Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

In this video we will learn how the ancient Greek astronomer Ptolemy can be used to solve climate change, by demonstrating that modern climate theory is based on a completely false conception of reality with the Sun NOT at the center of the solar system or the climate. This solves climate change because it means that our modern conception and science of the climate is based on completely false principles, and thus, the prognostications of climate change from climate science's non-existent greenhouse effect are entirely erroneous. Climate science's "greenhouse effect" is nothing more than a Ptolemaic epicycle! https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/01/07/ptolemys-epicycles-solve-climate-change/

In this video we will learn how the ancient Greek astronomer Ptolemy can be used to solve climate change, by demonstrating that modern climate theory is based on a completely false conception of reality with the Sun NOT at the center of the solar system or the climate. This solves climate change because it means that our modern conception and science of the climate is based on completely false principles, and thus, the prognostications of climate change from climate science's non-existent greenhouse effect are entirely erroneous. Climate science's "greenhouse effect" is nothing more than a Ptolemaic epicycle! https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/01/07/ptolemys-epicycles-solve-climate-change/

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (8).
[–] • 1 pt

Global warming is purely a scam, even the main ice core argument that has been cited since Gore's "film". The main criticisms of 'alignment' should have been strong enough, but as I learned more physics and calculus, I realized that while the data DOES have a correlation it actually disproves the possibility of causation. When CO2 is high the temps peak and begin to drop and when CO2 is low is when the temperatures begin to rise. IOW, the correlation is negative.

It was only in the past years that I came across the fact that the models ARE a flat earth model with a depth map. The craziest part is bringing that up to normies have seen only a few variations of rebuttals.

First was Venus, if we calculate the differences in incoming energy, reflectivity AND pressure differences, it actually confirms that the temperature differences are due to 'gas laws' and proximity to the sun AND NOT CO2, literally a rounding error of difference.

Then they would try to explain that the model is flat for simplifying explanation; asking why there isn't a sin / cos / tan portion of the equation to account for where on earth is 'hit' is enough to prove that the models are at best over simple.

They don't care. Math and critical thinking among normies is so close to dead that I'm not sure what portion of them have a chance at rehabilitation.

[–] • 0 pt

Very good.

The reason Venus is so hot is because it atmosphere is 93 bar and it has molten lava and active volcanoes all over it's surface. Not because of the "greenhouse effect".

[–] • 1 pt

Well, TBH, I was making many assumptions, but they were reasonable. (It was some time ago and repeating from memory, not an exercise I would like to repeat).

From memory, it has 60% more solar energy in, but less after reflection at the edge of the atmosphere. That different lower energy input on a higher pressure of gas by default accounted for almost all of the temperature differences.

Other factors I've raised was enthalpy (in air, not for HVAC) the charts consider temperature, humidity and altitude (air density) CO2 is irrelevant to where in high co2 environments like mines they will have the chart adapted for the difference at the expected co2 levels.

And when CO2 can be up to 10k ppm before any breathing difficulties begin, 400ppm is hardly like "drinking too much water is bad" like normies often bring up.