Behind the Curve: Netflix Flat-Earther Doc

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by notorious

I have a tendency to neither agree nor disagree with a model based on actual data collected over .00000000000000000001% of the Earth’s history.

That’s not being a conspiracy theorist or a blind believer. That’s thinking like a normal human being.

If the ****ers came out and said "sea levels will rise by X feet by Y year," and it actually happened, I'd believe them.

But no, they're like the whore who swears she'll never cheat on you again, and then next week you catch her ****ing the mailman. And of course, after that, she'll never cheat on you again.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by notorious

I have a tendency to neither agree nor disagree with a model based on actual data collected over .00000000000000000001% of the Earth’s history.

That’s not being a conspiracy theorist or a blind believer. That’s thinking like a normal human being.

Exactly.

[Rivaldo]

Originally Posted by notorious

I have a tendency to neither agree nor disagree with a model based on actual data collected over .00000000000000000001% of the Earth’s history.

That’s not being a conspiracy theorist or a blind believer. That’s thinking like a normal human being.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Exactly.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...e-core-basics/

Ice sheets have one particularly special property. They allow us to go back in time and to sample accumulation, air temperature and air chemistry from another time[1]. Ice core records allow us to generate continuous reconstructions of past climate, going back at least 800,000 years[2]. By looking at past concentrations of greenhouse gasses in layers in ice cores, scientists can calculate how modern amounts of carbon dioxide and methane compare to those of the past, and, essentially, compare past concentrations of greenhouse gasses to temperature.

Guess if you two mongoloids weren't present to personally take samples of the atmospheric constituents, the findings are suspect.

Your redefinition of 800,000 years to .00000000000000000001% of the Earth’s history is as fragile a notion as any, and in any case a reframing of the language to attempt to make the question appear unanswerable. Not to mention, any cited data on the age of the planet is a scientific finding you're curiously suddenly accepting of.

You're both denialist idiots.