Climate change wankers

This debate is getting side tracked. The fundamental thing here is we have been relying on old technologies, burning coal for electricity and petrol in our internal combustion engine powered cars for more than a century. The worlds population has rapidly expanded and followed our technological lead. Pumping billions of tonnes of pollution into our atmosphere can't be a good thing. We are shitting in our nests!
Now we have the opportunity to help steer the world towards more sustainable energy sources, but vested interests in the old technologies are naturally threatened by this and are spreading fear and misinformation through mediums such as the website nick3 provided a link to at the beginning of this thread.
As one of the richest and most advanced countries on earth we are taking the lead by introducing a carbon price and using the part of the proceeds to fund a $10 billion dollar Clean Renewable Energy Fund to develop new technologies in this field. How is this a bad thing?

Wrong, YS. This particular debate is about climate change scepticism.

You're a believer - got that. And you have some solutions in mind - got that too.

So, given we live in a liberal democracy, how do propose to bring the sceptics and undecideds along with you?

Actually I'm not completely convinced that sea levels are rising rapidly as a result of man made climate change whaaaat. I live on the beach and haven't noticed any increase in front of my house. But I just think we need to develop cleaner, more sustainable energy sources. The plans the government have put in place are a first step.
I know your a lawyer whaaaat and are used to arguing your points and defending your clients guilty or otherwise. You seem to enjoy it and that's fine with me.
As for the sceptics, we live in a democracy and hopefully the majority will see the benefits of a cleaner world. If not well we will all just have to get used to living in an increasingly dirty, smoggy and warmer world.

Jeeeez, not sure why you lot bite like flathead every time nicko, the dicko, comes out from under his rock.

He has been toying with us for well over a year now and he is still sucking us all in with his rants.

By his own words it has been clearly established he has extreme views on climate, refugees, welfare safety nets, the NBN, tax and most recently the disabled.

He claims to be a family man and self employed but if that is all true I pity his family and his employees.

Why not ignore the dick and starve him the opportunity to spread his extreme views.

Good on you, YS, well said.

Not a good time for an idle mind. Sorry about that. Back on my feet soon I hope.

As do all of youse, no doubt.

Stick to the facts, as you advocate to others whaaaat. I never once have mentioned the roots of Christianity. Just in case your eyesight, or memory, or understanding are on the wane, or just in case you are attempting to corrupt the facts to get your own way (the wild colonial boy), here's my actual statement, the actual facts... again easily, quickly provable. Facts repeated twice, easily visible... visible twice. Twice visible, not thrice, nay, behold, be it twice fold, not thrice fold, lest ye be mistaketh!!! Nay looketh yonder, below!!!

'PPPPPPS. Again, I'll, 'humbly rely on the blessings of the almighty God', when I say this. Our legal system which upholds our constitution, is based on medieval Christianity. Whether you like it or not.'

And just because you love researching, and pure facts, another 20 years or so of reading.

https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_rn=12&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=srA-3NgfBkvbp...

https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_rn=12&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=srA-3NgfBkvbp...

As can be clearly seen, and proven, I discussed 'medieval Christianity'. But, I love all this stuff, as it highlights my point so clearly. Something so simple can be twisted so easily to win the competition, to be the fittest, in the unknowing, brainwashed, unconscious quest for the long, relentlessly ingrained principles of colonialism. You see exactly what you are conditioned to, and whaaaat you easily chose to, to win.

So, to answer YS simultaneously, we are responsible for the very mess, pollution wise, that we have inflicted on others, via, colonialism. To add further insult to injury, we will now tell all and sundry how to fix everything, because as EVERYOOOOONNNNEEEE KNNNNOOOOWWWSSS LLLLOOOOVVVVEEE, we are the most advanced of all...again. And if you don't buy it, we have the biggest bombs, rays, missiles, you name it. Our conditioning, as demonstrated by whaaaat, makes it difficult to rely on our darwinist, medieval Christian based, superior science to solve anything. Climate change included. Maybe the inferior ones, the ones that were doing great before they were treated to the blessed, magnificent opportunity to be steered in a hail of bullets into colonialism, could help us, guide and steer us.

Heresy! They are misguided, unsophisticated child like dolts at best! Just hit the repeat button, but now, we humbly present, we are proud to present, we bring to you, the new, upgraded, proven (no, this time it really is), scientific version. HHMMMPP HHMMMMPP, ladies and gentleman, firstly we'd like to thank... and, simultaneously, 'humbly rely on the blessings of the almighty God'. Can't fail!
For, 'We are the champions, we are the champions, we are the the champions... OOOOFFFF TTHHHEEE WWWOOOORRRLLLDDDDD!!! Hip hip...

fredie-c's options, pointed out in another area are interesting.

@ whaaat "So, given we live in a liberal democracy, how do propose to bring the sceptics and undecideds along with you? "

This became a long ramble sorry.

I think this takes time and dare I say it, education. But the time is gonna be long because it's going to happen as slowly as the climate changes.

I used to write a lot on blogs and stuff about climate change, calmly trying to direct sceptic/denier people to science papers that pointed out why their particular argument/thought/belief/knowledge was a misunderstanding. I'd generally try to link through to the primary literature if possible. But I got tired of it because even reasonable people would refuse to change their view despite being shown they were wrong.

It's not a newsflash that people will believe what they want to believe no matter what contrary evidence is put to them. And climate change is easy to misunderstand too. Yorkesurfer made the observation that he's not sold on the idea because he hasn't noticed the sea level rising. But he shouldn't be able to yet. The forecasts of big sea level rises aren't expected to eventuate for another 80-100 years. What has been happening up to know is barely perceptible to the naked eye. But it's an easy misunderstanding to make and if you're wanting to ignore the science like this nick3 bloke, it's a comfortable blanket in which to shroud yourself. I can't see it so it must be crap. And to clarify, YS I'm not equating you to nick3 there, the two of you couldn't be more different, just using your statement as an example.

Take earlier uplift's examples as well, that in the past it was a proven fact that the world was flat. That's simply not true. But it's a convenient self-deception you can use if you don't want to think about it fully, or just don't want to accept the scientific method. I think uplift also got stuck into the science on the big bang on the basis that scientists just accept the absence of understanding about it. Which is again not correct. It doesn't take much reading to see that scientists freely admit they don't understand the why and the how of that and that the person who solves it will be a scientific hero. It's not an ignored minor detail, it's a huge unanswered question of massive current interest.

People choose to believe what they want to believe and unfortunately climate change is just too slow a problem for our feeble attention spans. And I think that means as far as bringing along the sceptics etc...it'll happen when what is predicted to occur actually occurs over the next 80+ years. That's what I mean when I talked about education, it'll be living through it that most will learn. I think the public debate is too politicised (the debate, not the science) to win people over. Lay people have drawn their boundaries and aren't interested. Time might change that but we'll probably all be dead.

EDIT. To clarify I say we'll be dead by then not because climate change will kill us but because everyone chatting here today will be dead by the time I'm talking about, because we'll be old.

So with that headspace and those impressions of the whole thing I got bored with writing on blogs and gave up. I could use my time much more wisely.

One last thing, perhaps if we all got a proper scientific and philosophical education at school it might help. Scientists are continuing to refine their understanding and sadly this is seen as evidence of error, rather than refinement. That point of view comes from misunderstanding of what science is, of knowledge and uncertainty, and of supposition and fact. But scientists and philosophers are anti-religionist lefties so the people of this little conservative island ain't gonna support that I don't reckon.

@ Uplift.

You, mate, are one weird cat. Unless you're espousing mass-extinction events (although reading your stuff sometimes makes me reach for the gun), there's a lot of people in this world to feed, clothe and house.

Even if you could cobble it together into something approaching coherence, I can't see how your anti-colonialist ideology could or would convince the Chinese, Koreans, Indians and Brazilians to forego their own development using, wait for it, science.

For example, Korea, a Confucian society, doesn't think science is a waste of time and money. 1 in 500 Koreans holds a PhD.

Not a PhD in the pre-modern indigent knowledge form that seems to fascinate you. Real, peer-tested replicable science and other knowledge that, when applied, leads to better lives for millions of people. Science that requires PhDs and other stuff not usually found on Cro-Magnon-era cave walls.

Facts.

Damn those untidy things.

@Benski

Yeah, I know you're right. Absolutely irrefutable. Any other Sunday I'd be out there making havoc.

Not today. And the bear was there to poke.

@Floyd

Why? Cos I'm flat on me back, bored shitless.

Also, I see it as a way of keeping the site's traffic numbers up - Stu's gotta lot of mouths to feed, Craig needs the petrol money, and Ben's eyeing off BBG for a hostile takeover.

I'm here to help.

Well that sucks mate. I hope those website overlords appreciate the impressive work you're doing for em.

Nope. No mags, no grapes, nada. Not even a Bex. Ingrates, the lot of 'em.

So whaaat, keep dodging, ducking the thing you cant, the preamble. Live in North Korea then. Hold them up as a your champion, guiding Culture.

That pesky, don't touch, preamble.

And, it was once a proven fact that the earth was flat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Science 'proved' otherwise. Yet modern, quantam science allows, wants to prove that it can be flat? Who will win, whaaaat will it be, this century? And in 100 centuries time, will we be the wise, scientific ones? Or histories mistaken ones?

Probability says...I'll let whaaaat champion that one, its his baby.

That'd be right.

bastards.

"And, it was once a proven fact that the earth was flat."

No it wasn't. If you read that wiki page carefully, you'll see that I'm right. You're confusing fact with belief and evidence with supposition.

People thought it was flat but they had no evidence for this belief. As soon as they had evidence, and could correct an erroneous belief with fact, they did so. Well, some did so. It took others a little longer.

I'm not trying to be a knob here uplift, but what you've said just isn't the case. It's also a common misunderstanding which is why I pointed it out earlier.

South Korea. Not the People's Democratic one. Don't be obtuse.

And I have no idea of what preamble you speak.

Nor any interest.

Au revoir, vous homme étrange.

Me neither, honestly Benski. Is science anymore than weight of belief? As I said, we are all empirical by nature. Quantam belief, that is, quantam science, believes that whatever we believe is our reality, our science. As I've said before that, the implications of that really, genuinely interests me.

Whether you are interested in the preamble or not whaaat, and accept it unconsciously is irrelevant. It rules you, by law. And did you mean South Korea, could've sworn you actually meant North? Just by the tone of things you say, or didn't say... minor detail anyway.

Is science anymore than weight of belief?

Yes.

That stuff about quantum science is probably talking about perception of immediate reality (I really wanted to put science in quotation marks there because it doesn't sound like science at all). The colour of the sky you see might look like what I see as green but I'll never know because I'm not you. That's the perception of the world around us from a subjective point of view. Fine. (Except we can get a damn good idea by looking with the right machines at our eyeballs to see how we perceive colour.)

But taking that, science goes past that and we observe things that don't rely on human perception. That's why we know that solar radiation is getting blocked on its way back out by CO2 in the atmosphere. We have machines that observe the radiation heading back out and more observing what actually makes it out through the atmosphere. Those machines observe that the radiation that isn't making it out is the same wavelength that gets absorbed by CO2. So we know, by machinated observation, not what you or I might see or think we see, that the atmosphere is trapping heat.

If you wanna call that crap because you reckon that some sub-discipline tells you that it's ok to believe what you wanna believe in the face of any evidence, because hey that's your reality - that's fine. You will have just illustrated the point in my first post to whaaat.

I'm off now. All the best.

'we observe things that don't rely on human perception' ????????????????????????????????

Now, that is extremely interesting, in a funny way. However, it is identical to the assertion and discovery by some Religious Icons of a non attached witness, an observer. God, to save arguing over names. The who am I, not that, not that, not that discovery, where all is an illusion, all falls away except the remaining formless, the support of an idea, the witness/observer.

Or, as a human, exactly how do you observe without perceiving? Even the devices used to observe are based on your sensory perception and particular conditioning. Well, maybe they aren't, maybe they just occur, big bang like, and just end up popping up, completely unbiased, unperceived, untainted observation devices, looking for God knows whaaaat?

Those bastards are at it again, making shit up.

http //www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/5/13/science-environment/carbon-d...

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/5/13/science-environment/c...

Yes uplift, those machines just occur. Like the big bang. And we trick ourselves into believing them without any verification of their utility and accuracy. Silly us.

When really we don't exist. It's all just an illusion. Descartes tricked himself after all.

'we observe things that don't rely on human perception'

Benski, I'll just keep your masterpiece of a statement up there to keep a bit of perspective on things. And again, ????????????????????????????????

Along with whaaat's

'"I'm not going into 'the Physics' of this and that" is a lot like the fundamentalist argument about the existence of God. Don't bother with the details - you know, logic, or evidence or other nasty stuff like that - just take it on faith as a given 'fact'. And we'll shoot you dead if you don't.'

Despite championing, defending, and being employed to uphold a constitution that:

'humbly relies on the blessings of the almighty God'

And, by his own admission, doing so unwittingly, unconsciously... the rise of the zombie.

Which is a further highlight to the climate change scenario. A common theme here is that our culture is the most advanced, the most successful, benski (himself a perfect example of a perfectly conditioned/educated/brainwashed scientist) even proclaims that if only we could educate everyone to our lofty standards.

Facts. Our culture, our science, created the emission scenario. All of our present day problems highlighted in the links by dimwhaaat are created by jeee whizz, us, and our education and science. Along with too many ridiculous problems to fit on this website. A few examples are rampant pollution, rampant obesity, plastic islands, overflowing prisons, slums, deforestation, depression, disease, the list is endless. All things that this magnificent science and system is still creating. Despite the ludicrous dribble about learning, tweaking, and improving. It, is getting worse, not better. That's the factual results of our supremacy, of us being the fittest. The 'wild colonials'.

Its like an overweight 200kg person forcing everyone at gunpoint to use their weight loss techniques. And declaring how awesome they are when they hit 250kg, but learning, then educating, improving and tweaking everyone up to 300kg, and when all are about to drop dead at 350kg, proudly unveiling the actual, final, real improved product and system, which will save everyone and get them back to 80kg. Despite simultaneously announcing that the scales are hitting 400kg.

Shut the fuck up, and fuck off back to where you came from ya useless, fat arse cunts!

'humbly rely on the blessings of the almighty God'

This is the last time I'll ever respond to you Mick.

First, my comment about the existence of God referenced a comment that Southey made. I was and am not arguing for the existence for any god; merely providing an analogy to illustrate what I consider to be most of our unwillingness to really examine the detail of things, look at evidence dispassionately, and draw conclusions based on information rather than 'feelings' or emotion.

Secondly, I took an affirmation at my admission ceremony, not an oath on the Bible. And as Australians, we all buy into the Contitution's text, whether or not we like it.

Finally, and more importantly, you, friend, are an intellectual fraud. You cite science (chemistry, physiology, pharmacology et al) when it suits you to do so, usually when you wish to demonstrate your superior (rightly so, you've studied it) knowledge about fitness and health. You then turn around mock and deride it and others who ask legitimate questions using it, simply, again, to demonstrate how clever you are. You kick the ball to both ends of the ground depending on what suits your inflated ego at the time.

You're not clever. Just tricky. And I can't be bothered debating serious questions like climate change with smart arse wankers too far up their own fundament to answer legitimate questions with reasonable responses.

Fuck you. And all who sail in you.

Stand up wanker.

There you go again upskirt, imploding on oneself. Why are you so obsessed with fat people?

They let Shawnee out, now they've trained the gimp to speak!

Climate change update..@blindboy ...coldest start to SA summer on record..had to break out the trackies and jumper!!

Add to this … the wettest day in 72 years according to SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-weather-storm-brings-wettest-christmas-...). Many geologists would say - 'So what'.
It is disappointing the emotion this debate creates since there would be very few of us who would understand a little about our climate - except for whats the chance for swell for tomorrow. Even that can be out.

Yawn, someone should tell the real rulers of the world that it is all nonsense.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/fossil-fuels-carbon-pricing...

Darn, here he was having a three-way conversation with himself (nick3=barley=tosser tones barber) .....

And we are still having this argument?

There is no doubting the persistence of those that think so many governments and credible scientists actually all get together just to fool all of us fruit loops into looking after the one and only planet we have.

oh i forgive u all, u misunderstand it all so much. do we live on a sphere? is it contained in an electromagnetic atmosphere? well is it???? this electromagnetic atmosphere registers the conductivity of all life within it's biosphere, especially humanity, because we are supposedly SELF AWARE BEINGS. Your mission as you signed willingly was to add more kindness, tolerance, compassion, understanding and awareness to this biosphere. Are u honouring your signature to this mission?
Let it go, bless it, thank it, move on, it's just a different opinion/perception/delusion/creation, so!!!!!!
dont worry b happy. The Tectonic plates have confirmed they will await the April Paris Summit, they will then come to a consensus with Planet Earth if any remodelling has to take place. KIndness has never been so important.

Read a book a while back called going native. Bob beard was one of the two authors. Basically a blueprint for living in Australia for the next 200 years after stuffing up the first 200. Made heaps of sense but again was pretty well bagged out by the scientific community. Don't know why I threw that one in, BUT read as. much as you can, do what you can but question everything.

My Navy mates say they are always in the shit only the depth changes. Like my mates we are always in the swill, dealing with the shortcomings of humanity.

How on earth police and ambos get out of bed of a morning baffles me. I've got a mate who is a copper and he really struggled in the job until released that when he put his uniform on and went to work he was mostly going to have a shit day dealing with the dregs and when he came across someone nice, well that was the exception and it was those exceptions he remembered at the end of the day.

Since Christmas day I have lost count of the piles of illegally dumped christmas day rubbish in carparks, bike paths and bush reserves I have found. What chance have we got when families; mum and dad and the kids stop off on the way home from a family christmas day lunch to illegally dump their rubbish?

That is why this climate debate is so important because its the numbnuts of the world constantly dragging us back into the shit and morass under the disguise of scientific or economic debate. This is a discussion/debate/argument/war we just need to win.

Just what is wrong with the notion of caring for this spectacularly beautiful planet and all its creatures just for the sake of it?

...and so the mass debate continues?

Check this bit of history

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/aug/06/how-austral...

Although the link provided is now not relevant or applicable, it is interesting that 'Keating “really was not that interested in this issue” and his government started to promote a false dichotomy that you couldn’t protect the environment and support the economy at the same time.'

Tony Barber explain how the link is "now not relevant or applicable"? When it's about a "new book [that] investigates how corporate interests and ideologues worked to make Australia doubt what it knew about climate change and its risks"??

Nice bit of cherry-picking though (you could work for that convicted racist, Bolt, on his 'research team'). Here's some more:

"One of the many ways the book shows how industry managed to impose its interests on policy was in the Howard government’s reliance on modelling from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics on the costs of particular climate policies.

The Howard government used these numbers to prosecute its cautious climate policy positions and to justify it through media articles [Murdoch, ya reckon?].

That modelling was supported financially by the likes of the Australian Coal Association, the oil giant Exxon Mobil and the mining majors BHP and Rio Tinto."

I will like to see how employment v population plays out with the new direction for energy use. In SA a new 100 turbine windfram is to be built in the mid north providing 250 jobs during construction but only 10 permanent jobs. Now coal is dirty and all that but the amount of people employed by mining whether it be the Aussie on triple time through to the Mexican on $1 a day is quite large. With the renewable direction its hard not to see how mass job losses will occur and then what will happen?

geez barley u sound like tonybarber (who I'm sure does actually work for bolt and co. or perhaps the coal or nuclear industry despite claiming to be labor member)

i worry about jobs too barley but i worry about the manufacturing and other jobs that abbott and co. are doing a great job of sending overseas.

regarding energy i dont think digging big holes and polluting the air and water is justified to save a few low end jobs. i think you've gotta have higher hopes for the future than that. which means imagining a future where you dont need a legion of minions digging shit up to put in containers to transport 1000s of kms to an ugly construction that burns the said shit polluting the atmosphere to fuel the making of stuff. when we have the technology to fuel stuff cleanly and cheaply we canrealise a future where you dont have to work 40 hours a week to have enough money to survive and buy shit you dont need. then we can have more people working 20 hours a week and being comfortable enough and having enough time on their hands to realise there's more to life than having to work more days than you have off in some shitty job to finance a pretty average life. we are stuck in a 1900s economic and energy cycle.

it comes down to working to live, or living to work, pretty sure the gods have something better for us than living to work

Barley. I wouldn't be too worried. Once upon a time we were all farmers.

Im sure we will discover new ways of exploiting cheap labour. And as for gina, well I couldn't give two shits. Fora country with little else to export than minerals and food, I suggest the earlier we invest in renewables the better. Otherwise we are going to look up in 50 years feeling very sorry for ourselves.

SB....I gather you checked the research the book is based. Essentially historical. The politics has changed largely. There is an RET, agreed on both sides. There is an industry or renewables - some want it bigger that's really about all. Since Rudds statement - 'greatest dilemma for mankind', and the resulting actions or non actions depends on which way you look at it, then yes this book is essentially irrelevant. Maybe interesting from a historical viewpoint. Jobs or the economics of this is more relevant for Aus than the reality that we can in fact have any impact. I suggest it's more about technical solutions rather than the discussion of the science.

@sypkan....it would be great if we could get nuclear fusion but that maybe about 20 years away. Btw, I have a lot of respect and worked with Prof Green - Aussie solar man. He has done some great work in solar energy. But it ain't there yet for base load. Certainly not for Aus.

Nah you missed my point lads.happyass thats funny..thinking we can export renewables..where do you think you live europe?haha...funny how all anyone worries about is the next 50 yrs-100yrs..what about a thousand years from now?

First of all, thanks Nick3 for outing yourself.

Second, uplift, there was never a time in human history where scientists, or the general public, were under the impression that the world was flat. Never. It didn't happen, historical fact. You are referring to myths to confirm your arguments about science.

Third, for those poor saps who seem to think they know more about climate science than 95% of the people who actually do that for a living, what is the problem with us developing renewable energy for the future, even if climate change is a myth? It's a problem that mankind has to meet sooner or later, why not now when it seems likely there is an imperative reason to do it.

Climate change is not a means for the rich to bleed the masses more and take them under control. The economic and business effects of climate change are undermining the business models of the most powerful groups in our society, the power providers. The flow-on effects of developing renewables will be taking the monopoly/oligopoly powers of the power producers and distributors and transferring them to the masses.

Finally, don't bother with or argue about the scientific models, they aren't worth a hill of beans, and never were, and the genuine scientists know that. They should have been done in academia and not publicised because they are based on assumptions that cannot possibly replicate the complexities of a chaotic (largely) closed system, and the publishing of those models only gives ammunition to the peanut brains for whom understanding complex concepts is as likely as a monkey knocking out a Shakespearean play on a typewriter.

Seriously, if you are ignorant, it is better that you just stay quiet, at least that leaves some doubt in our minds. Open your mouth and all doubt is removed.

no point debating with the delusional

batfink, you have stirred the pot here mate. they dont like to be reminded that just maybe, all the things they have built there beliefs/life/assumptions/prejudices might actually be fictional. Cant have the known becoming the unknown can we.
This is about pollution and pollution is a result of not using energy resources efficiently.
Nature does not produce waste-everything is used by another aspect of itself.
Yes it is also about control- not about domination- but dominion-that is, custodianship.
Some civilisations have died then rather change their beliefs/ways, nature can only stand a dirty house for so long and then it will be time for a spring clean!!!!

'uplift, there was never a time in human history where scientists, or the general public, were under the impression that the world was flat. Never. It didn't happen, historical fact. You are referring to myths to confirm your arguments about science. '

Batflunk, that's... that is.... your statement of fact is, well, it is 100% wrong. Totally incorrect. 0/100. 0%. You are attempting to create a myth, seeing what you choose to.

I said,

'It was once a proven fact that the earth was flat.'

The truth, not your myth, is that historically, many, many cultures believed, and were under the impression that the world was flat. Many. And, as today, it was difficult to oppose that. It did happen, it is historical fact that's ridiculously easy to prove.

Simply read what I said, but, without your blinkers, without your mythical slant and emotional investment. Reading comprehension. But again, you beautifully demonstrate that your conditioning governs, and rules your reading.

'In early Egyptian[7] and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account of the 8th century BC in which "Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods."[8] The Israelites likely had a similar cosmology, with the earth as a flat disc floating on water beneath an arced firmament separating it from the heavens.[9]

The Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts reveal that the ancient Egyptians believed Nun (the Ocean) was a circular body surrounding nbwt (a term meaning "dry lands" or "Islands"), and therefore believed in a similar Ancient Near Eastern circular earth cosmography surrounded by water.[10][11][12]
Ancient Mediterranean
Poets

Both Homer[13] and Hesiod[14] described a flat disc cosmography on the Shield of Achilles.[15][16] This poetic tradition of an earth-encircling (gaiaokhos) sea (Oceanus) and a flat disc also appears in Stasinus of Cyprus,[17] Mimnermus,[18] Aeschylus,[19] and Apollonius Rhodius.[20]

Homer's description of the flat disc cosmography on the shield of Achilles with the encircling ocean is repeated far later in Quintus Smyrnaeus' Posthomerica (4th century AD), which continues the narration of the Trojan War.[21]
Philosophers
Possible rendering of Anaximander's world map[22]

Several pre-Socratic philosophers believed that the world was flat: Thales (c. 550 BC) according to several sources,[23] and Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460 – 370 BC) according to Aristotle.[24][25][26]

Thales thought the earth floated in water like a log.[27] It has been argued, however, that Thales actually believed in a round Earth.[28][29] Anaximander (c. 550 BC) believed the Earth was a short cylinder with a flat, circular top that remained stable because it was the same distance from all things.[30][31] Anaximenes of Miletus believed that "the earth is flat and rides on air; in the same way the sun and the moon and the other heavenly bodies, which are all fiery, ride the air because of their flatness."[32] Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 500 BC) thought that the Earth was flat, with its upper side touching the air, and the lower side extending without limit.[33]

Belief in a flat Earth continued into the 5th century BC. Anaxagoras (c. 450 BC) agreed that the Earth was flat,[34] and his pupil Archelaus believed that the flat Earth was depressed in the middle like a saucer, to allow for the fact that the Sun does not rise and set at the same time for everyone.[35]
Historians

Hecataeus of Miletus believed the earth was flat and surrounded by water.[36] Herodotus in his Histories ridiculed the belief that water encircled the world,[37] yet most classicists agree he still believed the earth was flat because of his descriptions of literal "ends" or "edges" of the earth.[38]
Ancient India

Ancient Jain[39] and Buddhist cosmology held that the Earth is a disc consisting of four continents grouped around a central mountain (Mount Meru) like the petals of a flower. An outer ocean surrounds these continents.[40] This view of traditional Buddhist and Jain cosmology depicts the cosmos as a vast, oceanic disk (of the magnitude of a small planetary system), bounded by mountains, in which the continents are set as small islands.[40]
Norse and Germanic

The ancient Norse and Germanic peoples believed in a flat earth cosmography of the earth surrounded by an ocean, with the axis mundi (a world-tree: Yggdrasil, or pillar: Irminsul) in the centre.[41][42] The Norse believed that in the world-encircling ocean sat a snake called Jormungandr.[43] In the Norse creation account preserved in Gylfaginning (VIII) it is stated that during the creation of the earth, an impassable sea was placed around the earth like a ring:

...And Jafnhárr said: "Of the blood, which ran and welled forth freely out of his wounds, they made the sea, when they had formed and made firm the earth together, and laid the sea in a ring round. about her; and it may well seem a hard thing to most men to cross over it."[44]

The late Norse Konungs skuggsjá, on the other hand, states that:

...If you take a lighted candle and set it in a room, you may expect it to light up the entire interior, unless something should hinder, though the room be quite large. But if you take an apple and hang it close to the flame, so near that it is heated, the apple will darken nearly half the room or even more. However, if you hang the apple near the wall, it will not get hot; the candle will light up the whole house; and the shadow on the wall where the apple hangs will be scarcely half as large as the apple itself. From this you may infer that the earth-circle is round like a ball and not equally near the sun at every point. But where the curved surface lies nearest the sun's path, there will the greatest heat be; and some of the lands that lie continuously under the unbroken rays cannot be inhabited."[45]

Ancient China
Further information: Chinese astronomy

In ancient China, the prevailing belief was that the Earth was flat and square, while the heavens were round,[46] an assumption virtually unquestioned until the introduction of European astronomy in the 17th century.[47][48][49] The English sinologist Cullen emphasizes the point that there was no concept of a round Earth in ancient Chinese astronomy:

Chinese thought on the form of the earth remained almost unchanged from early times until the first contacts with modern science through the medium of Jesuit missionaries in the seventeenth century. While the heavens were variously described as being like an umbrella covering the earth (the Kai Tian theory), or like a sphere surrounding it (the Hun Tian theory), or as being without substance while the heavenly bodies float freely (the Hsüan yeh theory), the earth was at all times flat, although perhaps bulging up slightly.[50]

The model of an egg was often used by Chinese astronomers such as Zhang Heng (78–139 AD) to describe the heavens as spherical:

The heavens are like a hen's egg and as round as a crossbow bullet; the earth is like the yolk of the egg, and lies in the centre.[51]

This analogy with a curved egg led some modern historians, notably Joseph Needham, to conjecture that Chinese astronomers were, after all, aware of the Earth's sphericity. The egg reference, however, was rather meant to clarify the relative position of the flat earth to the heavens:

In a passage of Zhang Heng's cosmogony not translated by Needham, Zhang himself says: "Heaven takes its body from the Yang, so it is round and in motion. Earth takes its body from the Yin, so it is flat and quiescent". The point of the egg analogy is simply to stress that the earth is completely enclosed by heaven, rather than merely covered from above as the Kai Tian describes. Chinese astronomers, many of them brilliant men by any standards, continued to think in flat-earth terms until the seventeenth century; this surprising fact might be the starting-point for a re-examination of the apparent facility with which the idea of a spherical earth found acceptance in fifth-century BC Greece.[52]

Further examples cited by Needham supposed to demonstrate dissenting voices from the ancient Chinese consensus actually refer without exception to the Earth being square, not to it being flat.[53] Accordingly, the 13th-century scholar Li Ye, who argued that the movements of the round heaven would be hindered by a square Earth,[46] did not advocate a spherical Earth, but rather that its edge should be rounded off so as to be circular.[54]'

Then, hopefully having learned something, address the rest of what I said.

'That the liver pumped blood, Indigenous Australians weren't human. The human body was physically incapable of running a four minute mile. Protein did the job of DNA. A factual observation. Simple to prove. Science of the past. Please by all means, if that's wrong, argue, blather and prove otherwise'.

Learn from your 0/100 attempt, nothing wrong with that, and carry on blathering, batflunk.

Yes it is fact the earth is not flat but the IPCC studies are based on probability models and attempting to predict the future. Granted the studies tend to concur a general similar trend but the future outcome is not fact - a slight difference. Regardless, the debate has moved on and the issue is how to address this 'possible' outcome in 100 years.