Expert prognosis for the planet

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Here is a review article discussing the 3% of papers that don’t show anthropogenic climate change, which suggests the number is actually 100%, and there is a news article discussing the same study in a more palatable way.

Learning from mistakes in climate research

https://link.springer.com/article/10...704-015-1597-5

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scie...re-all-flawed/

I'm not sure how that fits in my post:

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Btw, the "97% of scientist say..climate change" is bogus. It is commonly quoted but it is a contrived number.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...h=3896eb413f9f
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...cientists-say/

[x808drifter]

Remember when we called the sound barrier a literal barrier.
Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I had a quick look at The Flat Earth Society website. There is a lot of information there but I got bored very quickly due to reading some of the "proofs" posited.

All of this is a lot of attention for groups that are believed to be numbered somewhere from a few hundred to maybe a few thousand. Also, some of the groups are self-admitted not "true believers".

Personally, I think it's good in most scientific endeavors to have skeptics. After all, "science" is not always right nor does it have all the answers. Just because scientific method is applied to the discovery or explanation of something does not mean, at any point in time, the result is accurate.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I'm not sure how that fits in my post:

It is commonly stated that it is a contrived number by whom? That seems to be the counter narrative, but saying it is contrived could be true, or it could be necessary to try to discredit and dissuade in the face of such scientific agreement. As mentioned, this was the playbook of big tobacco to try to discredit scientists and dissuade people from accepting the scientific consensus.

I would say go to the papers that have analyzed the literature and decide from yourself over a Forbes article, if you want to reconcile two contradictory positions:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1003187107

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here sup- port the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...limate-change/

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

That Forbes article was from 2015, and the temperature data was up to 2010. This is up to 2021 showing a significant jump from the “flat” spot. The trend seems pretty linear.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

also worth noting wattsupwiththat is a climate denial website

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

All of this is a lot of attention for groups that are believed to be numbered somewhere from a few hundred to maybe a few thousand. Also, some of the groups are self-admitted not "true believers".

Personally, I think it's good in most scientific endeavors to have skeptics. After all, "science" is not always right nor does it have all the answers. Just because scientific method is applied to the discovery or explanation of something does not mean, at any point in time, the result is accurate.

Where did you get these numbers? Many celebrities and athletes have stated to be flat earthers or very skeptical about this globe theory, obviously being somewhat more conservative in their statements to the press than probably how they talk online, I’m sure.

These numbers aren’t small, but even if only 2% are strong believers that the earth is flat, only 1.7% identify as gay or lesbian, and I know plenty of them because there are millions of them.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...might-be-flat/
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...y-people-lgbt/

As science advances with more and more evidence, overarching theories to explain the world are proposed like String Theory vs Loop Quantum Gravity Theory. These theories or models for explaining nature gets challenged by more data and studies, as the predictive powers of the theories gets tested. Eventually, a single model emerges like Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural and Sexual Selection that is so robust and so powerful in its predictive abilities that it becomes an adopted Scientific Theory.

Climate science may not have a need for a grand theory, but the models themselves will get more and more robust over time at their ability to predict what long term warming trends will come from anthropogenic factors. At this point, the evidence is robust enough for the scientists who study the subject, as it was to scientists relative to the public of the past, as it pertains to the Darwinian Theory, for instance. Over time, the public will catch up to the scientists when the counter claims have lost their credibility in the face of the avalanche of data that eventually overwhelms any opposition. This has historically played out many times, and I won’t be surprised to see it happen again.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Where did you get these numbers? Many celebrities and athletes have stated to be flat earthers or very skeptical about this globe theory, obviously being somewhat more conservative in their statements to the press than probably how they talk online, I’m sure.

A quick search produces multiple articles listing the membership of the Flat Earth Society peaked at about 3,500 (some time ago) and has ebbed and flowed since then. In fact, the Flat Earth Society itself only lists 555 members in their roster.

As far as celebrities and athletes claiming to be members, well that in itself is proof of its irrelevance.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

great summary of the flat earth shit and why its mostly disappeared in the past few years

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by x808drifter

Remember when we called the sound barrier a literal barrier.
Pepperidge Farm remembers.

It always has been and remains a barrier. It's just no longer insurmountable by current technology.

[TommyW]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is commonly stated that it is a contrived number by whom? That seems to be the counter narrative, but saying it is contrived could be true, or it could be necessary to try to discredit and dissuade in the face of such scientific agreement. As mentioned, this was the playbook of big tobacco to try to discredit scientists and dissuade people from accepting the scientific consensus.

I would say go to the papers that have analyzed the literature and decide from yourself over a Forbes article, if you want to reconcile two contradictory positions:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1003187107



https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...limate-change/



https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

That Forbes article was from 2015, and the temperature data was up to 2010. This is up to 2021 showing a significant jump from the “flat” spot. The trend seems pretty linear.

The earth is billions old however, yeah the last 140 years tells us all we need to know.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

A quick search produces multiple articles listing the membership of the Flat Earth Society peaked at about 3,500 (some time ago) and has ebbed and flowed since then. In fact, the Flat Earth Society itself only lists 555 members in their roster.

As far as celebrities and athletes claiming to be members, well that in itself is proof of its irrelevance.

Membership to a group isn't at all reflective of the prevalence of an idea, so I don't know why that is being brought up. I'm an atheist, but I don't belong to any groups, and plenty of people identify at Christian, but don't go to a church, and many identify as spiritual on a theistic side, but may not belong to any particular denomination. With that said, ask people how many people believe in a theistic god, and the numbers supersede memberships to religious organizations. It is no different with flat earthers, as I demonstrated with the link to the discussion in Scientific American on the flat earther poll. The poll clearly suggests the prevalence of the idea is far more pervasive than 555 people. The fact that several mainstream celebrities, sports athletes and rappers, to name a few groups, have endorsed a flat earth theory suggests "normal" people are taking this serious, so we can't just dismiss the prevalence entirely to some fringe 555 wackos.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ce-terra-plana

Like Britain and the United States, Brazil is seeing a revival of flat Earth theory: 7% of the population – 11 million Brazilians – believe that the Earth is flat, according to the polling firm Datafolha. The poll noted believers were more likely to be religious or poorly educated.

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

Video[/URL]


great summary of the flat earth shit and why its mostly disappeared in the past few years

See above.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by TommyW

The earth is billions old however, yeah the last 140 years tells us all we need to know.

You are making a straw man argument because I never said the last 140 years is all we need to know, nor have I only presented evidence from the last 140 years in this thread (quite the contrary in fact), and we all know scientists have studied well beyond the last 140 years, so you are failing to make a point.

Would you like to try expanding on the point you are trying to make?

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You are making a straw man argument because I never said the last 140 years is all we need to know, nor have I only presented evidence from the last 140 years in this thread (quite the contrary in fact), and we all know scientists have studied well beyond the last 140 years, so you are failing to make a point.

Would you like to try expanding on the point you are trying to make?

smh you don't seem to know better to reply to people posting bad faith arguments

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

smh you don't seem to know better to reply to people posting bad faith arguments

I'm not the type to ignore any argument, up to a point of course.

TommyW hasn't really participated much in this thread, so I don't know if he is truly unaware of what I have said or unaware of the entire body of evidence that has been presented in this thread. Regardless, his statement is fallacious on its own because his argument presupposes that the presenter, by presenting only A, is unaware of B or is ignoring B for the sake of making an argument. Even if this was likely done in bad faith, I think it is worth pointing out because many people don't understand logic fallacies. For them, a fallacious argument can sound as good as an argument that is sound and logical. If that is the case then it is worth clarifying whether we have a knowledge deficit or someone who is being a jerk. I'll assume the former until it is more obvious he is the latter.

He could be trying to make a specific point that the presenter hasn't considered the temperature over billions of years, which is almost irrelevant because obviously climate scientists have considered it because that is precisely what they study, and they still conclude we have anthropogenic climate change. He could be trying to say that scientists are just cherrypicking this period because they are tree-hugging alarmists, or because they are pawns who must do as their financial backers wish, and bla bla bla conspiracy theories, but if he said that, it is a point that is, as it sounds, full of conspiracy theories and not demonstrable, so that could be why we got just a bad one liner. I prefer to identify those that are just guilty of lazy thinking with those that are conspiracy theorists, so that is also part of why I replied.