Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That was Copernicus, but no matter. It was because of his observation of the motion of the planets and math. Not a religious belief.Very good point! Which to me means which does the MSM support?
Well from my layman's point of view the MSM supports Democrats/communists/anti-American.
The MSM also supports global warming.
Proof?
Just did a search on the following: "Is the earth warmer"
Results: 23,600
Now a search for ""Is the earth cooler"
Results: 9,190
It appears the MSM supports global warmer more than global cooling... by almost 3 times.
Now some of you would say ..."DUH.... that's because it is!...DUH!"
I'm saying maybe "consensus" doesn't mean it is right.
Remember this:
Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church.
Consensus was the sun revolved around the earth!
It was fabrication of their reporting when their 'methods' failed to prove what they were claiming.
Reality isn't an anomaly, their fake ass numbers are.Wrong, they were looking at and discussing the cause of a particular anomaly.
That was Copernicus, but no matter. It was because of his observation of the motion of the planets and math. Not a religious belief.
The oil companies are like the Church in your example. That's not to say there aren't alarmists who want to profit on the worst case scenarios that the scientist include in their estimations.
www.history.com
More crazy stuff, huh?
do you ever get bored posting propaganda?
Because your source Watts at WUWT demanded that they be removed, thinking NASA would never do it, and once NASA complied they fed SUCKKKERS like you the line that there was something devious with removing them.Why are some stations with known current data excluded from the NASA GISS online database and climate modeling?
Wrong!
Where's your proof because here is MINE!!
Geez... why do people like you THINK I'd believe you with no proof?
On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.
Galileo is accused of heresy
On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves...
Where is your source? Just your word for it???Copernicus published his work on his Heliocentric solar system theory, and had a run in with the church, almost a century before Galileo.
Very good! Now explain this:Because your source Watts at WUWT demanded that they be removed, thinking NASA would never do it, and once NASA complied they fed SUCKKKERS like you the line that there was something devious with removing them.
Remember this?
"In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009)
climateaudit.org
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-1287633556-504569e892874aa4a5286fcee027a0a5.jpg)
Where is your source? Just your word for it???
Now for the FACTS simple search buddy!
In 1632, Galileo published a book in support of the heliocentric theory.
Copernicus had previously written in support of the heliocentric theory, but he had been moderate in his claims.
what did Galileo and Copernicus have in common? The idea that Galileo and Copernicus had in common was a heliocentric model of the universe, or the idea that the Sun and not the Earth was at the center of the solar system. The phases of Venus meant that the change in light had to come from Venus changing position around the Sun, not the Earth.
Similarly, it is asked, did Copernicus come before Galileo?
In 1632, he published a book that stated, among other things, that the heliocentric theory of Copernicus was correct. Galileo was once again called before the Inquisition and this time was found guilty of heresy. Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1633.
NOW for the distinguisement of the two!
Copernicus was never brought before the church Galileo was. That is what I was describing!
But get your facts proven... not your word!
www.history.com
I agree with everything you wrote. Thank you!Copernicus was the father of the theory, but I stand corrected in that he never was harassed by the church because he died the year his work was published.
Doesn't really doesn't matter, it is the Church that represents the unmovable authority in power who was resisting change to the status quo.
"Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish astronomer known as the father of modern astronomy. He was the first modern European scientist to propose that Earth and other planets revolve around the sun, or the Heliocentric Theory of the universe. Prior to the publication of his major astronomical work, “Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs,” in 1543, European astronomers argued that Earth lay at the center of the universe, the view also held by most ancient philosophers and biblical writers."
Copernicus: Facts, Model & Heliocentric Theory - HISTORY
Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish astronomer who developed a heliocentric theory of the solar system, upending the belief that Earth was the center of the universe.
www.sciencenews.org
Nice dodge of your earlier BULLSHIT!climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
But doesn't China have more than twice the population of the US? A lot lot more!!!! More than 4 times as many people!China is by far the world’s biggest polluter, responsible for 28 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissionsaccording to the Union of Concerned Scientists. This is almost twice as much as the United States (15 percent).
I agree with everything you wrote. Thank you!
The point though of all this discussion regarding Galileo et.al. was "consensus"!
At the time the "consensus" was the Church stating the sun revolved around the earth. Consensus.
Today "global warming" evangelistas just as fervent in their belief as the church during Galileo says global warming".
Note the term evangelistas now use is "climate change".... why? Consensus?
One observation I'd like you to answer...
The Arctic was once warmer, covered by trees Pliocene epoch featured greenhouse gas levels similar to today's but with higher average temperatures The Arctic wasn’t always frozen tundra. About 3.6 million years ago, the far north was blanketed in boreal forests, and summers were 8 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today, geologists report May 9 in Science.
The Arctic was once warmer, covered by trees
Pliocene epoch featured greenhouse gas levels similar to today's but with higher average temperatures.
And what you wrote is total BULLSHIT because you provide NO link! NO source. I give you the source and you can read that. But you? All totally subjective information. Provide the link!Nice dodge of your earlier BULLSHIT!
But still BULLSHIT nonetheless.
In 2009 some people worried that weather stations placed in poor locations could make the temperature record unreliable. Scientists at the National Climatic Data Center took those critics seriously and did a careful study of the possible problem. Their article "On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record" (Menne et al. 2010) had a surprising conclusion. The temperatures from stations that critics claimed were "poorly sited" actually showed slightly cooler maximum daily temperatures compared to the average.
LIAR!And what you wrote is total BULLSHIT because you provide NO link! NO source. I give you the source and you can read that. But you? All totally subjective information. Provide the link!
Nice dodge of your earlier BULLSHIT!
But still BULLSHIT nonetheless.
In 2009 some people worried that weather stations placed in poor locations could make the temperature record unreliable. Scientists at the National Climatic Data Center took those critics seriously and did a careful study of the possible problem. Their article "On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record" (Menne et al. 2010) had a surprising conclusion. The temperatures from stations that critics claimed were "poorly sited" actually showed slightly cooler maximum daily temperatures compared to the average.
But where is your LINK? What you wrote you made up if you can't provide a link! So easy to do so why aren't you doing it?LIAR!
LIAR!I give you the source
