Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 63
Thanks Tree56Thanks

Thread: Flat Earth Theory

  1. #41
    Veteran Member cpicturetaker12's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    21,841
    Thanks
    16196

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You do get that the vast majority of people just shake their heads, and feel sorry for you, when you, or any of your other science-hating confederates spew about climate change being a "hoax", right? We have so moved past you, you don't even rate a response, anymore. No one who is reasonable questions the reality of climate change anymore. Even the majority of Republicans have stopped denying science. Now the argument is just about what to do about it. The issue at hand is how do we encourage more environment friendly behaviours without unduly hindering business.
    If they only thought to look at their own shoulder and saw their vaccine mark on their own body, you'd think it would REMIND them that science is.

  2. #42
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    11,035
    Thanks
    13300

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12 View Post
    Yep and we think the moon is made of cheese!
    From 1902...


  3. #43
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    29,452
    Thanks
    7613

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You do get that the vast majority of people just shake their heads, and feel sorry for you, when you, or any of your other science-hating confederates spew about climate change being a "hoax", right? We have so moved past you, you don't even rate a response, anymore. No one who is reasonable questions the reality of climate change anymore. Even the majority of Republicans have stopped denying science. Now the argument is just about what to do about it. The issue at hand is how do we encourage more environment friendly behaviours without unduly hindering business.
    Don't feel Sorry for me, because I am better educated than most.

    Tell me what is out of place with the current climate, This warming phase is RIGHT on Schedule according to the Cosmic Clock.



    Strange how climate is a set Frequency. Cooling and warming periods at constant intervals. (for you guys that don't understand it is called a SINE wave.


    Peaks and Troughs at the same amplitude

    so this warming period is ON TIME and PROPER AMPLITUDE.

    and if you notice the C02 increase and decreases in the same frequency

    which follows the Solar and Orbital cycles.

    Remember the Bible told us 3200 years ago the earth was a sphere in space, it was science that told us the earth was flat... Because the "Science" was funded by government and government wanted people to keep the status quo
    Last edited by TNVolunteer73; 12th October 2017 at 10:03 PM.

  4. #44
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,197
    Thanks
    17073

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    Don't feel Sorry for me, because I am better educated than most.

    Tell me what is out of place with the current climate, This warming phase is RIGHT on Schedule according to the Cosmic Clock.



    Strange how climate is a set Frequency. Cooling and warming periods at constant intervals. (for you guys that don't understand it is called a SINE wave.


    Peaks and Troughs at the same amplitude

    so this warming period is ON TIME and PROPER AMPLITUDE.

    and if you notice the C02 increase and decreases in the same frequency

    which follows the Solar and Orbital cycles.

    Remember the Bible told us 3200 years ago the earth was a sphere in space, it was science that told us the earth was flat... Because the "Science" was funded by government and government wanted people to keep the status quo
    I love how you got your chart from a site that debunks climate deniers! Very first paragraph from the site you have sourced:
    Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

    You know, you guys really should vet your sources, before you trot them out believing they support your pseudo-science hysteria.

    More from your site, specifically about "it has all happened before":

    Science has a good understanding of past climate changes and their causes, and that evidence makes the human cause of modern climate change all the more clear. Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – have been implicated in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When changes were big and rapid (as they are today), the consequences for life on Earth were often dire – in some cases causing mass extinctions.

    The myth is wrong for two reasons:

    1. First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.
    2. Second, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past.


    Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistoceneice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial. Because warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2, the CO2 levels see-sawed extremely closely with Earth’s temperature. It was a slow pace of change, taking tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and yes as the myth states, in the last million years the biggest orbit-induced cycles were every 100,000 years.
    But we know these orbital changes are not behind today's global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.
    The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps this chart - from the site you got your chart from, that you clearly did not understand - will help:



    You see, you're right. The planet did go through cyclical warming, and cooling phases - right up until about 40 years ago, when suddenly, the CO2 levels skyrocketed, right off the charts. What was it hat changed 40 years ago. Hmmm...I'm sure something did. There was some phenomenon that took off, and became really popular right around that time. Oh! I remember. Humans went car crazy. And humans started throwing all kinds of other pollutants into the air, with no thought of the consequences. And, now, the planet's temperature is continuing to warm, when it should be cooling.

    Now, for further explanation of the chart you put up, the article that goes along with it is here:
    Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

    You''ll be disappointed to learn that the chart doesn't mean what you seem to think t means. Like I said in my first response to you, you are just an ignorant science denier, only worthy of mocking.

    "Damn! Foiled by science, again!!!'
    Last edited by Czernobog; 12th October 2017 at 10:51 PM.
    Thanks from NeoVsMatrix

  5. #45
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,197
    Thanks
    17073

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Why does it not surprise me that @TNVolunteer73 never returned...

  6. #46
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    41,013
    Thanks
    24182

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12 View Post
    If they only thought to look at their own shoulder and saw their vaccine mark on their own body, you'd think it would REMIND them that science is.
    If you are referring to the smallpox scar that vaccination ended in the 1960s. Few have that scar anymore.

    https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/7004/

  7. #47
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    30,691
    Thanks
    26051

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    If you are referring to the smallpox scar that vaccination ended in the 1960s. Few have that scar anymore.

    https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/7004/
    We don't need to have large scale inoculation drives like we once did.

    Branding is a thing of the past


  8. #48
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    29,452
    Thanks
    7613

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Why does it not surprise me that @TNVolunteer73 never returned...
    Unlike Left wingers SOME of us have Jobs. we don't mooch of the dole.

  9. #49
    Veteran Member HenryPorter's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    19,309
    Thanks
    9983

    From
    N48 51.489 E2 17.67119
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I've been shocked to be seeing a rising number of proponents for this theory, in recent years. That's why I posed the question.
    yeah, there is that NFL player (or is it NBA) that is a proponent of a flat earth.

  10. #50
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    29,452
    Thanks
    7613

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I love how you got your chart from a site that debunks climate deniers! Very first paragraph from the site you have sourced:
    Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

    You know, you guys really should vet your sources, before you trot them out believing they support your pseudo-science hysteria.

    More from your site, specifically about "it has all happened before":

    Science has a good understanding of past climate changes and their causes, and that evidence makes the human cause of modern climate change all the more clear. Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – have been implicated in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When changes were big and rapid (as they are today), the consequences for life on Earth were often dire – in some cases causing mass extinctions.

    The myth is wrong for two reasons:

    1. First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.
    2. Second, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past.


    Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistoceneice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial. Because warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2, the CO2 levels see-sawed extremely closely with Earth’s temperature. It was a slow pace of change, taking tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and yes as the myth states, in the last million years the biggest orbit-induced cycles were every 100,000 years.
    But we know these orbital changes are not behind today's global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.
    The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps this chart - from the site you got your chart from, that you clearly did not understand - will help:



    You see, you're right. The planet did go through cyclical warming, and cooling phases - right up until about 40 years ago, when suddenly, the CO2 levels skyrocketed, right off the charts. What was it hat changed 40 years ago. Hmmm...I'm sure something did. There was some phenomenon that took off, and became really popular right around that time. Oh! I remember. Humans went car crazy. And humans started throwing all kinds of other pollutants into the air, with no thought of the consequences. And, now, the planet's temperature is continuing to warm, when it should be cooling.

    Now, for further explanation of the chart you put up, the article that goes along with it is here:
    Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

    You''ll be disappointed to learn that the chart doesn't mean what you seem to think t means. Like I said in my first response to you, you are just an ignorant science denier, only worthy of mocking.

    "Damn! Foiled by science, again!!!'
    Damn you are foiled by LIES OF omission Darn you graph ONLY INCLUDES ONE WARMING PERIOD. poor @Czernobog your graph is only one Cycle.

    Poor Czernobog you left out every warming period but the currnt

    there have been 5 warming preiods in the last 400,000 years. (only 1 in the last 100,000)

    This is how you are fooled by ignorance (not an insult, you just don't have the knowledge of the full climate history) Not knowing all the facts isn't and insult

    the warming periods occur IN REGULAR cycles (this would be a frequency) The CURRENT warming period is ON TIME and is at the Correct Amplitude.

    So why did you OMIT 399,000 years of climate history.

    Because IT DOES NOT FIT your narrative.


    I like Graphs, Mine is Bigger 400,000 years not 1000 and is made of Stronger wood which includes 5 climate cycles yours only includes 1/100 of a climate cycle..
    Last edited by TNVolunteer73; 13th October 2017 at 07:30 PM.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The flat tax
    By PACE in forum Economics
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: 19th November 2015, 03:30 AM
  2. The flat tax
    By PACE in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12th November 2015, 04:54 AM
  3. "We don't have time for a meeting of the flat earth society..."
    By Raoul_Duke in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 26th June 2013, 05:59 PM
  4. Perry's Flat tax
    By USA-1 in forum Political Ideologies
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 28th October 2011, 03:30 PM
  5. Prince Harry Conspiracy Theory (Just a theory)
    By Robodoon in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 25th February 2007, 08:37 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed