Rama Set

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2014, 02:12:52 PM »
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real.  Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money. 

Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so? 

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2014, 02:34:24 PM »
Also, if Antarctica is surrounding a flat Earth, then, it must have a minimum ice thickness, so what about global warming ???
I, for one, disagree with the global warming denialists out here. The Ice Wall isn't literally all made of ice. It's a bunch of rocks thoroughly covered with ice. If the ice caps ever melt completely, we'll be left with a significantly smaller but equally effective stone wall.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2014, 02:37:22 PM »
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real.  Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money. 

Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so? 

Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?  And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job. 

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2014, 03:05:21 PM »
Sometimes, they even push a little too hard.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Rama Set

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2014, 04:03:02 PM »
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real.  Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money. 

Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so? 

Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?

Of course not.

Quote
  And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job. 

I am challenging your implication that many scientists are only espousing certain views because they are paid to and not because it is the logical conclusion of their work.

Rama Set

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2014, 04:04:55 PM »
Sometimes, they even push a little too hard.

Sure.  There are all sorts of things that happen in every profession.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2014, 04:16:04 PM »
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real.  Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money. 

Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so? 

Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?

Of course not.

Quote
  And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job. 

I am challenging your implication that many scientists are only espousing certain views because they are paid to and not because it is the logical conclusion of their work.

Maybe you are suggesting that, for example, the tobacco scientists did not lie about the health effects of using tobacco? 

Rama Set

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2014, 05:10:26 PM »
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real.  Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money. 

Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so? 

Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?

Of course not.

Quote
  And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job. 

I am challenging your implication that many scientists are only espousing certain views because they are paid to and not because it is the logical conclusion of their work.

Maybe you are suggesting that, for example, the tobacco scientists did not lie about the health effects of using tobacco? 

No.  Reread what I wrote.  You are being absolute, I am not.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2014, 05:23:31 PM »
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real.  Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money. 

Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so? 

Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?

Of course not.

Quote
  And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job. 

I am challenging your implication that many scientists are only espousing certain views because they are paid to and not because it is the logical conclusion of their work.

Maybe you are suggesting that, for example, the tobacco scientists did not lie about the health effects of using tobacco? 

No.  Reread what I wrote.  You are being absolute, I am not.

No, you are suggesting that scientists have never been paid to lie, while I gave a clear example of some that have.  We can play semantic games all day long, if you would like, but that does not change the truth. 

Ghost of V

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2014, 05:43:14 PM »
Well..... Really ?? With all my respect, i'm not sure you have studied science a lot... I'm not particularly against Flat Earth theory (at least i can listen to your arguments) but... There is some scientific EVIDENCE that you cannot disprove, like gravity (and you found something pretty cool stuffs to explain it) and global warming is one of those things (maybe the name warming could be misunderstood, at least its pretty sure that ice is melting in Antarctica and North Pole). By yelling "plot!" everywhere, you're falling into paranoia and that's not a very scientific way to prove your theory... If you say that global warming is a myth, then prove it ! The goal of this forum is to discuss with objective arguments and i'm quite impressed about what has been done so far.
(Sorry for my approximate English, maybe some sentences are nonsense and i apologize for that  :) )


No "plot" yelling involved. There are numerous resources online that give you the facts about global warming, and it all adds up to:  BS.

Don't believe everything you hear on the news.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2014, 05:55:47 PM »
There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real.  Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money. 

Why are you assuming that if scientists state something that does not fit a prevalent theory they are being paid to do so? 

Are you suggesting that the scientists do not get paid?

Of course not.

Quote
  And, whomever is paying them is doing it with the expectation that the scientists produce results, just like any other job. 

I am challenging your implication that many scientists are only espousing certain views because they are paid to and not because it is the logical conclusion of their work.

Maybe you are suggesting that, for example, the tobacco scientists did not lie about the health effects of using tobacco? 

No.  Reread what I wrote.  You are being absolute, I am not.

No, you are suggesting that scientists have never been paid to lie...
No, he isn't.

,
...while I gave a clear example of some that have.  We can play semantic games all day long, if you would like, but that does not change the truth.
And you make it seem like scientists are only ever paid to lie produce the results that their employers are expecting. 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2014, 05:58:37 PM »
The tobacco scientists were not paid by the tobacco companies to lie and say that tobacco is not bad for you, markjo? 

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2014, 06:09:39 PM »
The tobacco scientists were not paid by the tobacco companies to lie and say that tobacco is not bad for you, markjo?
Tobacco scientists employed by the tobacco industry were not the only scientists studying the effects of tobacco.  Also, as I recall, some of the tobacco industry employed scientists did find that tobacco is harmful, but the the tobacco industry suppressed the results.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2014, 06:14:27 PM »
I see, so you admit that I was right. 

Rama Set

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2014, 07:30:59 PM »
No, you are suggesting that scientists have never been paid to lie,

Please quote me on that.  You will find it difficult to do.

Quote
... while I gave a clear example of some that have.  We can play semantic games all day long, if you would like, but that does not change the truth. 

You said:

There is also scientific evidence that says global warming is not real.  Scientists are people, just like you and I, and they will say whatever you want if you pay them enough money.

The bolded section is an obvious attempt to poison the well and should really be disregarded.  You cannot show that this to be true, and if you have specific suspicions about specific scientists making specific claims you believe are lies, you should provide evidence of such, much like you did for the tobacco scientists.  Otherwise you are merely engaging in obfuscation.

The tobacco scientists were not paid by the tobacco companies to lie and say that tobacco is not bad for you, markjo? 

No one is saying that people have never in the past spread deliberate misinformation, but that does not mean that all scientists do so, or that every scientists would do so for the right price tag.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2014, 08:09:26 PM »
So, just because scientists have been shown to lie for a paycheck, that does not mean that they don't all tell the truth today.  Got it.  ::)

Rama Set

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2014, 08:58:24 PM »
So, just because scientists have been shown to lie for a paycheck, that does not mean that they don't all tell the truth today.  Got it.  ::)

Feel better?

Offline feynman

  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #37 on: December 22, 2014, 10:56:19 PM »
No "plot" yelling involved. There are numerous resources online that give you the facts about global warming, and it all adds up to:  BS.

Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
So... what is the truth for you ? Hope i haven't been to rude, it's just that i'm a scientist and i like to have clear views and want to hear new arguments not just "scientists are liar, everybody's wrong". I'm ready to reconsider my point of view, only if you propose me an objective alternative.

Ghost of V

Re: Antarctica
« Reply #38 on: December 22, 2014, 11:05:59 PM »
No "plot" yelling involved. There are numerous resources online that give you the facts about global warming, and it all adds up to:  BS.

Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
So... what is the truth for you ? Hope i haven't been to rude, it's just that i'm a scientist and i like to have clear views and want to hear new arguments not just "scientists are liar, everybody's wrong". I'm ready to reconsider my point of view, only if you propose me an objective alternative.


Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout history. This is easily verified by a few simple Google searches. Global warming, the term and the science associated with it, is all pseudo-science and fear-mongering. Simply put, there has been no catastrophic warming recorded in recent times that hasn't been observed in the past. This is the natural way of things. Temp gradually decreases over time, then suddenly increases in bursts. This is mostly due to universal acceleration accelerating the Earth through different parts of space overtime. The notion that this 'warming' is caused by humanity is also equally absurd.

Offline feynman

  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Antarctica
« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2014, 11:11:00 PM »
No "plot" yelling involved. There are numerous resources online that give you the facts about global warming, and it all adds up to:  BS.

Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
So... what is the truth for you ? Hope i haven't been to rude, it's just that i'm a scientist and i like to have clear views and want to hear new arguments not just "scientists are liar, everybody's wrong". I'm ready to reconsider my point of view, only if you propose me an objective alternative.


Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout history. This is easily verified by a few simple Google searches. Global warming, the term and the science associated with it, is all pseudo-science and fear-mongering. Simply put, there has been no catastrophic warming recorded in recent times that hasn't been observed in the past. This is the natural way of things. Temp gradually decreases over time, then suddenly increases in bursts. This is mostly due to universal acceleration accelerating the Earth through different parts of space overtime. The notion that this 'warming' is caused by humanity is also equally absurd.

In fact no, changes are much much more faster now ! I advise you to watch this video :)