Global warming is real


#2831

Yep. But somehow it’s up to everyone else to disprove it.


#2832

You’re claiming it’s bs so show it to be, it’s simple.


#2833

Simple. The guy claiming it is a nutter. He believes nutter things. He makes a completely unsubstantiated claim and provides no evidence for it. There’s nothing to disprove because you can’t say anything about the methodology.

It is, on its face, completely ludicrous to take this seriously.

Answer me yes or no. A guy who believes the moon is a hologram says he dated a stone but doesn’t say how. Should I believe him?


#2834

The unsubstantiated claims are your own.

Show the dating to be inaccurate or the method to be invalid.

Another thousand posts of yours deflecting from the fact you cannot isn’t going to help your case any.

Rock decay is measurable, the decay of organic dies is measurable and it’s a perfectly valid way of dating objects found in the same vicinity.

You haven’t and you can’t show any differently and we both know it so save us all the bandwidth and wasted time and just admit it.


#2835

Except you haven’t proven anything other than to quote someone that you agree with.


#2836

The methods are valid, and none of you can show otherwise. Unless and until you can show a flaw in the method or the dating you’ve got nothing but hot air.


#2837

What methods are those?


#2838

I’m not going to repeat myself for you, scroll up.


#2839

How does mentioning a method prove anything? Where’s the proof the method was even conducted? Or that the method was conducted by someone expert in the method?


#2840

Show that it wasn’t, show that anyone has shown it to be false. Show that the results are invalid.

Just pick any one of those and make your case.


#2841

You can’t refute something that doesn’t exist. That’s the whole issue.


#2842

It exists, that’s already been established.

Now make your case if you can.


#2844

I have been to the site many times myself and conducted carbon dating of various surface features and relics in the area. These readings indicate the site itself is several hundreds of years old at most. Furthermore there is no noteworthy alignment with celestial objects.


#2845

Your completely ridiculous fabrication is noted.


#2846

Prove his assertion is fabricated.


#2847

Watching you two is becoming quite comical.


#2848

You’re the one quoting the work of a guy who thinks he disproved general relativity and expecting us to believe him.

Do you see the comedy in that? I don’t. It’s sad.


#2849

I haven’t quoted anything of his.

The nice thing about character is that eventually it always reveals itself.


#2850

The methodology others have developed to date things exists. No doubt.

No one has demonstrated it was ever used at this site.


#2851

Yes, you have. It was in your first link.

Today, researcher and authority on the subject, Michael Tellinger…

That’s how I found his name in the first place.

If it wasn’t him, who did the dating? Let’s have a name please.