of 1970s climate science: that increasing CO2 would cause global warming.

The purpose of the image of the two Time magazine covers, and of the Coming Ice Age Myth, is not to show the real history of climate science, but to obscure that history and to cause confusion. It seems to be working. Because today, when there really is a consensus about climate science and 97% of climatologists agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is leading to climate change, only 45% of the public know about that consensus. The other 55% must think we’re still in the 1970s when scientists were still debating the issue. Seems newsworthy to me, maybe Time will run another cover story on it.

To learn more see:

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback

Spread the love

830 thoughts on “The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley

  1. Barry, I’m going to shit in your dinner. It’s not a pollutant, it’s what excrete, you know, so it won’t pollute what you eat.

    Bon appetit!!

  2. Brainstorms, if that is REALLY your nick. More like Brainfarts. lol It does NOT change the fact you were wrong. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

    US Supreme Court decides CO2 is a pollutant. … But the Court decided that greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA capacious definition of “air pollutant”, and the EPA has statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. It was a split ruling, with five judges voting in favor and four dissenting.Apr 3, 2007

  3. Barry, what is your argument? The Supreme Court ruled CO2 a pollutant. The EPA then declared it a pollutant.

    Obviously it is harmful to humans – it’s why we get rid of it when we exhale.

    1. Ah, now we are getting somewhere. A pollutant? And that is the reason our body gets rid of it. The EPA, under the Obama Admin., has been turned into a club to promote a lot of nonsense like CO2 is a pollutant.. I sometimes wonder if Nixon ever rued the day he championed the creation of it. So, we exhale it, CO2, because it is a pollutant. The population is around 7 Billion people. That’s a lot of CO2 being exhaled on a constant cycle. Inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale. Or, could it be since there is so little of it (CO2) actually IN our atmosphere, and that’s even counting fossil fuel, that it is not a detrimental amount to contributing to GW? I mean, if it were, we would all be dead now with all the volcanic activity alone. Not to mention the El Nino kids. lol

      Imagine if you will, in my best Rod Serling accent, a vast, unending prairie. Now, if you squint your eyes and gaze at the horizon, you see a little plume of smoke. THAT is mans contribution to Global Warming.

  4. “Oh how the Lemmings march unto their own destruction”

    You are the lemming, baz.

    “CO2 is what we EXHALE. ”

    There’s a reason why we exhale it rather than keep it in, baz. You also excrete shit, but if I were to dump a thousand tons of it in your house, you’d be pissed off at the pollution.

    “Marco, the SCOTUS also ruled gays had a RIGHT to get married. ”

    They do.

    ” CO2 is NOT a pollutant. ”

    You’re wrong. It IS a pollutant.

    “THAT is mans contribution to Global Warming.”

    You’re a nutbar.

    1. Gays have no more of a constitutional right to get married than heterosexuals do. Dufus on a rope. lol

      Again, there is SO little CO2 in the atmosphere that it is negligible. See, when are you dense as a fence post Liberals going to understand that IF CO2 was so toxic, mankind, or any kind actually, would have never survived. lol Now, you evolutionists have no argument because, if CO2 was poison, then there could have never been a single cell female to go out with a single cell male and start to populate.

      It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. lol But twice as much fun because you nutcake Liberals actually think you are bright. lol

  5. Don’t be too hard on the new conservative buffoon b55. He’s apparently excited that he’s learned how to type multi-syllable words.

    I’m sure his next project will be an attempt to understand what they mean.

  6. could it be since there is so little of it (CO2) actually IN our atmosphere, and that’s even counting fossil fuel, that it is not a detrimental amount to contributing to GW?

    We’ll instead add a tiny amount of cyanide, botulinum toxin, and ricin to your dinner, Barry. No worries for you.

    After all, there’ll be so little of it, it couldn’t be detrimental to your health, according to you.

    After all, it’s just common sense.

  7. Yes, the ‘there’s so little of it’ meme is rather dumb. Of course arguing radiative transfer and physics would be pointless because even Dr Woy Spencer would just laugh at him.

    Basically all that leaves them with is …. well, nothing really. Which is why Barry55 can’t reaally muster an argument. We all know reality has a known liberal bias.

    The only question left is: Is Barry55 ignorant, stupid, insane, or just plain evil? I’m guessing ignorant, but then I haven’t seen his posts before.

  8. Climate science denial is so tightly correlated with conservativeness and stupidity that it is not even funny. Except it is funny.

  9. What is so funny is, there IS Climate Change. It’s called weather and has been happening since GOD Created everything. Now, we, as human beings have been given stewardship over the earth. As long as it lasts anyway because let’s face it, no one wants to live in a pig pen, no matter how many flat out LIES you Liberals tell on Conservatives. Take a second and consider what Conservative means. I know its hard but if you stay up all night it will dawn on you. lol

    Since WE, as mankind has fallen, the earth is also liable to corruption. It’s called sin and has corrupted everything, even the earth. And, we as humans have to share in the blame. Ok, chew on that for awhile. But I bet you will choke on it.

    1. there IS Climate Change

      Barry55 says:

      It’s called weather

      You are full of shit Barry55.

  10. b55, if you are unable to be bothered to even look at the definitions of climate and weather, and learn that they are not the same, why do you expect to be taken seriously?

    The barfgabble about your interpretation of religious stories is completely out of place in a discussion of science.

    1. Dean, lol you ignorant Liberal. Climate IS weather.

      cli·mate
      ?kl?mit/Submit
      noun
      the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
      “our cold, wet climate”
      synonyms: weather conditions, weather; atmospheric conditions
      “the mild climate”

  11. “Gays have no more of a constitutional right to get married than heterosexuals do”

    Yup. And both have the same right to get married, dumbass.

    “Again, there is SO little CO2 in the atmosphere that it is negligible.”

    Again, you’re wrong and retarded.

    “IF CO2 was so toxic, mankind, or any kind actually, would have never survived”

    So toxic as what? It’s a pollutant. Watch Apollo 13 to see whether it’s possible to be toxic, retard. It is. But it doesn’t have to be at toxic levels to be a pollutant.

    Again, you’re wrong and retarded.

    “if CO2 was poison, ”

    And if you were not a retard, you’d not have said that. But you are a retard.

    “since GOD Created everything. ”

    No, he didn’t. I told him not to. He’s a wuss.

    “It’s called sin and has corrupted everything,”

    That sort of explain s why you’re a retard, baz.

  12. Wow

    The CONSTITUTION has NO provisions for marriage, you stupid a ss twit.

    Now we are getting down to brass tacks. You are a stupid ass atheist AND a stupid ass Liberal. Not much difference really. You are a fool. You think man came from a mudhole looking like a frog. Your kind is thankfully being regulated to the back burner. I KNEW you were a retard as soon as I saw your stupid posts. lol

  13. It must be nice to know that, even though you stopped learning about the subjects in high school, you still understand more about the climate and biology than all the world’s major scientific organizations as well as 99% of climatologists and biologists. How do you do it?

    Of course, it would be more impressive if you could give any evidence to support your beliefs.

  14. Indeed, Barry has “da faith”. Crank magnetism, denying AGW and evolution. Maybe Barry is an anti-vaccine crank, too?

  15. “The CONSTITUTION has NO provisions for marriage, you stupid a ss twit. ”

    I never said it did you assclown. When you get to school ask your teacher nicely to explain what the constitution is about. You are a retard, but teachers have to deal with retards and have training.

  16. “even though you stopped learning about the subjects in high school,”

    High school? This moronic retard was no-schooled. Doesn’t even know what the constitution is about!

    1. I don’t know what the constitution is about? lol That’s a good one, coming from a Libtard such as yourself who would LOVE to change the constitution to meet the demands of the perverts. There is NO provision for marriage anywhere in the constitution. If you find it, let us know. lol Idiot. It was YOU who said that gays and heterosexuals have the same right to get married. Well, if that was the case, WHY did the SCOTUS have to rule that gay marriage was a RIGHT? You’re just flat out stupid. But, you being an atheist explains that.

  17. Richard, you say it must be nice for me to know more about the climate and biology than all the world’s major scientific organizations as well as 99% of all climatologists and biologists. Well, first of all, how did you arrive at that 99% number? Because that is flat out false. There is no major consensus of scientists that believe in climate change like you Liberals would have everyone believe. And. it doesn’t take a world-renowned biologist to tell me he is full of s hit when he says we evolved from some sort of common ancestor with the apes. You Liberal Loons can drink all the kool aid you want. You can stay in your self-imposed little square box for the rest of your life for all I care. I put no limits on myself. I am a being created by God Almighty. He created my soul and YOU can’t put that in your little box. lol

  18. Marco, of course, I deny evolution. It is a hoax cooked up by little anti-Christs like yourself who deem themselves perfect and they never sin because to then, there IS no sin.

    I have said there is a small, negligible amount of GW due to man but not nearly as much as you Liberal Loons say.

  19. But, you being an atheist explains that.

    […]

    Marco, of course, I deny evolution. It is a hoax cooked up by little anti-Christs like yourself who deem themselves perfect and they never sin because to then, there IS no sin.

    Ahhh. Yet another authoritarian Christian science denier.

    There are just so many of them about. Teh stupid with added self-righteousness. A horrible spectacle.

    1. lol I do not deny TRUE science. It is the pseudo-science of evolution that I deny. Science has its own lexicon and rules. It has to in order to justify the impossible theories like evolution. Look, Sherlock, the earth is 4 billion or so years old. The universe I believe is 13 or 14 billion years old. No problem. I don’t even have a problem with MICR-evolution. It is the MACR-evolution that idiots like YOU propose that has NO proof and cannot be duplicated. Fossils? lol You idiots look at EXTINCT species fossils and say they evolved into another species. Utterly stupid. You CANNOT duplicate evolution in a laboratory setting. Oh, and please spare me the lame a ss germ and virus argument.

  20. Most christian denominations accept the scientific evidence of evolution, but Barry, well…Barry is such a religious zealot that anything that doesn’t suit his tiny brain he *must* deny.

  21. “I don’t know what the constitution is about?”

    Correct. You’re 100% clueless about it, retard. Got a problem with reading?

    “There is NO provision for marriage anywhere in the constitution.”

    Yup. And that claim is why everyone knows you’re 100% absolutely bloody clueless about what the constitution is, moron.

    “It was YOU who said that gays and heterosexuals have the same right to get married”

    Yup. You’re still completely clueless about this, aren’t you, dumbass.

    “WHY did the SCOTUS have to rule that gay marriage was a RIGHT?”

    Because retards like yourself wanted them to have no right to marriage, yet have the right to marriage yourself. Still incapable of seeing the problem,aren’t you.

    You’re just flat out stupid. But, you being an godbotherer explains that.

  22. ” Because that is flat out false”

    We know. He was being ironic. You know nothing about the weather or climate compared to any 100% of the climate scientists. Even the dumb denier ones.

    “There is no major consensus of scientists that believe in climate change”

    Yes there is, retard. And its well over 97%, too. But you’re even dumber about the climate than the 1% who still deny AGW.

    “I put no limits on myself.”

    Unlimited stupidity.

  23. “There is NO provision for marriage anywhere in the constitution”

    You seem to think that the only rights the Constitution protects are the ones listed. That means you have no effing understanding of what the Constitution says. (Or you’re simply lying because you’re a bigot trying to find excuses to hide behind.)

  24. Marco says most Christian denominations accept the “scientific” evidence of evolution. lol It is NOT scientific and there is no evidence. Constantine was just another Catholic that wanted to keep one foot on the earth and the other in heaven. There is NO Biblical doctrine that accepts evolution so your ‘Most” Christian denominations are wrong.

  25. “It is the MACR-evolution that idiots like YOU propose that has NO proof and cannot be duplicated. ”

    And you have no idea what microevolution is, either, retard. Macroevolution is what you get after millions of years of microevolution.

  26. Barry, religious zealots like you will always reject science when you believe it violates your ideology. I understand your fear of evolution: it makes god even less relevant than you deep down already know it is. AGW is a similar problem: recognizing humans, including you yourself, wrecking the environment would mean your god is less powerful than humans. You must reject science to maintain your beliefs. I feel some sympathy for you, I know others who struggled with the same problem. If you are lucky you will realize you are being stupid, but experience tells me you will just increase your rhetoric.

    1. Marco, you fool. I do NOT reject science. Science has benefitted mankind greatly but the LIE that evolution is part of science is a pipedream of atheists. Evolution is the atheist’s religion and you viciously and blindly defend it as if your life depended upon it. What a joke. Did Dr. Alexander Fleming use evolution to discover penicillin? No. it was actually an accident that led to the discovery of one of the most beneficial medicines known to mankind. Evolution had no part in it.

      lol And you think I am afraid that evolution makes God Almighty irrelevant? lol What a moron you really are. You IDIOTS have no concept of God but you trust your very existence to a chaotic, haphazard theory that somehow contributed to all life? lol What a stupid a ss idiot you really are. I feel NO sympathy for you or other morons like you. You have a choice and know better. You have no excuse.

  27. Wow. lol No, micro-evolution is a process that allows species to adapt to a certain environment. They don’t need to MACRO-evolve into another species to do so. What fun you Libtards are.

  28. Wow

    I don’t have to recreate anything. It is YOU pseudo-scientists that pontificate about how necessary it is to be able to recreate any given theory in a laboratory setting before yo can call it acceptable science. lol Still haven’t been able to recreate man in a lab setting, have you? lol

  29. Barry writes: “pontificate about how necessary it is to be able to recreate any given theory in a laboratory setting before yo can call it acceptable science”

    Where do you dig this crap up from? You don’t know the difference between climate and weather, you don’t know how evolution works, and know you have some weird theory of science. Do they teach this garbage in pseudo-skeptic school?

    I’m moving my answer to the question: Ignorant, stupid, insane, or just plain evil? To ‘stupid’ at this point. Ignorance would be more charitable than Barry55’s posts here warrant.

    1. The evolution dumba sses keep coming. Only ignorant twerps like you don’t realize that the weather and the climate are NOT interchangeable and mean the same thing. How stupid can you people really be? Weather does NOT change the climate and the climate does NOT change the weather.

      Let’s look at it this way. What is a synonym?

      syn·o·nym
      ?sin??nim/Submit
      noun
      a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close.
      synonyms: alternate, substitute, alternative, equivalent, euphemism
      “‘harsh’ may be used as synonym for ‘oppressive'”
      a person or thing so closely associated with a particular quality or idea that the mention of their name calls it to mind.
      “the Victorian age is a synonym for sexual puritanism”
      BIOLOGY
      a taxonomic name that has the same application as another, especially one that has been superseded and is no longer valid.

      So, guess what Sherlock? CLIMATE is a SYNONYM for WEATHER. It means the SAME THING. If you were not properly educated in your school system then shame on your teachers.

      I know exactly how you idiots SAY evolution works. You’re just flat out wrong.

      I looked up stupid, Your picture is beside the word.

  30. “CLIMATE is a SYNONYM for WEATHER”
    Where did you drag this from? Why do you think encyclopedias show climate maps but weather maps are shown in newspapers?

    BTW regarding my earlier comment – I am retired now but in my entire career as a scientist I never heard a fellow scientist question the theory of evolution nor, in the last 30 years, the fact of climate change. You really need to go back to school instead of putting on a public display of your ignorance.

    1. Richard, weather IS a synonym for climate. Look it up in one of those encyclopedias you used to get your climate map. The climate is just a prolonged weather pattern in any given part of the globe. Here is the definition of climate from the Miriam-Webster Dictionary. Tell them that climate is different than weather. I’m tired of trying to explain something to concrete Liberal minds.

      Climate
      a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation a healthful climate a warm, humid climate

      And evolution is a product of a weak mind. You are just too lazy to explore any option than your own.

  31. “Wow

    I don’t have to recreate anything.”

    WRONG!

    You need to prove creation happened and god exists.

    Without that you cannot be right.

  32. “I know exactly how you idiots SAY evolution works”

    No you don’t retard.

    “You’re just flat out wrong. ”

    No we aren’t moron.

    “I looked up stupid,”

    In a mirror.

  33. “So, guess what Sherlock? CLIMATE is a SYNONYM for WEATHER.”

    No it isn’t.

    ” It means the SAME THING. ”

    No it doesn’t.

  34. “It is YOU pseudo-scientists that pontificate about how necessary it is to be able to recreate any given theory in a laboratory setting”

    Uh, no, retard, it was you.

    #679: “It is the MACR-evolution that idiots like YOU propose that has NO proof and cannot be duplicated. ”

  35. Barry, thank you for mentioning penicillin. Its discovery was one of serendipity. But evolution theory predicted what would happen: many bacteria have now developed resistance to penicillin.

  36. Wow. If I have to duplicate creation, then YOU display one species morphing into another. Can’t do it? I didn’t think so you intellectual midget. If evolution were true, which it is NOT, then that ever elusive lower life form would STILL be morphing into humans. lol What an inbred idiot you really are.

  37. Marco, we STILL have penicillin, right? It hasn’t morphed into anything. So what that some bacteria have developed an immunity to it. Aren’t they still the SAME bacteria only with built up resistance to penicillin? Did the penicillin-resistant bacteria morph into a DIFFERENT sort of bacteria? If a rabbit developed thicker fur to be able to live in a colder climate, did it stop being a rabbit? lol

  38. “Richard, weather IS a synonym for climate.”

    No it is not. I didn’t just look it up, I read and comprehended it.

    “Wow. If I have to duplicate creation,”

    Yes, you do. Because you’re the one who insists it must be duplicated in a lab to be real. So hop to it.

    “Marco, we STILL have penicillin, right? It hasn’t morphed into anything.”

    We don’t have smallpox any more. Your point is completely meaningless because understanding is beyond your abilities.

    “Aren’t they still the SAME bacteria only with built up resistance to penicillin?”

    Yes, they mutated to adapt to the changed environment. That’s evolution.

    1. Ask me yourself. Are you referring to the debunked Haeckel drawings? lol Those little folds of flesh YOU call gills are nothing but the undeveloped glands and ear structures. Oh how blind are the willingly blind. lol And, that “tail?” It’s called a backbone. LOL LOL LOL LOL

  39. Wow. Tell me this you intellectual midget. Can you have a climate WITHOUT the weather? lol My God, you people are so frickin’ stupid. I am glad I found this place. I haven’t laughed this much since I first learned that some people actually think we are animals.

    As soon as you replicate one species morphing into another, in plain sight and without the billions of years you cowardly pseudo-scientists require, I will replicate creation. LOL LOL LOL LOL

    Yes, there is still smallpox, just not as prevalent. Idiot.

    Mutated? Are you sure? Aren’t they still the same bacteria? Dumbass

  40. Are you referring to the debunked Haeckel drawings? lol Those little folds of flesh YOU call gills are nothing but the undeveloped glands and ear structures.

    Bollocks.

    And redundant evidence that all creationists are soon reduced to lying. Much like climate change deniers.

    1. Climate is long term average of weather? That is what I have been saying, you incompetent idiot. Can you have a climate without weather, you ignorant twerp? lol lol lol lol

  41. “Ask me yourself. ”

    Kinda pointless, though, since you’re just a retard who hasn’t a clue what they’re on about.

    Which includes what gills are too, we have just discovered!

  42. “Aren’t they still the SAME bacteria only with built up resistance to penicillin? Did the penicillin-resistant bacteria morph into a DIFFERENT sort of bacteria? ”

    No, Barry, they are no longer the same bacteria. They have indeed become *different* bacteria. They may have a new enzyme, for example.

    And yes, we still have penicillin, mainly because it is the best one to start with, since you might be lucky it still works. You preferentially don’t go to the others (unless you know you have a penicillin-resistant strain), because you then increase the chances you create a strain that is resistant for that other antibiotic. You might have heard of MRSA: penicillin-resistant and methicillin-resistant. Guess what: there are now several substrains of that MRSA (generally referred to as community-, healthcare-, and livestock-associated), of which the CA-substrain is more susceptible to some other antibiotics (but not the beta-lactams) than the HA-substrain.

    All a matter of evolution.

  43. “Can you have a climate WITHOUT the weather? ”

    Tell me you feculant retard, why ask that? You insist they are the same thing, therefore that question is meaningless. “Can you have weather without weather”?????

    It seems you “know” that they’re not the same but shouting out that knowledge to prattle on brainlessly.

  44. Opposable thumbs in HUMANS. Not apes or any animal. lol

    * Bornean Orangutan – opposable thumbs on all four hands. The interdigital grip gives them the ability to pick fruit.
    * Gorillas – opposable on all four hands.
    * Chimpanzees have opposable thumbs on all four hands.
    * Lesser Apes have opposable thumbs on all four hands.
    * Old World Monkeys, with some exceptions, such as the genera, Piliocolobus and Colobus.
    * Cebids (New World primates of Central and South America) – some have opposable thumbs

    Brachiating shoulders – for swinging through the trees.

    Evolution – you have to lie to make it go away (TM)

  45. Weather isn’t climate.

    Weather is short term and highly variable; climate is long term average of weather. The terms are not synonymous except to ignorant clowns.

  46. “Opposable thumbs in HUMANS. ”

    Monkeys too. And, yes, apes. Meanwhile we have the shitty eyes apes do, not the far better formed eyes of the octopus.

    Hell, we have eyes with fluid in them that means even the best developed eye falls far short of what fish eyes do, because they don’t have to deal with the refraction changes from air to the fluid in their eyes, because they live in water.

    Your incompetence and lack of knowledge seem boundless, fuckwit!

  47. Smallpox is caused by a virus, Barry. And the virus today is genetically different from that a few centuries ago. It still does the same nasty stuff, though, dependent on which strain.

  48. Wow! You are still hung up on that gill thing that has been debunked. Haeckel, who Hitler doted on, made up those hoax drawings that evidently you evolutionists still take as the truth. lol Hitler was a proponent of evolution too, that is why he didn’t care to slaughter millions of what HE called, sub-humans. You’re not worth a good morning shit. lol

  49. Speaking of opposable thumbs. Wonder why those apes can’t build a decent house to live in? They should also be able to use a hammer. lol lol lol lol

    1. I have NOT lied and it HAS been debunked.

      Evolution-You have to lie to keep it alive (B55) lol

  50. Climate is long term average of weather? That is what I have been saying, you incompetent idiot.

    And they are not synonymic you illiterate prat.

  51. And, BBD, just because you link to a huckster doesn’t make evolution true. lol

    The only huckster here is the one peddling creationism and denying evolutionary science, Barry.

  52. You can call it creationism if you want. I am only saying God created all things, even you witless evolutionists.

  53. ‘Weather’ and weather of a region are not synonyms, Barry.

    Weather and climate are not synonyms either.

    Nice try. No cigar. Bad idea.

  54. You can call it creationism if you want. I am only saying God created all things, even you witless evolutionists.

    You are a creationist and now you are denying that too.

    More lies.

  55. “That is what I have been saying,”

    No you haven’t you throwback to the troglodytes. You said they were the same. You made a big deal about how you knew what the word “Synonym” means.

    Apparently you were lying then, too!

    “Speaking of opposable thumbs. ”

    Yes, you were wrong there too. Somehow this escapes you.

    “doesn’t make evolution true”

    It wouldn’t. But evolution is true.

    “Haeckel’s Drawings-Debunked”

    Aaawwww. So retardie here hasn’t kept up with even Ken Ham videos!!!!

    Hey, moron, along with computers, we advanced biology too!

    “I have NOT lied and it HAS been debunked. ”

    And a twofer on the lies there, with a self-referential lie included!

    “I am only saying God created all things”

    Ah, so you’ve repeated this and god turned up with the people in lab coats and created a new kind, yes?

    Oh, no, he didn’t. That claim was another total bullshit lie.

    “Well, the dictionary makes YOU a liar.

    Synonyms for climate

    Synonyms for climate
    noun weather of region”

    Heh. You just made yourself a liar there, moron!

    1. Climate and weather ARE the same. Look, I’m going to give you a chance to backpedal with a little dignity left. As if you ever HAD any dignity to begin with.

      Now, answer this as truthfully as you can. If the weather were to be taken away, would you have a climate?

      Debating with an idiot like you can be frustrating in that the idiot refuses to admit is wrong. I even gave a link to a thesaurus, and you STILL deny that climate and weather are synonyms of each other. I suppose you are moe intelligent than the compilers to the thesaurus? It takes a special kind of stupid to do that.

      I couldn’t care less about Ken Ham. I see where you evolutionists always bring his name up, as if he is the go to guy for all Christians. Well, he’s not. Not in the same way you evolution lemmings refer back to Darwin. lol

      I tell you what is bullshit. It is the evolutionist that put themselves above God. You are really irrelevant when it comes to believing whether or not God created all or not. He did. What YOU think doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

  56. “You can call it creationism if you want. I am only saying God created all things,”

    Well yes, that is why the term creationism exists. You could also phrase it as

    “You can call it intelligent design if you want. I am only saying God created all things,”

    since creationism = intelligent design

  57. No dean, you have it all wrong. Intelligent Design does not necessarily refer to the God of the Bible. To them, ANY kind of intelligence will do. I am saying there IS no intelligence if you leave out God. God Almighty did create all thing and He did use intelligence to do it. Or you could call it Wisdom. Solomon did. But it was His intelligence. Not just any random thought.

  58. Barry, my clinate statistics say today should be below 10 C, and rainy. My weather today says 13 C and sunny. Weather and climate are not the same.

  59. “Intelligent Design does not necessarily refer to the God of the Bible.”

    Are you so intellectually challenged that you actually believe that? ID was created simply to get creationism into schools. The backers are all creationists who are as ignorant and dishonest as you are.

  60. Climate and weather ARE the same.

    No, they aren’t.

    Now, answer this as truthfully as you can. If the weather were to be taken away, would you have a climate?

    No, but that doesn’t make them synonymous any more than ‘wave’ and ‘water’ are synonyms.

    You are going to lose this so if I were you, I’d just move on.

  61. I even gave a link to a thesaurus

    Which I explained was a false equivalence at #730.

    Either you are too stupid to understand this stuff, or you are being dishonest. Could go either way at this point.

  62. BBD

    Q:
    How are weather and climate alike?
    A:
    QUICK ANSWER
    Weather and climate are both terms used to describe temperature, atmospheric conditions and precipitation. The only difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather reflects short-term changes within the atmosphere, while climate is determined by averaging daily and seasonal weather over a long period of time.

    https://www.reference.com/science/weather-climate-alike-39e74df6825d583c

  63. dean

    ME intellectually challenged? lol Try this. Although you will spin yourself out of it like a good little idiot Liberal.

    3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

    The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s “refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God” and noted that “philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group.” Indeed, according to AIG, “many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation….” (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing “the Biblical method,” concluding that “Design is not enough!” (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

    http://www.discovery.org/a/1329

  64. Marco

    All I can do is shake my head at your floundering. In other words, your climate stats wouldn’t exist without your weather reports. lol

  65. Okay, let’s go and see what the scientists at NASA say:

    The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere “behaves” over relatively long periods of time.

    Weather is not climate. They are not equivalent nor are they synonymous. You are wrong, as I pointed out upthread.

    Debating with an idiot like you can be frustrating in that the idiot refuses to admit is wrong.

    Indeed.

  66. Marco

    Regarding the impact on Hitler and the Nazis, Richard Weikart, a California State University professor of German history and a fellow of Discovery Institute, has written on this topic authoritatively and at length. However, he also has been abused by the Darwinists who want to whitewash the past. So now comes Yvonne Sherratt’s Hitler’s Philosophers and it, too, takes on the influence of Haeckel. Irrelevant? Let’s just say that the Nazis had many unattractive traits, and that one of them was intolerance of academics who deviated from the party line. That is quite relevant. Mention all this in a debate with a Darwinist and he is likely to get angry. Too bad about that. – See more at: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/from_yale_unive/#sthash.61RRho4A.dpuf

    https://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/from_yale_unive/

  67. Weather reflects short-term changes within the atmosphere, while climate is determined by averaging daily and seasonal weather over a long period of time.

    Therefore they are not synonymous.

    Idiot.

  68. BBD

    lol EvenNASA accepts that without long periods of WEATHER, the CLIMATE wouldn’t exist. lol How stupid can you be? Don’t you understand that one can’t exist without the other precisely because they are relatively THE SAME THING? lol

  69. m55, I’m sorry you are stupid. The dishonest part you seem to have honed on your own.

    Intelligent design was invented when it became clear creationists were not going to be able to get their particular line of garbage introduced to science classes in public schools. The clowns behind the movement scrubbed “god” from their books and replaced it with “designer” or “intelligent designer”. The rest of the crap was unchanged. The goal was to pretend to put a veneer of science on the creation claptrap to trick people into believing there was some validity to it.

    The losers you reference are simply upset that some of their colleagues gave up on the foot stomping and repeating ‘god did it” in order to try the little end run.

    At the end of the day there is no difference at all between the two: both are interpretations of age-old myths made by a small group of “christians”, nothing more.

    Continue spouting your fact free lines of bullshit. I’m done with you – your aura of ignorance is disgusting.

  70. dean dean dean, just how illiterate ARE you? If you had looked, the site I got those references from was Discovery Science, the Intelligent Design gang. You can twist and pitch your little hissy fits all you want, you are still wrong. Another quote fro Discovery Science.

    5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

    Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: “Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it’s just creationism in disguise. If so it’s a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us.” (10)

  71. lol EvenNASA accepts that without long periods of WEATHER, the CLIMATE wouldn’t exist.

    That doesn’t make them the same thing. Therefore they are not (as you argued), synonymous.

    How stupid can you be?

    I’m not the problem here.

    because they are relatively THE SAME THING? lol

    Nope, it’s like the water and the wave, but I can’t understand it for you.

  72. “Intelligent Design does not necessarily refer to the God of the Bible.”

    So the god of the bible is a liar or a dumbass?

  73. “Even NASA accepts that without long periods of WEATHER, the CLIMATE wouldn’t exist. ”

    And even you just said they’re not synonym, moron.

  74. “QUICK ANSWER
    Weather and climate are both terms used to describe temperature, atmospheric conditions and precipitation. ”

    Not seeing “they are synonymous for each other” there, dumbass.

    1. lol

      I see you didn’t answer me when I asked you if the climate could exist without the weather. At least another honest debater said no. You are a jackass, nothing more, nothing less.

  75. I have posted links saying that weather and climate are synonyms. If you fools want to keep wasting cyberspace bloviating that YOU know more than the thesaurus compilers, be my guest.

  76. “when I asked you if the climate could exist without the weather. ”

    No, in this real actual world, we did. We pointed out that this doesn’t make them synonyms.

    “I have posted links saying that weather and climate are synonyms”

    None of them have, baz.

    1. weather
      star see definition of weather show
      noun atmospheric conditions
      verb endure
      climate
      Relevance

      lists
      blocks
      Common Informal
      Synonyms for weather
      noun atmospheric conditions

      http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/weather?s=t

      Now, you Libtards follow this link. Locate where it says Synomyms for weather and then lists the SYNONYMS under it and you will see CLIMATE. lol My God how stupid are you? Are you just acting? I mean, I really haven’t found anyone as illiterate and flat out stupid as you are turning out to be.

  77. barry55: if you knew how to use a thesaurus you would understand that the words following the main entry are not necessarily synonyms, but are words with related meanings. For example, I looked up ‘idiot’ in a thesaurus and it listed (with many others) ‘twit’ and ‘klutz’, which I am sure you will agree have different meanings, both different from ‘idiot’.

    In your comments you have repeated a limited number of things ad nauseum. How about explaining why you think either evolution or the idea of climate change is silly. Do you have an alternative explanation for pseudogenes or similarities in cytochrome structure (other than ‘God did it’ which is just an avoidance mechanism); do you think the absorption bands of CO2 are wrong or that all the CO2 humans are producing is just vanishing? Come on, man! Don’t be shy but tell us your considered opinion on why you think that the overwhelming majority of people who have studied the subjects are a bunch of idiots or morons (but not always twits or klutzes).

  78. “Locate where it says Synomyms for weather and then lists the SYNONYMS ”

    And find that you’re wrong, baz. And that you are incapable of reading.

  79. Richard Simmons.

    Do YOU know how to use a Thesaurus? When it lists weather and THEN says “synonyms” and THEN lists CLIMATE in a list of other words that mean the same as weather, it means that CLIMATE is a synonym for WEATHER. Really, are you that dense?

    Evolution IS a silly hoax. You want me to offer any other explanation other than God Almighty created everything. Why is that? Why are you unwilling to accept the possibility that a Being far beyond our comprehension actually created all. I mean, you will swallow a silly notion that we “evolved” from some lower life form. Now YOU tell ME. Which is more plausible? That we sprang from some animal after BILLIONS of years of chaotic events that could just as well not even happened? That we are here just by random events? lol

    To me, THAT is fantastical fantasy. That we just HAPPENED. No, I believe that an Almighty loving God created us for HIS pleasure and He loved us enough to even die for us.
    YOU choose.

    Oh, and He created the climate and weather too. lol

  80. Wow, You are a moron. You have the reading comprehension of a snail. But, that’s par for the course for atheists and evolutionists.

  81. God created us. And He chose, in His infinite wisdom, and because He’s God after all, so it’s HIS choice, to create us (our physical bodies) through the process of evolution.

    And as He was considering using evolution, He thought about the far future, when Barry55 would have been born. And God realized that by using evolution, Barry55 would have a conniption and insist that He must do it Barry55’s way, “or else”.

    And so, at the moment of creation, God said, “Let there be evolution… Because I wish to do it this way… And I want to teach that prideful little asshole Barry55, once he’s born, that *I* am the Lord Thy God and I will NOT be bound by the puny, feeble, insecure, limited imagination of such a stubborn, proud creature, and so I shall create all men, including Barry55, using evolution. And I will munch popcorn as I enjoy his little conniptions.”

    And so Evolution began its holy process.. ages passed.. and mankind evolved and was given a soul and cogent mind to understand the science behind how evolution created the physical world.. And Barry55 was born, and as prophesied, learned that evolution had created him. And had his conniption.

    And God saw that it was a good conniption. And God was pleased. And so He rested. And ate His popcorn.

    1. Climate is what you get after a span of X years or so of weather. The weather creates the climate. Can’t have a climate without the weather thereby proving the are the same thing. Any of you who denies this is a simpleton that can’t be fixed. Period.

  82. You want me to offer any other explanation other than God Almighty created everything. Why is that?

    Because a good theory is useful as it enables predictions to be made. Saying “Goddidit” is not useful as anything could happen on a whim. You are really no different than the people who objected to lightning rods being put on high buildings because everyone knows God (Yahweh, Thor or whoever) decides where to send the next lightning strike.

    BTW: Do you accept that a twit, an idiot and a klutz are different things? How about an ignoramus, a twerp, a wally and a dingbat? They are all listed together in a thesaurus as synonyms, even though it is obvious to any loon (although possibly not to a bozo) that they are not identical in meaning. (No insult intended to ESL people who might be unfamiliar with the words!)

  83. Barry, you are all over the place, and little makes sense. Yes, Weikart wrote stuff, but as a Discovery Institute member he has taken an ideological side: that of the cdesign proponentsists. Weikart went way overboard when he links a biological theory, proven time and time again, with what happened in Nazi-Germany. Especially since the jew-hatred in Germany is much more directly linked to Martin Luther’s vile rhetoric, and also the catholic church’s long-term poor relation to jews. Reportedly, jews “killed” Jesus. Which everyone knows is nonsense, but for an Italy-centered religion it makes sense to try and downplay the role of the Romans and to elevate the new ideology.

    1. Marco

      The Jews DID kill Jesus. The Bible says so but I understand you are above such things, right?

      1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

      1 Thessalonians 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

      Did they actually drive the nails in His hands and feet? No, but they DID plot His death and even said to let His blood be on their hands. So, it is NOT nonsense as you claim. I have no use for the Roman Catholic church OR its blasphemous teachings and pontifications so your Italy reference means nothing to me.

      And, Hitler was an evolutionist. Yeah, he was in YOUR camp.

  84. I have posted links saying that weather and climate are synonyms.

    Except that they *don’t* say this, which reveals just how weak your grasp of this really is.

    One last time. Please read the following carefully:

    Is ‘baby’ a synonym for ‘pensioner’?

    No. Both are human but the difference is *time*.

    Is ‘weather’ a synonym for ‘climate’?

    No. The difference between weather and climate is *time*.

    You need to learn to think better.

  85. I can *prove* that weather isn’t synonymous with climate.

    Who, after all, ever says: “what’s the climate going to be like tomorrow?” or “I’ll pop over later, climate permitting” or “lovely climate we’ve been having this week” etc.

    Nobody, that’s who.

    Because weather and climate are not synonymous.

    This is really and truly over now.

    1. No, this is NOT really and truly over because YOU say so. Oh, it may be over between you and me but the FACT remains that you cannot have a climate without the weather. Why? Because, after an amount of TIME, as you keep insisting, the WEATHER creates a CLIMATE. It IS the same thing.

  86. ” When it lists weather and THEN says “synonyms” and THEN lists CLIMATE in a list of other words that mean the same as weather,”

    Except it doesn’t, baz. You still can’t read thesaurus. Maybe why you can’t imagine anyone else can.

    “You have the reading comprehension of a snail. ”

    Ah, so even you admit it’s still far far ahead of yours.

  87. “Climate is what you get after a span of X years or so of weather.”

    So they’re not synonyms, baz.

    Civilisation is not a synonym for people, despite civilisation being what you get with a lot of people working together for many years.

    “Can’t have a climate without the weather thereby proving the are the same thing.”

    No, that proves they’re not the same thing, retard.

    “No, this is NOT really and truly over because YOU say so. ”

    No, it;s really and truly over because it’s over, retard.

    “the WEATHER creates a CLIMATE. It IS the same thing.”

    Nope, it’s not.

  88. Can’t have a climate without the weather thereby proving the are the same thing.

    Can’t have waves without water, but ‘a wave’ is not merely water.

    Babies and pensioners are both human but they are not the same thing.

    I posted all this already, so why are you simply ignoring it?

    I posted this proof that you are wrong too, so why are you ignoring it?

    It wipes out your nonsense, that’s why. And you are being dishonest about it.

    Who, after all, ever says: “what’s the climate going to be like tomorrow?” or “I’ll pop over later, climate permitting” or “lovely climate we’ve been having this week” etc.

    Nobody, that’s who.

    Because weather and climate are not synonymous.

    Repeat: this is really and truly over now.

  89. “Weather” is the high-frequency noise imposed on the long-term “climate” signal.

    It’s not possible for them to be the same thing.

    1. I never said it wasn’t the conservative Jews who killed Him. But, that really doesn’t matter and I appreciate you agreeing with me against Marco and admitting the Jews did kill Jesus.

      In actuality, WE killed the Lord. It was OUR sins that He came and died for that we might have eternal life, IF we accept Him.

  90. BBD

    I’m not ignoring it. It’s just that you are WRONG! lol Nowa wave is not water? lol Well, if it’s a radio wave it isn’t but guess what? If it’s a water wave, ITS WATER!! How ignorant are you? And like I said, it’s NOT really and truly over just because YOU say so. That’s like you saying your taking your ball and going home because nobody wants to play by your rules.

  91. Well, baz is random. As well as a retard.

    There was no jesus. It was a fictional character, like Merlin or Arthur Pendragon.

    They can’t actually be killed.

  92. ” Nowa wave is not water?”

    Yup.

    Look at the waves on a large vat of milk disturbed. there’s waves in the atmosphere. Totally not water.

  93. If you accept His liberal teachings and principles, that is.

    The Conservatives of his day killed him because he was teaching liberalism. They had him tortured and executed to “teach potential liberals a lesson” and shut down any further such “saving mankind from the scourge of carnal conservatism”.

    Glad YOU agree with me.

    1. No, Jesus was NOT a Liberal. In His day, ISIS was the Pharisees and Sadducees. They were driven by the Law. They still stoned people. They treated women like property to be owned and their only reason to exist was to bear children. They cut people’s hands off for stealing and etc., etc., etc. Now, that was the Old Testament way and, WAS the rule of law. Jesus changed all that and taught that it was best to love and pray for your enemies and neighbors. Are you saying the Conservatives of today don’t pray? It is the LIBERALS that are running amok in the streets and creating violence. Completely opposite of what Christ taught, don’t you think?

  94. An atheist is a fool in search of a reason to live. It stands to reason, does it not? If Wow just “happened” then he has no real purpose in life other than to reproduce more fools.

  95. “I can’t take a retard seriously.”

    Well, it explains the moronic shit you post.Not even you are taking it seriously.

  96. I’m not ignoring it. It’s just that you are WRONG!

    “What’s the climate going to be like tomorrow?”

    “I’ll cut the lawn this afternoon, climate permitting.”

    “Lovely climate we’ve been having this week.”

    “Haven’t been able to take the dog for a walk for two days because the climate’s been awful.”

    Fuckwit.

    1. What has been the long-term weather in Argentina?

      What is the long-term weather forecast for the upper midwest?

      The weather over the last fifty years has developed into some nice weather patterns.

      Ignorant ass.

  97. All your examples prove my point: you are wrong.

    That’s as may be, but the problem is your being too insane to admit it even though it is literally proved in front of you.

    I have wasted enough time on you I think.

  98. “No, Jesus was NOT a Liberal.”

    He’s a very naughty boy,. BRIAN!!!!

    He’s a fiction, baz. But he was DEFINITELY a liberal, progressive even.

    “What has been the long-term weather in Argentina?”

    It hasn’t had long term weather.

  99. “What is the long-term weather forecast for the upper midwest?”

    That would be the several weather events over the next few weeks, baz.

    More proof that weather and climate aren’t the same thing.

  100. ” It is the LIBERALS that are running amok in the streets and creating violence. Completely opposite of what Christ taught, don’t you think?”

    Yeah, ‘coz Jesus would never have started a riot in a temple in protest against animal sacrifices, would he….?

    1. lol You don’t have the Biblical Literacy to even know WHY He beat the moneychangers out of the Temple. It was a House of prayer, His Fater’s temple and the Liberals were using it for gain and greed.

  101. Pharisee#1
    Hillel the Elder (c. 110 BCE – 10 CE)

    What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
    —?Shabbath folio:31a, Babylonian Talmud

    Pharisee#2
    Attributed to Jesus circa 32CE
    Do unto others what you would want them to do unto you.
    Luke 6:31

  102. Or physically beating moneychangers for being consumed with “corporate business” rather than focusing on the important bits…

  103. “Now YOU tell ME. Which is more plausible? That we sprang from some animal after BILLIONS of years of chaotic events that could just as well not even happened? That we are here just by random events? lol”

    Ego. Ignorance. Irrational belief. Lack of imagination.

  104. “Hitler was an evolutionist”

    Hitler was an ID-proponent and religious zealot just like you. Some quotes:
    1. “The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator”
    2. “Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise”
    3. “It was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will”

    Oh, and thank you for confirming to me that christians are indeed the original source of the rampant jew-hatred that ultimately led to the holocaust.

    1. So many anti-semites here. Hitler most assuredly WAS an evolutionist. He used the Catholic church. You little peabrains seem to forget that Google goes both ways.

      Some critics of my scholarship have tried to argue that Hitler did not believe in human evolution at all, despite the overwhelming evidence I present in my book, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress. Robert Richards even accuses me of playing a “sly trick” by translating the term “Entwicklung” as “evolution” in some passages of Mein Kampf. In the standard English translation of Mein Kampf (Houghton Mifflin’s edition), Ralph Manheim never translated “Entwicklung” as “evolution,” but always as “development.”
      I have already refuted Richards’s accusation here, but this summer I decided to consult other translations of Mein Kampf to find out how other translators handled the passages in dispute. I examined the following translations:

      Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. Barrows Mussey (New York: Stackpole Sons, 1939)
      Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. James Murphy (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1939)
      Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf: The Official Nazi English Translation (n.p.: Elite Minds, 2009)
      Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. Michael Ford (n.p.: Elite Minds, 2009)
      Adolf Hitler, The Racial Conception of the World, ed. Charles Grant Robertson (London: Friends of Europe, 1938) — this is a pamphlet with excerpts
      Interestingly, I discovered that all these translators rendered “Entwicklung” as “evolution” in certain contexts, especially in the chapter on “Nation and Race.” The reason for this is rather obvious: In that chapter Hitler describes the struggle for existence among organisms as a natural process that improves the species. Sure sounds like evolution to me — and all these translators agree.
      In any case, here are three brief passages from the Mussey translation (from the chapter “Nation and Race”), where Mussey translates “Entwicklung” as “evolution”:

      – See more at: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/did_hitler_use/#sthash.mTvUAHt6.dpuf

      To be sure, there were many other streams of thought that played into Nazi racism and the holocaust, but to say that Darwinism played no role, or even an insignificant role, is absurd. Read Richard Weikart’s FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY (go here).

      The Nazi emphasis on proper breeding, racial purity, and weeding out defectives come from taking Darwin’s theory seriously and applying it at the level of society. Yes, Darwin himself did not take these such steps, but Galton and Haeckel, his contemporaries, saw where this was going and did.

      The outrage which says that the Nazi racial theory is a vulgarization of Darwinism is simply unmerited. The Nazis took Darwinian theory and ran with it, much as Peter Singer does these days, though Singer and his disciples are careful not to bring race into the picture — they take an equal opportunity approach in advocating the elimination of human lives they deem defective or inconvenient.

      By the way, the American Eugenics Society was started in 1922 and dissolved not until 1994. Richard Lewontin, quoted below, belonged to it. Theodosius Dobzhansky was its chairman of the board in 1956. J.B.S. Haldane was a member. You think maybe their Darwinism had something to do with them being members?
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/some-of-my-favorite-quotes-by-darwinists/

      You Darwinists recoil at the thought of Hitler and the Nazis were evolutionists when their search for the perfect Aryan race proves they were.

  105. Oh, and thank you for confirming to me that christians are indeed the original source of the rampant jew-hatred that ultimately led to the holocaust.

    For sure:

    As Christianity spread in Western Europe and penetrated the popular consciousness, using the emotions and imagination even more than thought and dogma in order to gain influence, various story elements began to evolve around the alleged inhumanity and sadism of the Jews. (See Map: Blood Libels.)

    […]

    The Nazis used the blood libel in full force for anti-Jewish propaganda. They revived old allegations and instituted reinvestigations and trials in territories under their rule or influence: at Memel in 1936; at Bamberg in 1937 (a revival); and at Velhartice, Bohemia, in 1940. On May 1, 1934, the Nazi daily, Der Stuermer, devoted a special illustrated number to the blood libel, in which German scientists openly served the Nazi aims. The above-mentioned Handwoerterbuch (vol. 7 (1935–36), cols. 727–39) printed an article entitled Ritualmord written by Peuckert, a man who remained active and respected in German science, which is throughout simply an affirmation and propagation of the blood libel, although using some cautious phrasing. The epitome appears in the remarkable enquiry: “In conclusion to this shocking list, there remains only one question: for what purpose did the Jews use the blood?” (col. 734).

  106. “Now YOU tell ME. Which is more plausible?”

    Evolution. Because the creation of a magic fairy able to do it all is impossible.

  107. “So many anti-semites here. ”

    Well, one. You. Probably “mike” and “dick” too.

    Hitler most assuredly WAS a Catholic. He used darwinism, badly. Hell, the catholic church LAUDED Hitler as a good christian. Never excommunicated him.

    “FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY ”

    Ah, so From Jesus to Hitler: Christian Ethics, Ethnic Cleansing, and Racism in the Catholic Church would ALSO be a valid book for you, right?

    “You Darwinists recoil at the thought of Hitler and the Nazis were evolutionists”

    Just like you went apeshit at Hitler being Catholic.

    And he wasn’t “an evolutionist”. There’s no such damn term, FFS.

  108. Social Darwinism is not the same thing as evolutionary biology. It’s a pile of crap invented by political opportunists.

    Anyone can figure out how to verify this for themselves, unless they are so idiotic as to think that what comes out of the butts of the discovery institute and uncommon descent are golden tablets and not just a bunch of evidence-free rationalizations and just so stories.

  109. I don’t know, looks like something ain’t right here:

    Spock never lies –

    [Link to breitbart deleted because we do not link to science denial sites on this blog -gtl]

  110. “…there really were news articles in the 1970s about scientists predicting a coming ice age”

    You concede that the point your entire article was written to debunk is, in fact, true. I agree that it is stupid to cite the wrong stories, and deceptive to create fake covers, it is just as deceptive to call it a “myth.”

  111. I would like to point out that although that time magazine cover may be photoshopped, people back then were worried about global cooling. I have to multiple people about it, and they say that it was something that was around.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
    This is not a myth, and the threat of global cooling was real.

    1. @ Anonymous : “This is not a myth, and the threat of global cooling was real.”

      No. It really was a myth – or at least a misunderstanding – and not the reality; even if there were some, relatively few, people at the time who seriously but incorrectly feared this would happen.

      And the “threat” of Global cooling as we now know was NOT real at all but rather has proven to be falsified and is now rightly rejected as a failed hypothesis.

      Science has moved on and the reality of Global Overheating (“warming”is far too mild a word), sadly, is overwhelmingly supported by multiple lines of scientific, peer-reviewed evidence as well as our lived experience. Which renders what people thought was the case in the 1970’s utterly irrelevant just like how the old phlogiston theory is an irelevant curiosity & very minor historic footnote to our current understanding of combustion.

  112. I would like to point out that although that time magazine cover may be photoshopped, people back then were worried about global cooling. I have to multiple people about it, and they say that it was something that was around.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
    This is not a myth, and the threat of global cooling was real.

    1. Huh? What’s the deal with these strings of nonsense comments by nonsense strings of letters usernames?

      Anyone know?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.