Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The idea of 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stripe
    replied
    Notice how consistent Barbarian is: When the issue of evidence of raised, he runs for the hills.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Hobie View Post
    The thing is that is our future, there is no way around it, nobody is going to stop living the way they do or give their fast and furious $52,000 Mustang or $57,000 F150 Monster truck, and walk or bicycle to work. Just aint going to happen.........
    For the short term, I think you're right. Maybe not long-term.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Barbarian refuses to answer simple questions:
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    How does a convection current form in rock? How does a convection current form when rock contracts as it heats up at pressures found in the mantle?
    Show us that. Imaginative stories are not a substitute for evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    As you suggest, the number of category 3 and higher storms has increased:



    However,the number of storms has not increased. We're getting about the same number of storms. The warmer oceans just mean that they are stronger than in the past.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    ...means slower rise of oceans than would otherwise be.
    Darwinists have this innate sense that somehow a global water-based event is important.
    Last edited by Stripe; August 28th, 2019, 01:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Hobie View Post
    "Already, there is evidence that the winds of some storms may be changing. A study based on more than two decades of satellite altimeter data (measuring sea surface height) showed that hurricanes intensify significantly faster now than they did 25 years ago. Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s. Another satellite-based study found that global wind speeds had increased by an average of 5 percent over the past two decades.
    Warmer oceans mean more energy therein, and that means bigger (not necessarily more frequent) storms.

    There is also evidence that extra water vapor in the atmosphere is making storms wetter.
    That actually has one good effect. It means that there will be mores snow at the poles. And over Greenland and Antarctica, more snowpack means slower rise of oceans than would otherwise be.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Darwinists love it when the discussion is over who said what. They think it's evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • User Name
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    His Wikipedia page says this about him.

    Hardly the expertise that we were looking for.
    Gregory C. McIntosh is a scholar of the history of cartography and geographical explorations, particularly of the Americas in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, and vice president of the California Map Society. This article was adapted from his book, The Piri Reis Map of 1513, published by the University of Georgia Press:

    Some have supposed the land shown to the south of the Atlantic Ocean to be a depiction of Antarctica, predating the continent’s discovery in the 1820s by three hundred years. This representation of prehistoric Antarctica is supposed to have been copied from ancient maps made tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of years ago. Of the several writers who have made this claim, the best known is Charles Hapgood, author of Maps of the Ancient Sea-Kings (1966). But there appears to be little basis for such assertions, beyond the fact that the Piri Reis Map illustrates a land located south of the Atlantic Ocean, and Antarctica also is located south of the Atlantic Ocean. Piri was not the first or the last to show this southern continent, but because of Hapgood’s book his map has become famous for its supposed depiction of prehistoric Antarctica.

    Hapgood assumed that the original source maps, resulting from an ancient survey of Antarctica, were accurate. He also assumed that the differences between the depictions on the Piri Reis Map and the depictions on these accurate (but unknown) source maps were the result of copying errors made during the compilation of the Piri Reis Map. With these two basic assumptions it was an easy matter for Hapgood to move landmasses, adjust scales, alter orientations, rearrange landforms, redraw coastlines, twist the geographical depictions, and “correct errors” on the Piri Reis Map to match his hypothetical source maps.

    Additionally, to identify features on the Piri Reis Map with features on a modern map, Hapgood ignored the place-names inscribed upon the map — inscriptions that not only tell us what Piri Reis himself said the features were, but also match the place-names of many other maps from the early sixteenth century to the present. Of course, it is not too difficult to make a coastline on an old map look like another coastline on a modern map if one is allowed to change it.

    In the 1960s several popular writers, including Erich von Däniken, adopted Hapgood’s conclusion that the Piri Reis Map depicts an ice-free Antarctica, and repeated it as proven. To explain this “fact” the writers asserted that the survey of Antarctica must have been made by extraterrestrials (or, alternatively, people from Atlantis) who left accurate maps later copied into the Piri Reis Map. However, the depiction of the southern land on the Piri Reis Map does not even look like the coast of Antarctica — with or without its mantle of ice — as these writers claimed. There is little or no resemblance between Piri’s southern land and Antarctica...


    Source: http://www.diegocuoghi.com/Piri_Reis...h_PiriReis.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by User Name View Post
    The author of the "fringepop321" article is Dr. Michael S. Heiser. Who is Dr. Heiser? He is a biblical scholar and an authority on ancient history. Here is a link to his Wikipedia page for more detailed information about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Heiser
    His Wikipedia page says this about him.
    His area of expertise is the nature of the spiritual realm in the Bible, namely the Divine council and hierarchy of the spiritual order.
    Hardly the expertise that we were looking for.

    Leave a comment:


  • User Name
    replied
    Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
    So, to you a site named fringepop321 sounds like a real reliable source of information. Why? Explain why it is unbiased, reliable, and soundly vetted.
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    The author of the "fringepop321" article is Dr. Michael S. Heiser. Who is Dr. Heiser? He is a biblical scholar and an authority on ancient history. Here is a link to his Wikipedia page for more detailed information about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Heiser

    As you can see, Dr. Heiser is a credible, reliable source.

    The author of the other article I linked to (The Piri Reis Map) is Steven Dutch, who is Vice President of the Department of Natural and Applied Sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. (He also happens to be a Christian.) Another reputable, credible, reliable source.

    Both of these sources refute the claims made about the Piri Reis Map regarding Antarctica. Dr. Heiser goes one step further in this video:

    Dr. Heiser - Piri Reis Map


    At the 9:22 mark in the above video, Dr. Heiser explains that Charles Hapgood (the source cited in the article Freeloader linked to) fraudulently edited the Piri Reis Map in an attempt to use the map as evidence to justify his pseudoscientific theory of "crust displacement."

    And that, my friends, is how you vet your sources.
    Last edited by User Name; August 21st, 2019, 12:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Links and sources are all that user name has; when he tries to speak for himself, it quickly becomes obvious how little he understands.

    It's fine not to understand; the problems arise when they refuse to recognize their ignorance.

    Leave a comment:


  • ffreeloader
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    LOL. It wasn't meant to be funny. It was just an observation on user name's concept of vetted, reliable sources.

    Leave a comment:


  • ffreeloader
    replied
    Originally posted by User Name View Post
    It's called vetting your sources: https://myelms.umd.edu/courses/10828...ty-of-evidence <-- Look it up. Learn it, love it, and live it. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation being passed around on the internet as if it were gospel truth. If you guys would vet your sources, you'd embarrass yourselves a lot less often.
    Wow. Who would ever have thought of all that? You evolutionists must be some kind of super geniuses to come up with those ideas. We creationists must be complete fools not to vet our sources. Oh, by the way, who vets your sources for you? More evolutionists?

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
    So, to you a site named fringepop321 sounds like a real reliable source of information.

    Leave a comment:


  • ffreeloader
    replied
    Originally posted by User Name View Post
    Some have supposed the land shown to the south of the Atlantic Ocean to be a depiction of Antarctica, predating the continent’s discovery in the 1820s by three hundred years. This representation of prehistoric Antarctica is supposed to have been copied from ancient maps made tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of years ago. Of the several writers who have made this claim, the best known is Charles Hapgood, author of Maps of the Ancient Sea-Kings (1966). But there appears to be little basis for such assertions, beyond the fact that the Piri Reis Map illustrates a land located south of the Atlantic Ocean, and Antarctica also is located south of the Atlantic Ocean. Piri was not the first or the last to show this southern continent. …

    Hapgood assumed that the original source maps, resulting from an ancient survey of Antarctica, were accurate. He also assumed that the differences between the depictions on the Piri Reis Map and the depictions on these accurate (but unknown) source maps were the result of copying errors made during the compilation of the Piri Reis Map. With these two basic assumptions it was an easy matter for Hapgood to move landmasses, adjust scales, alter orientations, rearrange landforms, redraw coastlines, twist the geographical depictions, and “correct errors” on the Piri Reis Map to match his hypothetical source maps.

    Additionally, to identify features on the Piri Reis Map with features on a modern map, Hapgood ignored the place-names inscribed upon the map—inscriptions that not only tell us what Piri Reis himself said the features were, but also match the place-names of many other maps from the early sixteenth century to the present.


    Source: https://www.fringepop321.com/the-piri-reis-map.htm
    So, to you a site named fringepop321 sounds like a real reliable source of information. Why? Explain why it is unbiased, reliable, and soundly vetted.

    One more question for you. When you evaluate data do you start at a completely neutral, completely unbiased starting point, and use that as your starting point for evaluating the data in front of you? Or, do you start with your own set of bias points and underlying paradigms?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X