Propaganda and lies from PBS' Nova

Originally posted by @sonhouse
So refresh your POV for my weak mind.

Claim: climate change will lead to significant geographical alterations throughout the world.
Many of the geographical areas are in highly populated areas, all of which are also home to businesses and other valued properties.

Reality: the majority of those land-dependent ventures are underwritten by various financial mechanisms, i.e., banks, insurance and etc..

In the event that the first claims are accurate, the current reality would reflect that confidence.
Without exception, none of the financial mechanisms are showing even the slightest indication that such claims can be trusted.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Claim: climate change will lead to significant geographical alterations throughout the world.
Many of the geographical areas are in highly populated areas, all of which are also home to businesses and other valued properties.

Reality: the majority of those land-dependent ventures are underwritten by various financial mechanisms, i.e., banks, insurance ...[text shortened]... financial mechanisms are showing even the slightest indication that such claims can be trusted.

Who is claiming that climate change will lead to immediate severe risks throughout the entire world?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Who is claiming that climate change will lead to immediate severe risks throughout the entire world?

Who, indeed.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Who, indeed.

Did you forget the part where the worse effects won't happen for maybe 100 years or more, just getting progressively worse each decade?

Why would a bank ever be worried about stuff projected to happen a century down the road? Would there be some unknown financial mechanism that would make it hard to collect money from loans 40 or so years from now when the changes will just then be obvious even to those with their head in the sand right now?

If an asteroid was proven to be as big as Chixculub 66 million years from now due to hit Earth in 2100, you think banks will what, just fold up, and bankers all board spaceships to Mars or the moon? I don't think banking is your strong suit.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Because the predictions are based on calculations which, regardless of veracity, are only possible with mathematics?
Why ask such a time-wasting question?

There's not a scheduled appointment for the end game, sponsored by climate change results of which I am aware.
Extrapolation of this type has never yielded anything but eventual ridicule, but even ...[text shortened]... uld have been incurred in many areas of the planet... areas upon which business is taking place.

You still have not explained what is wrong with the math.

Business is routinely conducted along fault lines and at the base of volcanoes that are scheduled to erupt in the coming century. Million dollar houses are built in flood plains and in forests with high fire risk. That's what insurance is for.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
You still have not explained what is wrong with the math.

Business is routinely conducted along fault lines and at the base of volcanoes that are scheduled to erupt in the coming century. Million dollar houses are built in flood plains and in forests with high fire risk. That's what insurance is for.

I'm sure Freaky believes volcano eruptions and forest fires are staged by crisis actors.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
London is not even remotely at the greatest risk from climate change.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2059578/global-warming-will-make-winters-in-britain-even-colder-scientists-warn/

LOL. Can't even keep up with your own propaganda.

Originally posted by @whodey
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2059578/global-warming-will-make-winters-in-britain-even-colder-scientists-warn/

LOL. Can't even keep up with your own propaganda.

If you bother to read the link it explains how warming arctic could lead to a more erratic path of the jet stream and this could lead to more frequent severe winter cold snaps in Britain. There is absolutely no suggestion or hint there that this would lower the average annual global temperatures; quite the opposite. This isn't propaganda but valid science.
A local and seasonal lowing of temperature in some but not most parts of the world, just as implied as being possible by the global warming model, obviously doesn't imply a lowering of global temperature thus obviously doesn't contradict the global warming model and you obviously wouldn't convince us here if you suggest the contrary but rather only convince us that you are an idiot.

Originally posted by @whodey
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2059578/global-warming-will-make-winters-in-britain-even-colder-scientists-warn/

LOL. Can't even keep up with your own propaganda.

Why don't you read up on ocean currents before you mouth off like that. It is 100% certain if the ocean currents warming up western Europe disappear they will have bad winters and already those currents are down in terms of flow which also equates to BTU's delivered to UK, Ireland, Scotland and western Europe being less as we speak. Right now climate change is just starting so there can be colder weather in those countries in spite of the increase in global temperatures.

You are so intent on furthering your own agenda you will jump on any bit of news that you think suits your purpose but you really need to vet your sources a bit deeper before you mouth off about propaganda.

Originally posted by @whodey
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2059578/global-warming-will-make-winters-in-britain-even-colder-scientists-warn/

LOL. Can't even keep up with your own propaganda.

It seems to be you having some trouble keeping up, as your article has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I'm sure Freaky believes volcano eruptions and forest fires are staged by crisis actors.

Check your surety.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Check your surety.

Seems a reasonable assumption since you believe Earth is flat, NASA ALWAYS lies, nobody walked on the moon, ISS has no humans inside, ignoring the bigger picture of why ISS is up there at all, I assume you do believe ISS is an actual satellite and that alone is proof Earth is round because it comes around the Earth every 90 minutes and at about 250 miles up is going about 5 miles per second. I wonder how it all got put together with no humans, eh? It is bigger than a football field, there is nothing on Earth capable of lifting 2000 tons of metal all at once in a structure that big in a single rocket so it took dozens of trips but how could robots have done that job since you 'know' there are no humans aboard.
What a load of paranoia you have to fall for all that utter nonsense. It wasn't even foreigners who wrote the first 'nobody went to the moon' books, AMERICANS wrote that book just to make money, they don't seriously believe their own BS, they just want to have a book go viral and make enough money to keep grandma in her townhouse.

And you fall for the whole schmere hook line and sinker.

You think you are seeing across a flat lake with no bulge and with that as your ONLY evidence of your own, fall for the BS tales of the Flat Earthers who don't really believe it either, just a bunch of folks who get together at conventions to party and make believe they think Earth is flat.

You should attend one of those meetings.

You probably already know your cult leader, Mark Sargent, the next convention will be in Nov in Denver. You should definitely go.

https://www.livescience.com/62454-flat-earthers-explain-pac-man-effect.html

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Seems a reasonable assumption since you believe Earth is flat, NASA ALWAYS lies, nobody walked on the moon, ISS has no humans inside, ignoring the bigger picture of why ISS is up there at all, I assume you do believe ISS is an actual satellite and that alone is proof Earth is round because it comes around the Earth every 90 minutes and at about 250 miles u ...[text shortened]... ld definitely go.

https://www.livescience.com/62454-flat-earthers-explain-pac-man-effect.html

So, as per your usual tack, you have nothing.
You cannot satisfactorily answer how distant objects can be visible without resorting to mirages--- and it has been conclusively proven that mirages have nothing to do with their visibility.
Instead, you bring up issues completely unrelated to this topic.

Why?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
So, as per your usual tack, you have nothing.
You cannot satisfactorily answer how distant objects can be visible without resorting to mirages--- and it has been conclusively proven that mirages have nothing to do with their visibility.
Instead, you bring up issues completely unrelated to this topic.

Why?

And you refuse to accept even the most trivial of answers, atmosphere bends light. PERIOD.

And I do notice you made no attempt to answer the other refutations of a flat Earth. So it will remain, you just have your religious stance, since there is zero science in your assessment, you will forever firmly believe Earth is flat, PERIOD, no more discussion needed.

That was your stance the last few years we discussed this, it is now, it will be 40 years from now.

I am sorry for your delusions.

You can't even provide a rationale for Sol going around your flat Earth (I mean your buddies so-called theories) Like it would be held in place as if there was some kind of string on a yo yo, please explain the physics of how that can happen. If I understand it correctly, please correct me if my understanding of all this is wrong, there is this dinner plate shaped Earth, a few miles thick, lets say 20 miles thick, and above this dinner plate Earth is a tiny Sol, few thousand miles across?, and it magically goes around in a circle
a few thousand miles above the dinner plate Earth where we can see it and that supposedly gives us day and night as if it were on a pole a few thousand miles high and like a ball on a tether ball rotating around the pole, of course said pole is invisible but that is what has to happen for Sol to rotate around the top of the dinner plate, but none of that makes a difference to you since you *KNOW* Earth is flat and those details are just to be ignored since no human on Earth can explain the physics behind such nonsense.

So why would some parts be in light and how do you manage absolute darkness on the rest of this dinner plate Earth?

You have to admit if the sun is a relatively tiny sphere above our dinner plate Earth, simple trig says it will be visible all over Earth since it is above the dinner plate at all times.

You can't even provide a rationale for that.

That is only one of the many many problems with the bogus flat Earth.

You also refuse to either understand the absolute fact the stars rotate in opposite directions in the northern hemisphere V the southern hemisphere when on your dinner plate Earth, the rotation would be absolutely identical from any point on the surface of your flat Earth.

You can't rationalize that one away either so you just ignore the implications since that would destroy your religion.

You also deny it being a religion, which is defined as coming from a supernatural source, which you would have to think is going on in order to keep up your dinner plate Earth stance.

There is NO physics that can explain all that, or ANY of that and that in fact makes the flat Earther theory a religion not a science.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
And you refuse to accept even the most trivial of answers, atmosphere bends light. PERIOD.

And I do notice you made no attempt to answer the other refutations of a flat Earth. So it will remain, you just have your religious stance, since there is zero science in your assessment, you will forever firmly believe Earth is flat, PERIOD, no more discussion ...[text shortened]... ll that, or ANY of that and that in fact makes the flat Earther theory a religion not a science.

And you refuse to accept even the most trivial of answers, atmosphere bends light. PERIOD.
Since you are claiming that I am refusing to accept something, you can quote me in such a manner that a reasonable person would conclude that I have actually rejected said item.
And, by “quote,” I mean to say, an actual quote.
Me, in my own words, claiming light doesn’t bend in particular atmospheric conditions.
I put that out there because you won’t be able to find even one instance where I have denied the trivially easy to prove phenomenon of reflection, refraction and diffraction, as it relates to optics.
Here’s a website which covers this topic:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/Reflection,-Refraction,-and-Diffraction

Even a casual read of this--- or any other science-based description thereof--- eliminates “atmosphere bends light” as a satisfactory explanation to the daily observation of distant objects.
This phenomenon has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And I do notice you made no attempt to answer the other refutations of a flat Earth.
Because I am not making a claim related to a flat Earth.

So it will remain, you just have your religious stance, since there is zero science in your assessment, you will forever firmly believe Earth is flat, PERIOD, no more discussion needed.
Stay on topic.

That was your stance the last few years we discussed this, it is now, it will be 40 years from now.
You are demonstrably wrong, so it will be far more profitable to limit your claims and refutations to my actual statements.

The rest of your post focuses on other topics you wish to argue, but I am declining to address, since you are the one bringing them up, not me.