How to save the earth according to flat earther and people that believe in the physics of fast and the furious

submitted by Tom_BombadilBombadildo from 9gag.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Are you trying to insinuate that a non acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is equivalent to believing the earth is flat? Because if so that's more fucking retarded than believing the earth is flat.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are you trying to insinuate that a non acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is equivalent to believing the earth is flat?

Yes.

Because if so that's more fucking retarded than believing the earth is flat.

The arguments against AGW are about as convoluted as those for the earth being flat. And can be refuted as comprehensively if you look at the evidence.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The are not equivalent. And it's fucking retarded to assume they are for a very simple reason.

The shape of the Earth is something that anyone today yesterday or tomorrow can check for themselves. You can do the same experiments that have been done for thousands of years. They are in no way shape or form reliant on past evidence. If all the writings records and evidence of the past disappeared tomorrow it would be pedestrian to reestablish the roundness of the earth with a simple self contained experiment.

Anthropogenic climate change is different because in order to establish it it does require you to compare current measurements with historical measurements. And you can't "re take" historical measurements. So no individual can in and of themselves establish this without referring to a wider scientific body which opens up far more questions for legitimacy accuracy and motive than a simple experiment to prove the shape of the Earth where all these factors can easily be removed and the experiment redone by literally anyone with any motivation.

This is not an argument for saying that the evidence we do have is necessarily false. But comparing the two issues as if they are the same is beyond retarded and betrays an utter lack of any sort of critical thought. One can just stick pole in the ground and measure it's shadow for themselves. One cannot simply measure the temperature in 1850 and compare that with the temperature today.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The are not equivalent.

Yeah they are.

Go on. Try a climate change denial argument. It'll be utterly retarded.

The shape of the Earth is something that anyone today yesterday or tomorrow can check for themselves.

Not that immediately overcomes all the daft arguments that flat earthers have. Unless by "anyone" you mean "anyone with a space rocket"

Anthropogenic climate change is different because in order to establish it it does require you to compare current measurements with historical measurements.

You just have to know the absorbance spectrum of CO2, and know that CO2 concentration is increasing.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Unless by "anyone" you mean "anyone with a space rocket"

Anyone with a pendulum. Or anyone with two sticks and the ability to travel. Or anyone with a laser and a couple of mirrors.

There's numerous ways to prove it yourself if you want. Only a retard would think going into space is necessary. We've known the earth is round millennia before spaceflight.

I can easily repeat Aristotle's experiment. I can't repeat historical climate records. If you can't see the difference it's because you're being purposely obtuse.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Anyone with a pendulum.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

Or anyone with two sticks and the ability to travel. Or anyone with a laser and a couple of mirrors.

That only shows that there's a curve to the shape of the disc of the earth.

There's numerous ways to prove it yourself if you want. Only a retard would think going into space is necessary. We've known the earth is round millennia before spaceflight.

By the same token, only a retard would think that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. We've known that for 50 years before space flight.

I can easily repeat Aristotle's experiment.

What was Aristotle's experiment?

I can't repeat historical climate records.

You can look them up. And there's numerous ways to prove AGW without them.

If you can't see the difference it's because you're being purposely obtuse.

Basic physics denial is basic physics denial. Neither AGW nor the spheroid shape of the planet requires anything that Newton didn't know.

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actuallynot is a pharma+global warming shill.

Probably socks.