[LoveScience]

In FE Wiki under temperature variations it describes how the intensity of sunlight is greater at the equator than it is at the poles.  I quite agree with this and would point out that the same principle applies to RET.

I am assuming that the purpose of FE Wiki is primarily to gather and reference evidence to support FET, how does this particular inclusion help the case for FET?

[Curiosity File]

In FE Wiki under temperature variations it describes how the intensity of sunlight is greater at the equator than it is at the poles.  I quite agree with this and would point out that the same principle applies to RET.

I am assuming that the purpose of FE Wiki is primarily to gather and reference evidence to support FET, how does this particular inclusion help the case for FET?

I'll go read the the write up in their wiki but at first glance my thoughts would be they ARE describing round earth. Because that's exactly what happens from equator to poles directly due to curvature.
But I see what you're saying, if their presentations are supposed to be unique to FE or bring evidence of a flat earth to the table or that support TFET this isn't making their case.
However I think you'll find that they often link observable real world events to their FE hypothesis in a vague manner that leads the reader in a direction to make assumptions based on little information.

(and they admit they need more and add more info to their wiki as it becomes available)

As in your case here, if they didn't specifically say this is unique to FE and couldn't happen on RE, it only leaves you to make assumptions.   I guess it's one way to avoid chimerical stories with so much information one can easily  pick them apart. But I'm making assumption her because like I said I haven't read those parts in their wiki yet.   

[LoveScience]

I am gradually working my way through FE Wiki with fine tooth comb to look at all the evidence presented.  Since FE Wiki seems to be the only central source of reference to the description of FET presented anywhere on the Internet I would have thought ambiguities like this is not doing a great deal of good to the cause.


If the main reason for supporting or promoting a FE model is purely because they dismiss and discredit all scientific progress made during the last couple of centuries then I wish them the best of luck with that.   

[Curiosity File]

Try looking in "Recent Changes" for not only corrected mistake and/or flaws or new info, but newer or up to date experiments new or redone old ones that produced more information with more details etc.
I saw that Tom Bishop made several changes Dec 8th to The 'Coriolis Effect' but I didn't have time to examine anything and probably wont have time until tomorrow. A lot of people have been asking for more details so, for example, they can reproduce some of the personal experiments of FE claims to see what results THEY get. 
Good luck good hunting.     

[Curiosity File]

What section is that "Temp variations " ?

[LoveScience]

Here you go...

https://wiki.tfes.org/Temperature_Variations

It is just a simple statement that says if the energy from a light source is directed towards a surface, the intensity will be greater per unit area if the surface is perpendicular to the direction where the energy is directed from than if the surface was placed at an oblique angle.  This true regardless of whether you accept FET or RET.  Physicists like to call this flux density.

In fact the solar constant is defined as the amount of energy (bolometric energy) from the Sun falling per unit time on a square of sides unit length (1 sqm) at a distance of 1AU. Comes to about 1.4kw at the equator believe it or not. Rather less than that as we move away from the equator towards the poles.