Expert prognosis for the planet

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

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.

Membership in the primary organized group that champions the idea most certainly is relevant as it speaks to the seriousness of the group.

Your argument about whether or not all Christians or Atheists belong to some organized group doesn't really prove anything more than you believe mine does. There are millions of organized Christians in the world (I can't speak for Atheists and their organizations, although that would seem to go against its very principle) but very few organized Flat Earthers.

The bottom line is that Flat Earthers are a small percentage of the general population. There are probably more My Little Pony fanatics in the world than Flat Earthers that really believe.

Also, I'm not really convinced that Flat Earthers care any less about the environment they live in than the general population.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Membership in the primary organized group that champions the idea most certainly is relevant as it speaks to the seriousness of the group.

Your argument about whether or not all Christians or Atheists belong to some organized group doesn't really prove anything more than you believe mine does. There are millions of organized Christians in the world (I can't speak for Atheists and their organizations, although that would seem to go against its very principle) but very few organized Flat Earthers.

The bottom line is that Flat Earthers are a small percentage of the general population. There are probably more My Little Pony fanatics in the world than Flat Earthers that really believe.

Also, I'm not really convinced that Flat Earthers care any less about the environment they live in than the general population.

It may mean absolutely nothing. Could you point to a central QAnon organization or membership society? Yet all the small groups and YouTube channels coalesce around the same ideas, so does it mean there aren't many QAnon people? Of course not. You are trying to draw a one to one association between membership and prevalence of the idea, and all I was saying with my example is beliefs can supersede membership, and yet, you seem to be ignoring the data I've presented, so I'll restate: 7% or 11 million Brazilians believe the earth is flat, so these aren't trivial numbers. The US survey I posted found 2% of those surveyed believed the earth was flat with many more saying they were unsure, so again, millions, not hundreds or a few thousand.

Is the membership necessary? Does it cost something to join? What does a person gain by joining the group? Does the group serve a purpose, and does that purpose depend on people becoming members? Do people want to be apart of the group or to have their beliefs potentially made public? If I made an International Globe Earth Society with a core value to promote the acceptance to the globe model for Earth, and if that society only garnered five thousand members then would that be indicative that only a few people believed the earth was a globe?

Again, the point of the example I made using flat earthers was that even ridiculous claims can have massive support and can be backed with all types of arguments and pseudoscience/pseudo-evidence. How does a person believe scientists when it comes to all sorts of things in the face of contrarians who present misinformation and claim the opposite? What criteria does someone use to believe scientists about the earth being a globe and not believing, as flat earthers do, that there is a global conspiracy by a world power to cover up the truth that the world is flat...how is that position dismissed, yet people believe there is a global conspiracy from a world order to manipulate scientists to put out a false narrative that there is anthropogenic global warming, so this world order can make money switching to green technology, control us and deprive us of cheap oil? These two things are at odds. Like a flat earther, climate change deniers present their arguments, and people eat it up, and while many eat up what flat earthers have to say, far more have bought into the climate denier narrative, so I'm wondering what criteria do they use to dismiss the scientific consensus on this issue and not on other issues.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

...Again, the point of the example I made using flat earthers was that even ridiculous claims can have massive support and can be backed with all types of arguments and pseudoscience/pseudo-evidence. ...

OK, I can agree with that in general.

It is true there are large groups of persons, which can include scientists, that disagree with scientific facts. Some that matter and some do not. There are many scientists, for example, that believe in a God or a supreme being or intelligent design.

Overall I'm not sure the Flat Earthers' opinions on the shape of the planet has a true impact on anything any more than the larger percent of the population that believes the Earth is a round sphere. After all, the Earth is actually a irregularly shaped ellipsoid.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

OK, I can agree with that in general.

It is true there are large groups of persons, which can include scientists that disagree with scientific facts, some that matter and some do not. there are many scientists that believe in a God or a supreme being or intelligent design.

Overall I'm not sure the Flat Earthers' opinions on the shape of the planet has a true impact on anything any more than the larger percent of the population that believes the Earth is a round sphere. After all, the Earth is actually a irregularly shaped ellipsoid.

And just to expand on the idea of scientists disagreeing: scientists inside of a given discipline will disagree on the minutiae of established theories or disagree on sub-theories of established theories like punctuated equilibrium of natural selection; they will disagree on unresolved theories like string theory vs loop quantum gravity; there are scientists who disagree on topics that are outside of their expertise, so there may be more astronomers who are climate change skeptics than climatologists, or there may be more astrophysicists that believe in a god or who believe in intelligent design, or who question natural selection than those who are biologists or geneticists, for instance; what there are not a lot of are scientists inside their respective disciplines that disagree on the fundamentals, so we don't see many climatologies who don't believe in climate change, or we don't see many biologists who deny Natural Selection, or we don't see many astronomers or astrophysicists who don't believe in the Big Bang. As it pertains to god, we also see more scientists who are atheist, non-denominational, spiritual or deistic in their beliefs than non-scientists, and this also trends in that direction the closer we get to biological sciences.

Well, it does impact how they care about the planet because there are correlations with flat earthers having religious fundamentalism, having less education, having distrust in our institutions, in our government and in science, and these views tend to cluster around other views like anti-vaccines, QAnon, Bigfoot, aliens, climate denial, deep state, etc., some of which has influence on behavior and the spread of misinformation, so I don't take it lightly. This is the type of press that makes headlines, and the ideas become even more pernicious the more it becomes a common "other side" narrative:

https://talksport.com/sport/mma/1222...ate-joe-rogan/

And just so we are clear, the earth is not much of an irregularly shaped ellipsoid, but that is technically true. Like many 2D maps, textured globes or pictures of earth relative to the moon, most of these drawings and objects aren't to scale or are highly exaggerated for effect. As Neil deGrasse Tyson has said, the earth is so smooth (round) that it is technically smoother (rounder) than a cue ball, so saying it is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid is being extremely technical, which is what most scientists are. The exaggerated image below is often what people think the earth actually looks like with water filling in the gaps, but this is a gross exaggeration and misinterpretation from media. The different between the largest and smallest radius is 13 miles, and the largest and smallest diameter is 19 miles. A cue ball has a diameter of 2.25'' with a tolerance of +/- 0.005''; the average diameter of the earth is 7918 miles, so with the same tolerance, the diameter of the earth could be +/- 17.6 miles. The largest diameter is 7926 and the smallest is 7907, which is a difference of 8 and 11 miles, respectively, so in short, the earth is less of an irregularly shaped ellipsoid than a cue ball, or a cue ball is more of an irregularly shaped ellipsoid than the earth.

[x808drifter]

Originally Posted by Spuds

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

I didn't wanna get into the specifics of fluid dynamics. XD

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

...so in short, the earth is less of an irregularly shaped ellipsoid than a cue ball, or a cue ball is more of an irregularly shaped ellipsoid than the earth.

Interestingly my initial last post had in it the following "After all, the Earth is actually a irregularly shaped ellipsoid, or basically an upscaled cue ball proving nothing is as it seems"

[Captain Snooze]

Ahahahaha
Climate change: 1.5C warming threshold to be passed in 9 years as emissions hit record high

And before all you deniers jump up and down this is a forecast based on modeling. Just like weather forecasts which are subject to a margin of error, it might not come to fruition in 9 years but given people's reluctance to make any meaningful change to their lifestyle weather (pun) it's 9 years or 15 it is my impression that we're stuffed.

[x808drifter]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

my impression that we're stuffed.

It'll be fine as long as we hold out for Captain Planet!

[Irace86.2.0]

Captain Planet, Waterworld…what other media was discussing global warming a decade or more before Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, which seemed to be far more controversial. Maybe Gore just needed to dress up like Don Cheadle did here and then no one care.

[x808drifter]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Captain Planet, Waterworld…what other media was discussing global warming a decade or more before Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, which seemed to be far more controversial. Maybe Gore just needed to dress up like Don Cheadle did here and then no one care.

Bill Nye
Magic School Bus
That's all I can remember right now.

[DrinkenBRZ]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Please present this data?

See the Nordic Bronze age for reference. Grapes could be grown in Scandanavia during this time and it appears the climate in Scandanavia was similar to what it is today in German and France. Water levels where indeed higher during this time as well. Then see the Germanic migrations that appear to be driven by the ebbs and flows of climate change over thousands of years. Another example here is the ebb and flow of the sea in and out of what is now the Netherlands where the Frisians settled, left, and resettled. It goes on and you are free to find more of other historic peoples' migrations related to climate change, naturally occurring climate change.

[DrinkenBRZ]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That is the claim, but it was shown to be false. I’m presenting what scientists are presenting. The scientific consensus in the literature and what’s being presented to world leaders at these international conventions is ubiquitous.

Again, there are people arguing the world is flat and who say there are conspiracies to hide what they believe is the obviousness that the world is flat. They also say the same things you just said. They present counter arguments. How do you say scientists are correct about the world being a globe or about the germ theory or about evolution, but that they are wrong about anthropogenic climate change? I’m assuming you except those other theories. Are you applying greater skepticism to this one issue or what convinces you of one thing and not another? If I said 2% of scientific papers show no link between smoking a lung disease then would you believe the 2%? I can’t tell what criteria people are using to believe one thing and deny another thing because it doesn’t seem consistent at all.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/20...s-not-natural/


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/

You are presenting what first year college students can put together, nothing more.

[DrinkenBRZ]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Ahahahaha
Climate change: 1.5C warming threshold to be passed in 9 years as emissions hit record high

And before all you deniers jump up and down this is a forecast based on modeling. Just like weather forecasts which are subject to a margin of error, it might not come to fruition in 9 years but given people's reluctance to make any meaningful change to their lifestyle weather (pun) it's 9 years or 15 it is my impression that we're stuffed.

There is a big difference here. Weather forecasting can be considered real science because models can be tested with weather events and then refined with new data, over and over and over. Climate change models cannot and live solely in a simulation tied to extremely loose correlation to some observations ignoring other anthropological facts that literally slap the premise in the face. But it's the soup of the day, so...... Real sciences seeks to prove a premise or model wrong until there is no other direction than the refined premise having to be correct bc there are no other options.

[x808drifter]

Weather changes before the industrial revolution can't be compared to post industrial revolution.
Pre = Nothing really changed on the large scale.
Post = Lots has changed.

The most that can be done is educated guesses.
The main goal is to go back to how it was before the industrial resolution.
But as some have said it may be to late for that.

Like I said before. We fucked.