epic fail
military funny
stupid human

Comment on this Politifake

Wasn't long ago the top scientists thought the Earth was flat

Creator: OTC

 Comment using Facebook

terroraustralis - October 1, 2014, 2:45 pm,
3000 years is actually a pretty long time... and "Scientists" didnt exist until the 1600's when the scientific method was first created, as a result of the controversy over galileo's imprisonment by the catholic church, because the evidence backed galileo
OTC - October 2, 2014, 8:33 am,
3000 years? I thought Columbus sailed west in 1492 defying the flat earth concensus?
Curlyrocks - October 2, 2014, 11:04 am,
Eratosthenes of Cyrene 276BC- 195BC was the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth and calculate the tilt of the earth's axis. He did all of it by measuring the angle of the sun in 2 different citys in Egypt the southern of which was on
Curlyrocks - October 2, 2014, 11:07 am,
The tropic of cancer, determined with shadows on the summer solstice that the distance between them would be 1/50th of 360 and paid a guy to count his steps as he walked from one to the other.
OTC - October 4, 2014, 6:19 pm,
So science proved the earth was round yet the consensus in 1492 was that the earth was flat. Kinda like science proves the earth naturally heats up and cools down but the consensus is this cycle is man made
OTC - October 4, 2014, 6:23 pm,
You mean the 'term' scientists didn't exist, doesn't mean science didn't exist, or maybe you are saying science didn't exist before 1600?
Curlyrocks - October 4, 2014, 11:31 pm,
Exactly. 90% of those in the "scientific consensus" are just followers saying what they've been told or what will make them popular. Saying the earth is round used to get you burned at the stake but now saing GW isn't man made gets your funding stripped.
Curlyrocks - October 4, 2014, 11:31 pm,
Exactly. 90% of those in the "scientific consensus" are just followers saying what they've been told or what will make them popular. Saying the earth is round used to get you burned at the stake but now saing GW isn't man made gets your funding stripped.
OTC - October 5, 2014, 9:11 am,
Curly, it also gets you called a lot of names.
EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:16 pm,
It also gets one threatened with physical violence
Zeitguy - October 2, 2014, 12:49 am,
Such a ridiculous premise. A blatant attempt to discredit scientific conscensious with ideological rhetoric. Meh.
OTC - October 2, 2014, 5:33 pm,
Scientific conscensious?
Zeitguy - October 2, 2014, 12:50 am,
OTC you're better than that!
Zeitguy - October 3, 2014, 11:42 pm,
Curly you rock.
Zeitguy - October 3, 2014, 11:45 pm,
OTC you are : "Other Than Correct".
OTC - October 4, 2014, 9:38 am,
So I'm wrong about comment #71388? Please enlighten me Z
EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:24 pm,
the anemometer was invented in 1450, the Nürnberg Terrestrial Globe created during the years 1490-1492, England's first printing press in 1476, Da Vinci 1452-1519, did drawings of helicopter, parachute, submarine, centrifigal pump. Yeah, inventors and
EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:24 pm,
scientists were really scarce.
EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:25 pm,
oh, and the gutenberg press in 1450
OTC - October 7, 2014, 9:00 am,
Now ER, we've determined that the term 'scientists' didn't exist in 1492 so logically neither did people who studied science
EmmaRoydes - October 7, 2014, 9:58 am,
Especially if you discount the importance of Nicolaus Copernicus and Georg von Peuerbach.
EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:49 pm,
why don't you grow a set and actually login instead of just using the posting routine to put your comments up? Afraid to be exposed for someone who was banned?
EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:50 pm,
Dwydwyyr - October 8, 2014, 10:06 pm,
Thank you "Emma" for helping me get elected. Could not have done it without you, skippy. Toasting you here in S****horpe as I type. TTFN
OTC - October 4, 2014, 6:15 pm,
Must be that man made global warming thing. Oh wait! its Bush's fault, right?
OTC - October 5, 2014, 12:08 am,
And you think I'm stupid? bwahahahaha
OTC - October 5, 2014, 9:22 am,
I see, you "know" my I.Q. and how I am, and that's based on what, postings on the internet? Did you do any testing to get real data? Or do you just believe it because you don't like what I say? pseudoscience indeed
OTC - October 5, 2014, 12:14 am,
TA says there were no scientists before 1600 and you say there were scientists in 1492, hmmm
EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:18 pm,
Must have been the switchover to the Gregorian calendar in 1582
crankyhead - October 8, 2014, 3:48 pm,
Hey OTC, do you think the scientists in 1492 would have been able to tell me how the biosphere knows enough to react to naturally occurring CO2, but not react to man made CO2? I mean, that really is a fascinating phenomenon, isn't it?
Curlyrocks - October 8, 2014, 6:20 pm,
I can't speak for the biospheres reaction to various CO2, but I can tell you that the scientists of that time didn't react to CO2 by panicking, blaming the rich, killing their industry. Good thing too or the Industrial revolution never would have happened
EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:45 pm,
nice one curly! 5Ls for the comment!
EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:47 pm,
and that, cranky, is where everything goes haywire. The amount of CO2 in the last 20 years has been increasing, but the temperature hasn't been rising. Strange how facts work, eh?
OTC - October 8, 2014, 10:37 pm,
No they wouldn't be able to tell you because you weren't alive back then.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:04 pm,
Curly, don't take this the wrong way, but there is no such thing as 'various CO2' Whether it comes out of a coal plant, a conservative, a cow or a car, CO2 looks and acts the same. Like this: O=C=O.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:05 pm,
So yeah, 5L's for getting Emma to admit she doesn't have a basic comprehension of grade 10 chemistry either. No offence.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:07 pm,
I don't know where you pull your 'facts' from Emma, but in the future, do us all a favour, and try somewhere other than "from your b***". Because those are definitely not the facts.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:08 pm,
OK, OTC. In that case, seeing as how we're both alive right now, why don't you explain it to me. Seeing as how it's your theory and poor, simple me is having difficulty understanding it.
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 1:55 pm,
Citing the latest data from NOAA and NASA, Dr. David Whitehouse, an astrophysicist and academic advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said that the 2013 global surface-temperature records from both entities show the “pause” in warming continues
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 1:57 pm,
CO2 Levels in a chart from NASA can be found at
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 1:58 pm,
so I guess you are saying NASA is in my b***?
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:03 pm,
No, NASA is not in your b***. But your facts came from there. Your graph doesn't show a temperature correlation. When the 'fact' you're stating, isn't supported by the 'proof' you provide, one has to question your 'ability to understand the issue'.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:05 pm,
Here's the NASA proof that directly contradicts your 'uninformed opinion':
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:10 pm,
No, it doesn't, but if you look at the statement based on NASA data and the chart from NASA, an intelligent person could figure it out. Not that I'm accusing you of that.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:11 pm,
An intelligent person did figure it out, and that intelligent person is now trying to show you that the proof you provided doesn't support the claim you're making. *ahem*
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:13 pm,
Let me guess… you're just going to ignore the proof from NASA I provided that actually shows the temperature, right? And then prance around claiming victory, all the while ignoring the glaring lacuna in your own logic?
Dwydwyyr - October 10, 2014, 2:20 pm,
So no evidence then. Whut? There's no logic there, just (unsupported) belief since it is generally accepted that NASA stands behind the theory of man-made climate change. You cherry-picked post-hoc data. For a "flattened mouse" you are a big jacka$s. CWYL
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:22 pm,
Curious to note that you still don't want to talk about the temperature data that I found over at the NASA website. Care to explain why not?
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:23 pm,
funny you should ignore the two pieces of information I put up, then whine about ignoring yours.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:24 pm,
You put up ONE link. I looked at it. I didn't say what you thought it said. I went and got a link from the same place that said the opposite of what you said. Can you see the problem with your logic yet?
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:26 pm,
How about using the chart with just the title alone in this pdf:
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:27 pm,
See the problem with NASA data yet?
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:28 pm,
How about looking at the first few graphs in that pdf ant realizing that they contradict your claim too?
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:31 pm,
Which is it Emma? Does the data from NASA agree with your claim, or does it disagree with your claim? I'm not sure you understand the optics of pretending it does one and then the other. Just saying.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:32 pm,
Are you planning on addressing the temperature data I pulled from NASA, or are you going to be predictable and just pretend it doesn't exist?
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:33 pm,
then again, you could go to this link: and see that they admit there's a pause
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:36 pm,
and you could go to the arctic sea ice news and a***ysis site and see that this year set a record in the amount of sea ice
EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:36 pm,
and we all know that sea ice comes from warming temperatures, right?
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:38 pm,
So, you're just going to ignore it then, I see. Good for you Emma.
crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:43 pm,
Speaking of sea ice, care to take a guess what the data from NASA says about that?
Curlyrocks - October 10, 2014, 9:24 pm,
I meant to say "various sources of CO2 but ran out of room and figured it could go 1st. We only got 255 letters to make our comments so they can't be too long and sometimes important words get lost. It reminds me of back in the day when I was a kid and...
Curlyrocks - October 10, 2014, 9:27 pm,
Last I checked the maximum decline of the ice in summer was getting better and better. Still won't tell you how thick the ice is though.
OTC - October 11, 2014, 1:09 pm,
So ER put up a link that said the opposite of what you said before you said it, impressive
OTC - October 11, 2014, 1:16 pm,
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
crankyhead - October 12, 2014, 1:30 pm,
What are you referring to as false cause OTC? You're the guy promoting the 'CO2 isn't CO2' magical beans theory.
crankyhead - October 12, 2014, 1:32 pm,
No, actually, Emma put up a link that said the opposite of what SHE said it did. The rest of the conversation was just her trying to deflect the fact that she did it.
crankyhead - October 12, 2014, 1:37 pm,
Seeing as how ice forms on the surface of water, and not underneath it, and that volume is measured in three dimensions, whereas surface area is not, without accurately measuring the physical depth of the ice, what can we conclude about the data set?
OTC - October 20, 2014, 1:37 pm,
Show me where i said CO2 isn't CO2 crank
EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 3:40 pm,
Antarctic ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. Some Arctic regions are covered with ice that is 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) thick.
EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 3:49 pm,
The ice cap that covers Antarctica is more than 2100 meters thick in places, more than two kilometers (1.3 miles). This is where most of the world's fresh water is contained. If it melted completely it would raise sea levels by 61 meters (200 feet).
EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 3:50 pm,
Its average thickness is about 1.6 km. The deepest known ice rests 2,555 meters below sea level, where the ice is over 4 kilometers thick.
EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 4:02 pm,
The first one was from and the second one is from
OTC - March 11, 2015, 1:43 pm,
You're wrong faux, scientists didn't exist back then. It must be true, see first comment by TA
fauxnews - March 11, 2015, 1:55 pm,
TA was making fun of you trying to compare the state of science in the distant past to that of modern science - in that sense, it's not the same. A lot has changed since then. The only thing dumber than that is the fact that I have to explain that to you.
fauxnews - March 11, 2015, 2:00 pm,
Bogus links to non-scientific sites promoting a mindset not shared by the majority of the scientific community and typically promoted by fools and people with something to gain from continuing destructive practices regarding resources. Sorry,not buying it
Start new comment thread
Register in seconds...
Log In