Global Warming Update

P

PadawanBater

Guest
jeff f said:
what type scientific data do you want....temps were normal this year? something like that? because we have literaly pointed to at least a thousand sources ofver the months. besides the tons of scientists who have come out against it, all the fake base temperatures (that alone should tell you whats going on). there arent scientists out there trying to prove the earth is changing natural. they dont exist. the science currently being studied is if the climate is changing and if we are causing it. nobody writes/does a study that says, hey everything is normal.
Click to expand...
A thousand sources? Literally? - then why so much trouble finding one?

I want scientific measurements, stuff I can CHECK FOR MYSELF, the same thing you should be doing with the scientific measurements I've posted.

Give me ten scientists who are in opposition to ACC.
so the bottom line here is what you have from scientists in a nutshell. the climate may or may not be changing, and if it is changing is it normal or is it caused by man....period. there are a fair amount of scintists on both sides.
Click to expand...
That's wrong dude, just like I've told you. If you deny ACC at this point, you stand alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Go read those articles and stop spreading propaganda.
global warming is more advanced than the others. the reason is that govt has figured out a way to take more money from people so they have given it the utmost attention. i am not williing to go quietly this time. i have a good job and business and i am having a hard time getting by. i am not afraid to work, any work. its hard to come by. and i hae nothing lavish at all. the economy is a total wreck, people are struggling and these bastards want more.

if they take any more of my money i will seriously consider shutin off tv or phone service. its that tight from where i am right now. everyone is on welfare and i am to proud to take handouts so i work longer and harder. i am at my max for my age. i cannot work any harder. and these rotten cock suckers want to tax my energy for some phantom sickness that is strictly a religion to its followers. its a punish big oil scam by fucking the llittle people at the bottom. i ant going away quetly on this one pad. this one is serious for me and the country. and it deserves everyones attention. its a huge money grab for govt of monumental proportion. and it will continue to grow bigger and more intrusive just like the gas tax.

the average gas tax in the us is 50 cents a gal. at every stage in the oil business the company makes about 10 cents. so drillers make 10 haulers make ten, refinery makes 10 haulers make 10 provider makes 10. this isnt exact but its very very close within 10%. so the govt is making 5 times profits, and i might add that these are windfall prophets. i am sure you have heard that term used. the only leg in the game that makes winfall profits is the govt. every one else eans it. yet those same bastards call the oil companies winfall profits but they arent, they were earned. so fuck global warming even if it is happening. in another 10 years we will figure out that nuclear is the way to go on car engines and everything.....problem solved with zero to no pain. the market will fix this pad, the market will fix this.....watch. :hug:
Click to expand...
Have you ever read the legislation? Be honest with me. The bills, the taxes being imposed.. do you know the details or just things you've heard?

I'll reply to the rest of the post after work.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
Well, I turned up the temps in my flower cab to 95 and my veg layer down to 55. I figure I can get by just fine in either temp, so fuck it.
 
iivan740

iivan740

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
A Give me ten scientists who are in opposition to ACC.
Click to expand...
Here are a few just to get you started:
Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, PhD, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron, Ralph F. Abate, Hamed K. Abbas, PhD, Paul Abbett, Wyatt E. Abbitt III, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD, David M. Abbott Jr., Frank D. Abbott, Paul Abbott, Donald W. Abbott, Douglas R. Abbott, David J. Abbott, Eugene Abbott, Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD
PadawanBater said:
A Give me ten scientists who are in opposition to ACC.
Click to expand...
And here a few more just for you:
Riaz F. Abdulla, PhD, Albert S. Abdullah, DVM, Alan E. Abel, Jason Abel, Janis I. Abele, Joseph M. Abell, Robert E. Abell, Gene H. Abels, MD, Philip H. Abelson, PhD*, Wayne Aben, Jerrold Abernathy, Marshall W. Abernathy, Grady L. Ables, Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD, Robert C. Abrams, Carl M. Abrams, Alan V. Abrams, MD, Paul B. Abramson, PhD, Jose L. Abreu Jr., Joe L. Abriola Jr., Ahmed E. Aburahmah, PhD, Austin R. Ace, David A. Acerni, John W. Achee Sr., Billy R. Achmbaugh, Paul Achmidt, Daniel T. Achord, PhD,
PadawanBater said:
That's wrong dude, just like I've told you. If you deny ACC at this point, you stand alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Go read those articles and stop spreading propaganda.
Click to expand...
Since were gonna use wiki, here's a wiki pages for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

and then theres this from the US senate committee on enviromental and public works:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

O' And there's that guy James Hansen:

http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/12/worlds-leading-global-warming-crusader.html

And the CATO institute:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

And a little light reading:

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so by Lawrence Solomon

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor by Roy W. Spencer

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition by S. Fred Singer

And what about Russel Lewis:

http://www.globalwarminghype.com/upld-book403pdf_.pdf


dukeofbaja said:
Well, I turned up the temps in my flower cab to 95 and my veg layer down to 55. I figure I can get by just fine in either temp, so fuck it.
Click to expand...
Answer these questions please:

1.How far north can you grow outdoors?
2.How far south can you grow outdoors?
3.What is the ambient temp at the northern most point where you can grow outdoors?
4.What is the ambient temp at the southern most point where you can grow outdoors
 
iivan740

iivan740

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
A That's wrong dude, just like I've told you. If you deny ACC at this point, you stand alone.

Go read those articles and stop spreading propaganda.
Click to expand...
Who was that idiot who said that he could sail around the world when all of the scientists said the earth was flat? Talk about a propaganda spreading douche.

Who was that idiot that said that the earth was not the center of everything?
What do you mean the earth revolves around the sun? Don't you know that all the other scientist agree that the earth is the center of everything. Somebody get me a dunce cap for this retard.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
iivan740 said:
Who was that idiot who said that he could sail around the world when all of the scientists said the earth was flat? Talk about a propaganda spreading douche.

Who was that idiot that said that the earth was not the center of everything?
What do you mean the earth revolves around the sun? Don't you know that all the other scientist agree that the earth is the center of everything. Somebody get me a dunce cap for this retard.
Click to expand...

You are close, but completely off. Science has been the thing that corrected such misguided, simpleton beliefs such as flat earth and an earth centered universe. It was generally the uneducated parts of society that believed in flat earth, and religion was mainly behind earth centrism. It took a long time for them to let go of these false beliefs as well. Hell, I bet I can even still find some flat earthers if I look hard enough on Google.

As for the four quesions, I have no fuckin clue to be honest


edit - poop
 
iivan740

iivan740

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
You are close, but completely off. Science has been the thing that corrected such misguided, simpleton beliefs such as flat earth and an earth centered universe. It was generally the uneducated parts of society that believed in flat earth, and religion was mainly behind earth centrism. It took a long time for them to let go of these false beliefs as well. Hell, I bet I can even still find some flat earthers if I look hard enough on Google.
Click to expand...
Your making my point for me, science is constantly changing and "fixing" itself. That's why it's called theory instead of fact. Check the textbooks and you will find that the majority of science is prefaced with "the theory of".
While I agree that the current construct of "science" or the "scientific method" is relatively modern, you can not say that early "scientist" or "thinkers" were misguided, simpletons, or uneducated.
Both of my examples were though to be true by the majority of the people of their respective time. This includes scientists and educated people, wether they were religious beliefs of not both both examples were believed to be true by almost everyone. Both of my examples were took many generations to be proven wrong. However maybe those were bad examples, let me try again.

Remember when the atom was the smallest particle, or when electrons neutrons and protons were the smallest. Recently quarks were the smallest but scientist are revising that as we speak.
The greek postulated the construct of the atom. While they weren't scientists they did have the idea of the atom and called it "atomos". Atomos meaning not cut, uncuttable, or indivisible. Later in the 17th and 18th centruies scientists postulated the concept of an atom as an indivisible component. While the understanding of the atom evolved over the years, it wasn't until the 20th century that scientists realized that the atom was not in fact the smallest particle and that it was in fact able to be split (atomic theory).

dukeofbaja said:
As for the four quesions, I have no fuckin clue to be honest


edit - poop
Click to expand...
I know you can grow outdoors in Ontario Canada and in Afghanistan, but like you I have no idea of the average temprature (I know I said ambient, I wasn't thinking) of the two locations. All I know is that one is very cold and one is very hot.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
iivan740 said:
Here are a few just to get you started:
Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, PhD, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron, Ralph F. Abate, Hamed K. Abbas, PhD, Paul Abbett, Wyatt E. Abbitt III, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD, David M. Abbott Jr., Frank D. Abbott, Paul Abbott, Donald W. Abbott, Douglas R. Abbott, David J. Abbott, Eugene Abbott, Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD
Click to expand...
1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn’t find any person by that name in connection to any scientific field, let alone climate science. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

3. Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery”). Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I’m sure has some bearing on climate change).

5. M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

Compare these to the first five authors alpha listed for the IPCC AR4 WG1 The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change:

1. Krishna Achutarao. Research Scientist at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Relevant publications: plenty.

2. Robert Adler. NASA Senior Scientist in the Laboratory for Atmospheres and is also currently serving as Project Scientist for the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM). Relevant publications: plenty.

3. Lisa Alexander. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Relevant publications: plenty.

4. Hans Alexandersson. Climatologist at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Relevant publications: plenty.

5. Richard Allan. Atmospheric scientist, Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading. Relevant publications: plenty.

And here a few more just for you:
Click to expand...
Clearly not necessary...

Since were gonna use wiki, here's a wiki pages for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

and then theres this from the US senate committee on enviromental and public works:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6
Click to expand...
Same problem with this source.

O' And there's that guy James Hansen:

http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/12/worlds-leading-global-warming-crusader.html
Click to expand...
He's arguing against Cap and Trade, I'm arguing in favor of ACC. He supports ACC;

In 2003 Hansen wrote a paper called Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb[30]where he argues that human-caused forces on the climate are now greater than natural ones, and that this, over a long time period, can cause large climate changes. He further states that a lower limit on “dangerous anthropogenic interference” is set by the stability of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. His view on actions to mitigate climate change is that "halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented international cooperation, but the needed actions are feasible and have additional benefits for human health, agriculture and the environment."

On public policy, Hansen is critical of what he sees as efforts to mislead the public on the issue of climate change. He points specifically to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's commercials with the tagline "carbon dioxide—they call it pollution, we call it life",[52] and politicians who accept money from fossil fuel interests and then describe global warming as "a great hoax."[53] He also says that changes needed to reduce global warming do not require hardship or reduction in the quality of life, but will also produce benefits such as cleaner air and water, and growth of high-tech industries.
And the CATO institute:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

And a little light reading:

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so by Lawrence Solomon

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor by Roy W. Spencer

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition by S. Fred Singer

And what about Russel Lewis:

http://www.globalwarminghype.com/upld-book403pdf_.pdf




Answer these questions please:

1.How far north can you grow outdoors?
2.How far south can you grow outdoors?
3.What is the ambient temp at the northern most point where you can grow outdoors?
4.What is the ambient temp at the southern most point where you can grow outdoors
Click to expand...
Get the rest later..
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
iivan740 said:
Who was that idiot who said that he could sail around the world when all of the scientists said the earth was flat? Talk about a propaganda spreading douche.
Click to expand...
...Where does this shit come from? Honestly. I see all the time from people here. Dude. Think this through... The people who thought the Earth was flat were the uneducated going by MYTH.

During the 19th century, the RomanticDark Age" gave much more prominence to the Flat Earth model than it ever possessed historically. It is a modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. During the early Middle Ages, many scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead. Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

FAIL.

conception of a European "

Who was that idiot that said that the earth was not the center of everything?
What do you mean the earth revolves around the sun? Don't you know that all the other scientist agree that the earth is the center of everything. Somebody get me a dunce cap for this retard.
Click to expand...
...gah, again man. Are you honestly making the claim that the scientists, the people doing the actual experiments, ya know, guys like Nicolaus Copernicus and Isaac Newton, were the ones who thought otherwise...? Do you see how retarded this is? The SCIENTISTS are the ones who figured the shit out by running experiments and taking measurements - most of the time against the threat of exile or death - not the layman.
 
iivan740

iivan740

Well-Known Member
First off Global warming isn't (ACC) Antarctic Circumpolar Current, or are you trying to shovel this (ACC) anthropogenic climate change as GLOBAL WARMING. Just because they change the name from manmade global warming to anthropogenic global warming to climate change to anthropogenic climate change doesn't change that fact that there is no proof other than doctored data and inaccurate reports that are put forth by a closed group (ipcc) unwilling to accept that their ideas are poorly contrived theory. Quite trying to shovel misguided theory as scientific fact, remember it's theory until PROVEN. I haven't heard anyone here deny that the climate is changing, however noone can PROVE that climate change is mankinds fault.

How about a 2009 senate report on 700 scientists who don't buy the ipcc lies and hype:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=97184&CFTOKEN=48248935

How about:
Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clark
Professor Philip Stott, British biogeographer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott
Professor Paul Reiter, former ipcc and medical entomology
Professor Richard Lindez, former ippc and Professor of Meterology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Professor Patrick Michaels, former Professor of Environmental Sciences and Seniopr Fellow CATO Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D in geophysics and Founding Director International Artic Research Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu
Professor Tim Ball, Environmental consultant and former professor of Geography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
Environmentalist Patrick Moore, Co-founder Greenpeace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

Pada; Claudius Ptolemy was the most influential of Greek astronomers and geographers of his time. He propounded the geocentric theory that prevailed for 1400 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy . And Aristotle and his geocentric model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle . Would you say these men were uneducated or going on myth.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
The change from global warming to climate change (and now to climate destabilization) is not some sort of smoking gun, as you might think. They are simply more accurate ways to describe the same phenomenon.

With respect to Aristotle and Ptolemy, they were going on myth. It posed problems for their philosophy to see us as anything other than the center of the universe. In fact, there were Greeks that posited a heliocentric system ....

Aristarchus of Samos was the most radical. He wrote a work, which has not survived, on heliocentrism, saying that the Sun was at the center of the universe, while the Earth and other planets revolved around it.[10] His theory was not popular, and he had one named follower, Seleucus of Seleucia.[11]

But telescopes weren't invented until a long time later. Even then, there were holdouts for a long time after...a lot of modern day ACC deniers strike me as having similarities with Tyco Brahe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_system

And what do you know? A lot of holdouts still persist in believing the geocentric model, despite all evidence to the contrary... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Modern_geocentrism

EDIT - in case you are too busy to click on the link, I'll just say it: About 1 in 5 folks still believes the sun revolves around the earth! Not sure how accurate this really is, but it just goes to show....
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
iivan740 said:
there is no proof other than doctored data and inaccurate reports that are put forth by a closed group .... Quite trying to shovel misguided theory as scientific fact, remember it's theory until PROVEN. I haven't heard anyone here deny that the climate is changing, however noone can PROVE that climate change is mankinds fault.
Click to expand...
Most theories can never be proven. However, there can be more evidence to support one theory than the other. In this case, there is a ton more evidence to support the theory of ACC then there is to the contrary. Not ALL of the data is doctored, for fuck sake
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
iivan740 said:
First off Global warming isn't (ACC) Antarctic Circumpolar Current, or are you trying to shovel this (ACC) anthropogenic climate change as GLOBAL WARMING. Just because they change the name from manmade global warming to anthropogenic global warming to climate change to anthropogenic climate change doesn't change that fact that there is no proof other than doctored data and inaccurate reports that are put forth by a closed group (ipcc) unwilling to accept that their ideas are poorly contrived theory. Quite trying to shovel misguided theory as scientific fact, remember it's theory until PROVEN. I haven't heard anyone here deny that the climate is changing, however noone can PROVE that climate change is mankinds fault.

How about a 2009 senate report on 700 scientists who don't buy the ipcc lies and hype:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=97184&CFTOKEN=48248935

How about:
Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clark
Professor Philip Stott, British biogeographer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott
Professor Paul Reiter, former ipcc and medical entomology
Professor Richard Lindez, former ippc and Professor of Meterology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Professor Patrick Michaels, former Professor of Environmental Sciences and Seniopr Fellow CATO Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D in geophysics and Founding Director International Artic Research Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu
Professor Tim Ball, Environmental consultant and former professor of Geography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
Environmentalist Patrick Moore, Co-founder Greenpeace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

Pada; Claudius Ptolemy was the most influential of Greek astronomers and geographers of his time. He propounded the geocentric theory that prevailed for 1400 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy . And Aristotle and his geocentric model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle . Would you say these men were uneducated or going on myth.
Click to expand...

Dude, are you reading my posts? I just told you that list of 650 "skeptics" is made up of people who don't have shit to do with studying the climate, a few of them are even deceased, and this new link you gave me has professors of physics making claims that they're skeptical of ACC, which makes about as much sense as a climatologist being skeptical of the theory of relativity...

That was a senate minority report - you couldn't tell it would be riddled with political bias?

But take a look at this in perspective - you're using the exact same argument the creationists use against the theory of evolution. You sit here and say "look how many people disagree!!" - without noticing how many people actually agree - that would be THOUSANDS with over 40 international scientific institutes. You have a questionable list of 700 names motivated by politics and not concerned with science. Bravo.

I would say they were ignorant to modern astronomy.
 
iivan740

iivan740

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
Dude, are you reading my posts? I just told you that list of 650 "skeptics" is made up of people who don't have shit to do with studying the climate, a few of them are even deceased, and this new link you gave me has professors of physics making claims that they're skeptical of ACC, which makes about as much sense as a climatologist being skeptical of the theory of relativity...

That was a senate minority report - you couldn't tell it would be riddled with political bias?
Click to expand...
Would 32000 scientists be enough? How many are behind the ipcc?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Do you expect me to believe that there is nothing political about the ipcc? Come on now,really. The ipcc is a purely scientific pursuit!!!!! OKKKKK
dukeofbaja said:
Most theories can never be proven. However, there can be more evidence to support one theory than the other. In this case, there is a ton more evidence to support the theory of ACC then there is to the contrary. Not ALL of the data is doctored, for fuck sake
Click to expand...
I never heard the ipcc call acc it a theory.
This document has more about how the ipcc twists the science and uses scientists names but not their work to prove acc. It also show how the ipcc uses proxy data and ignores real data when it conflicts with the ipcc agenda.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_SCIENCE_MANDATE.pdf

Heres a part of the document:
" The ipcc once again violated their scientific mandate by not stating that the observed warming was only 0.60C rendering the limit of human influence to the insignificant amount of just 0.1C per century. Instead of acting in accordance with science protocols the ipcc attempted political damage control by adopting a temperature proxy of one of its own lead authors that eliminated the LIA allowing the ipcc to demonstrate that the entire 0.60C +/- 0.20C of measured warming was likely due to humans."
" This temperature proxy known as MBH98 for the initials of the authors, and the year that it was published. The peer revier that allowed this temperature proxy into the database did not even address the fact that this study was contrary to all existing temperature procies as well as anecdotal historical evidence for the LIA."

Now does that sound like sound scientific research or junk science?
 
jeff f

jeff f

New Member
PadawanBater said:
...Where does this shit come from? Honestly. I see all the time from people here. Dude. Think this through... The people who thought the Earth was flat were the uneducated going by MYTH.

During the 19th century, the RomanticDark Age" gave much more prominence to the Flat Earth model than it ever possessed historically. It is a modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. During the early Middle Ages, many scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead. Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

FAIL.



...gah, again man. Are you honestly making the claim that the scientists, the people doing the actual experiments, ya know, guys like Nicolaus Copernicus and Isaac Newton, were the ones who thought otherwise...? Do you see how retarded this is? The SCIENTISTS are the ones who figured the shit out by running experiments and taking measurements - most of the time against the threat of exile or death - not the layman.
Click to expand...
yes it was the scientists who beleived it. it was even taught in schools until advancement in equiptment and technique to prove otherwise. pretty much how all science works.
 
Big P

Big P

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
all these links and facts and studies.


ever try going outside?
Click to expand...

you mean that big blue room they got there with that bright ass orange thing in it?


no thanks that man ima just play my video games


outside lol come on man lolz quit playin:bigjoint:



:shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top