‘Climate Change’ Could Turn Us All Cannibal Or Something

Since Democrats tend to shy away from owning firearms, guess who gets eaten first? Anyhow, while the point of the study may or may not have been to link what’s going on with the current (and typical) warm period, news outlets and others running articles is meant to invoke a belief among Warmists that this could happen now

A New Study Suggests Neanderthals Resorted To Cannibalism As A Result Of Climate Change

When climate change became too much to endure 120,000 years ago, a group of Neanderthals who were living in the south of France are believed to have become so desperate for food that they resorted to cannibalism, slaughtering and consuming six of their own, according to a new study conducted by Alban Defleur and Emmanuel Desclaux.

As Cosmos Magazine reports, scientists first discovered the remains of the six Neanderthal victims in the 1990s in a cave located near Baume Moula-Guercy in the Rhône valley. The victims were found to belong to different age groups, with two of the Neanderthals found to have been adults, and the remaining four adolescents and younger children.

The bones of these six Neanderthals all revealed very clear and obvious signs of cannibalism, including fingers which look as if they had been ravenously chewed upon, and bones which had numerous cut marks on them which scientists believe were made by stone tools. In some of these remains there was also evidence of dismemberment, which is nothing that would have occurred naturally.

Our coming soon doom because you drove a fossil fueled vehicle and ate a burger based on six skeletons. We need to pass a carbon tax now and give up our liberty to government in order to avoid this!

After scientists dated the floor of the Baume Moula-Guercy cave where the six Neanderthal remains were discovered, they determined that the Neanderthals would have died between 128,000 to 114,000 years ago, which would have been during the most recent interglacial period.

With temperatures much warmer on average than they are today, the Rhône Valley would have changed so dramatically that Neanderthals wouldn’t have had any large mammals to have hunted and eaten, and instead were forced to search for rodents, snakes and tortoises. And while Neanderthals were once used to living in grasslands, their environment also abruptly changed to forested areas.

First, what caused the climatic change? It was all natural, right? Second, there are plenty of large mammals in plenty of very warm areas, as well as forested areas. Regardless, this is all meant to scare us, and since Democrats are so squishy on owning guns, they’ll be the first in the pot.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

53 Responses to “‘Climate Change’ Could Turn Us All Cannibal Or Something”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    TEACH suggests Dems now need to worry about being killed, dismembered and eaten by conservatives.

    TEACH typed: Since Democrats tend to shy away from owning firearms, guess who gets eaten first?

    This is not as crazy as it sounds given the hypothesis that conservatives carry Neanderthal genes.

    • formwiz says:

      Actually, Conservatives can hunt those fuzzy little cartoon characters Jeffery loves to create.

      Lefties will eat each other.

      As they’ve already started doing.

    • You understand this is a joke, right? Like the old “I don’t need to run faster than the lion, just faster than you” one? Sigh.

      • Bill Bear says:

        We understand that everything Porter Good says about climate change is a “joke”.

        What we do not understand is why Porter Good believes that spreading lies and deliberate misinformation is supposed to be funny.

        • Bill589 says:

          In 2018, over 500 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob.

          Global Warming deniers vs Reality deniers.
          The climate has always been changing, and giving governments more money and power is not going to stop it from changing.

        • formwiz says:

          Because only cartoon characters with brains made of celluloid take this nonsense seriously.

  2. Bill Bear says:

    Porter Good is simply indulging in eliminationist rhetoric. His kind loves nothing more than threatening those who disagree with them — because they simply lack the intellectual skills to construct actual fact-based arguments.

    • formwiz says:

      When you come up with a fact-based argument, we’ll see who simply lacks the intellectual skills

    • Where are your facts that say I’m wrong?

      Your constant personal attacks on everyone without any facts are getting tiresome, Bill. My only warning.

      • Bill Bear says:

        I have provided facts, again and again.

        As with all his kind, Porter Good simply chooses to ignore those facts.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        So THIS is where you draw the line??

        But commenters calling others pedophile, nigger, communist, seditionist and posting addresses and threats is OK? (Actually, it’s primarily a single commenter, the one formerly known as drowningpuppies.)

        Some Code…

        • Liljefferykeeneofst.louis says:

          Oh please. Playing the victim here really is tiresome, nignorant.
          https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • formwiz says:

          posting addresses and threats?

          Can’t recall that.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            When a vile commenter posts a business address that he thinks is associated with another commenter it puts people at risk. The only reason for committing such a vile act is to bring harm to someone or to intimidate them from commenting.

            You can ask drowningpuppies why he stopped posting the address.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    Climate change is real. I am expecting April to be a lot warmer than March.

  4. Jl says:

    “Much warmer than now”. And here I thought we were sitting on top of the highest hockey stick, according to the doomers. “The Rhone valley would have changed so dramatically….”. And if so, would have taken hundreds, if not thousands of years. But, 6 skeletons found in a cave=climate change did it!

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      jl is confused. The period discussed was the PREVIOUS interglacial, some 120,000 years ago, not the Holocene interglacial in which we currently live.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

      The “hockey stick” shows the rapid increase (in geologic terms) we now see compared to the past 2000 years or so. It’s likely we ARE experiencing the warmest Earth during the Holocene, with no reason to expect the warming to stop.

      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/

      • formwiz says:

        There’s always an out.

        So I take it all those cavemen were out there with their thermometers, taking readings.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Aren’t you one who brays “the climate has always changed”… But if you don’t trust the proxy estimates from the temperature record how do you “know” the climate is always changing?

          Or do you only trust evidence that supports your own prejudices?

          Back before deniers accepted that the Earth was warming, they would argue that a warming Mars was proof that human generated CO2 couldn’t be causing the non-existent warming of Earth ’cause no SUVs etc on Mars. So why did deniers trust temperature estimates from Mars but not thermometer readings on Earth?

          • formwiz says:

            First, I don’t bray, but, apparently, after whining to Teach, you’re still into epithets.

            Second, I don’t think I ever said any such thing, but, if you’ve saved one of my comments, I’d find that extremely interesting. If I made reference to hot spells and cold spells, that’s just observation. Where I come from we sometimes have blistering summers and mild ones, etc. Of course, such things are beyond your understanding.

            Third, I don’t trust the proxy estimates from the temperature record (whatever the Hell they are) because I know the data is cooked.

            Back before deniers accepted that the Earth was warming, they would argue that a warming Mars was proof that human generated CO2 couldn’t be causing the non-existent warming of Earth ’cause no SUVs etc on Mars.

            Actually, most skeptics, deniers is a pejorative and I hope Teach is paying attention, have made no such allowance AFAIK. And I have no idea why you need to bring Mars in on this. Next we’ll hear about Vulcan and Bajor.

      • Jl says:

        Not confused at all, J. The article said it was warmer before, which it did and which is what I said. And as I showed elsewhere, it’s no more rapid than earlier last century.

      • Jl says:

        “ Warmest earth during the Holocene..” Not necessarily. But why just pick the Holocene? Natural factors have affected temperatures before, during and will after the Holocene. There’s absolutely nothing that says if it was warmer before the Holocene those same things could be causing warming now. https://notrickszone.com/2018/11/26/new-treeline-permafrost-evidence-strongly-affirms-the-mid-holocene-was-3c-warmer-than-today/

        • Jl says:

          “couldn’t be causing…”

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          jl typed: Why just pick the Holocene? … … … There’s absolutely nothing that says if it was warmer before the Holocene those same things couldn’t be causing warming now

          The evolution of human civilization occurred during the Holocene.

          All that’s lacking that other physical factors are causing the current warming is evidence. The evidence points to CO2.

          So natural mechanisms could be causing today’s warming but evidence doesn’t support that conclusion.

          Deniers just dismiss the evidence of warming, the role of CO2 and now the potential social solutions for slowing/stopping warming.

          The right-wing conspiracy theory that there exists a global hoax involving communists, scientists, the Pope, every government, every scientific organization, every major religion and the US military seems unlikely.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            The self-styled “Climate consensus” define themselves as the only legitimate voice in climate science.
            They say:
            * Climate change means man-made change, because 90% of modern climate change is man-made.
            * This climate change is mainly due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Made by burning fossil fuel.
            * This greenhouse gas warms earth because it causes less outgoing radiation to be emitted to space, so warming the earth due to the consequent energy imbalance.

            In the real world, satellites show:
            * More OLR (outgoing long wave radiation) leaving planet over last 33 years. By a big margin too, of about 2W/m².
            * Satellite data diametrically contradicts the “climate consensus” greenhouse gas model which explains how greenhouse gases warm the climate.

            It follows that either the satellites are wrong, or the self-styled “climate consensus” are wrong.

            Discuss. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • formwiz says:

            What evidence, dare we ask? Cavemen left temperature reading on the walls of caves?

            Deniers just dismiss the evidence of warming, the role of CO2 and now the potential social solutions for slowing/stopping warming.

            there’s this thing called science that gets in the way. We go by that.

            The right-wing conspiracy theory that there exists a global hoax involving communists, scientists, the Pope, every government, every scientific organization, every major religion and the US military seems unlikely.

            Right wing, deniers, I thought we were putting a hold on that kind of rhetoric.

            And seems unlikely to whom? I remember when Conservatives said the Liberals had all kinds of networks coordinating their plans and blueprints for gaining power. The Liberals they were just being paranoid.

            But, lo and behold, they were right. Funny how many unlikely things turn out to be true.

  5. Most liberals look inedible to me.

  6. formwiz says:

    Pick your favorite and let’s discuss!!

    And if it has something that blows her bull out of the water, that will be the end of the discussion.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Actually, Wiz, that’s not how debate works. One should evaluate the quality of the evidence and place it in context with what is known. Who knows, with good evidence you could actually change minds.

      As Paul Samuelson famously said: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?”

      Have you surrendered your hypothesis that CO2 pools at the Earth’s surface? You’ve certainly seen enough evidence to refute your ‘belief’. And there’s no penalty for exchanging unsupported beliefs for those supported by evidence.

      • formwiz says:

        It may not be how debate works, but it’s how you work.

        Have you surrendered your hypothesis that CO2 pools at the Earth’s surface?

        No, because that’s how science says it works. You’ve seen enough evidence the CO2 does work that way, but you don’t change your mind.

        • Bill Bear says:

          “that’s how science says it works.”

          No, it does not.

          The evidence shows that CO2 is found throughout the earth’s atmosphere, including at altitudes exceeding 30 km.

          Carbon dioxide vertical profiles

          Carbon dioxide variations

          Dogmatic ignorance of scientific fact is a core requirement of climate denial.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            So I’ll repost for the smart guy.


            The self-styled “Climate consensus” define themselves as the only legitimate voice in climate science.
            They say:
            * Climate change means man-made change, because 90% of modern climate change is man-made.
            * This climate change is mainly due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Made by burning fossil fuel.
            * This greenhouse gas warms earth because it causes less outgoing radiation to be emitted to space, so warming the earth due to the consequent energy imbalance.

            In the real world, satellites show:
            * More OLR (outgoing long wave radiation) leaving planet over last 33 years. By a big margin too, of about 2W/m².
            * Satellite data diametrically contradicts the “climate consensus” greenhouse gas model which explains how greenhouse gases warm the climate.

            It follows that either the satellites are wrong, or the self-styled “climate consensus” are wrong.

            Discuss smart guy. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif 

          • formwiz says:

            Whoever says that is lying through their teeth. CO2 is a heavy gas. It’s part of the mechanics of photosynthesis.

            Dogmatic ignorance of scientific fact is a core requirement of climate denial.

            No, but it’s vital to being an enviro-nut.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            As the Earth warms it emits more and more long-wavelength radiation. Some of this is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and some makes its way out to space. Clearly not ALL the Sun’s energy stays with Earth, much still radiates to space.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            The claim is man made greenhouse gases are increasing. According to the greenhouse theory this increase causes more opacity in the atmosphere thereby reducing the emission of heat energy to space.

            Yet satellite measurements show an increase in OLR into space for 33 years of almost 2W/m².

            This is a contradiction of the theory.

            https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  7. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach: since Democrats are so squishy on owning guns, they’ll be the first in the pot.

    Not all Dems are squishy on guns. Here in middle America Dems with guns are pretty common. We have two gun safes filled with pistols, rifles, shotguns and smokepoles. Granted no AR-15 style rifles but if conservatives are looking to cannibalism to survive we may need to upgrade our arsenal!!

    • It’s a joke. When the shark is chasing us I bet I can swim faster than you 🙂

    • formwiz says:

      2 gun safes?

      You keep saying only ammosexuals have that kind of armament. Why would you need so many weapons if the police, that government to which you look for the solution to all your problems, are only minutes away?

      Maybe you should lay off the gun control stuff until you practice what you preach.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Wiz typed: You keep saying only ammosexuals have that kind of armament.

        No, I don’t.

        Wiz typed: government to which you look for the solution to all your problems

        No, I don’t.

        What gun control stuff have I preached? Background checks? Limits on magazine capacity? Policies that gun owners control their weapons? Limits on AR-15 style rifles?

        • formwiz says:

          Yes, you do.

          Yes, you do.

          You want confiscation and all the rest. You exposed yourself yet again as a hypocrite and all the tap-dancing this side of the Will Mastin Trio won’t change that.

  8. formwiz says:

    When a vile commenter posts a business address that he thinks is associated with another commenter it puts people at risk. The only reason for committing such a vile act is to bring harm to someone or to intimidate them from commenting.

    You can ask drowningpuppies why he stopped posting the address.

    Considering that you have yet to stop the epithets, I’d say the vile is in your court.

  9. Bill Bear says:

    formwiz wrote:

    “Whoever says that is lying through their teeth.”

    Dogmatic ignorance of scientific fact is a core requirement of climate denial.

  10. Bill Bear says:

    “Yet satellite measurements show an increase in OLR into space for 33 years of almost 2W/m².”

    Without the backing of factual evidence, this claim is (of course) worthless.

    Actual satellite measurements show exactly what we would expect:

    “What do models predict will happen with rising greenhouse gases? Less longwave radiation will escape at the absorptive wavelengths of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. As the atmosphere warms, it will emit more radiation over the whole longwave spectrum. So we expect to see an increase in outgoing radiation over some of the longwave spectrum with sharp drops at certain wavelengths. This is indeed what is observed, consistent with model simulations.”

    OLR measurements show increased absorption at CO2 wavelengths

    source:
    https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=144

    In short: As the earth heats up, we do in fact see increased OLR radiation across the entire spectrum — but OLR emissions decrease at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, as greenhouse gas theory would predict.

    formwiz will of course accuse the scientists who did this work of lying, simply because he lacks the intellectual and moral integrity to do any better.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8228 access attempts in the last 7 days.