If the. Earth was round there would be no mountains and valleys .A Third Of Millennials Aren’t Sure The Earth Is Round, Survey Finds
CBS Local — A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round. The national poll reveals that 18 to 24-year-olds are the largest group in the country who refuse to accept the scientific facts of the world’s shape.
A Third Of Millennials Aren’t Sure The Earth Is Round, Survey Finds « CBS Pittsburgh
Yeah they also believe there are 40 sexes, global warming causes snow, fakenews is real, and communism is good.
Sshhdon’tmake sense .Spanky won a fair election to be his party's candidate, which is more than you can say for Hillary. Then he won a fair election for President under the rules that have prevailed for 231 years, and to which folk only object when it produces an outcome they don't like.
... most scientists agree global warming is occurring...
This is what earth looks like without water:
![]()
American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensus
Now there’s a handbook for that
Americans are gradually becoming better-informed
Public awareness about climate change realities has improved over the long-term. For example, about two-thirds of Americans now realize that most scientists agree global warming is occurring, up from less than half in 1997.
John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, who previously published The Debunking Handbook, teamed up with Sander van der Linden and Edward Maibach to write The Consensus Handbook. It’s a concise and definitive summary of everything related to the expert climate consensus, including how we know 90–100% of climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, efforts to manufacture doubt about the consensus, its role as a gateway belief, its neutralizing effect on political ideology, and how to inoculate people against misinformation.
Those last points are particularly important in light of the Gallup survey data. There’s an intense battle over public opinion on climate change, with cues from political elites having a polarizing effect that’s largely offset when people become aware of the expert consensus.
Thus, there’s been a concerted campaign to misinform people about the consensus. That was a key issue that major oil companies accepted in a recent court case, while their fossil fuel-funded supporters denied the consensus in briefs submitted to the court. Meanwhile, the Trump EPA is distributing misleading statements about scientific uncertainty on climate change, helping create this tribal identity that ‘Team Conservative’ denies the realities and dangers associated with human-caused global warming.
However, as the Consensus Handbook discusses, research has shown that inoculating people against misinformation can largely offset its influence.
One key point from the Gallup polling data is that consistently over the past 20 years, less than 10% of Americans have believed that most scientists don’t think global warming is happening. The vast majority of Americans are either aware or unaware of the expert consensus, but few have it backwards. Data from Yale and George Mason universities tells a similar story – only about 10% of Americans think less than 50% of climate scientists agree on global warming. While Americans badly underestimate the expert consensus – just 13% are aware there’s over 90% expert agreement, and the average American thinks the consensus is just 67% – despite growing polarization, few believe that most scientists reject global warming.
Most Americans are simply unaware about and thus underestimate the expert climate consensus. While a number of people can’t be convinced by the facts due to their polarized views, many more in that undecided, uninformed group remain open-minded and reachable.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lueless-about-the-97-expert-climate-consensus
No, if there were no atmoshere, you would go straight up but you are also orbiting around the center of the Earth at the same speed as the spin of the big ball. You would jump up and be pulled straight down towards the center of the Earth in the same gavity field as the Earth. You are exactly like a satellite circling the center of the gravity field up in orbit except that the ground is blocking your downward fall.
see: angular momentum
Some climate change skeptics compare themselves to Galileo, who in the early 17th century challenged the Church’s view that the sun revolves around the earth and was later vindicated.
The comparison to Galileo is not only flawed; the very opposite is true.
1. Galileo was suppressed by religious/political authority, not scientists. Galileo was not suppressed or “outvoted” by other early scientists. Many scientific contemporaries agreed with his observations[2], and were appalled by his trial.[3] Galileo was persecuted by the religious-political establishment – the Catholic Church, which in 1616 ordered him to stop defending his view of the solar system, which contradicted church dogma. After Galileo published his famous Dialogue, the Roman Inquisition tried him in 1633 for defying Church authority, and found him guilty of suspected religious heresy, forced him to recant, banned his books and sentenced him to house arrest for life.[4] Galileo died eight years later.[5]
2. Science is evidence-based; the most vocal skeptics are belief-based. The key difference between Galileo and the Church concerned Galileo’s “way of knowing,” or epistemology. How is knowledge attained?
Medieval scholarship and Catholic Church dogma relied on the authority of Aristotle and a literal interpretation of the Bible to place earth at the center of the universe.
In contrast, Galileo’s views were not based on an infallible authority. His conclusions flowed from observations and logic. Galileo’s evidence- and logic-based method of inquiry later became known as the scientific method.
The vast majority of vocal skeptics are not engaged in climate research. The common bond uniting them, observers note, is an ideological belief system: Government regulation is bad, so problems that may require regulation must be resisted.[6] From there, they search for ways to cast doubt on the science.[7] Unlike Galileo and modern scientists, they do not change their view when presented with new evidence, because their position derives not from open-ended scientific inquiry, but from strongly-held ideological convictions.
In contrast, climate science applies the scientific method pioneered by Galileo. Scientists make observations, form logical hypotheses, then test their hypotheses through experiments and further observations. They follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The Church’s attack on Galileo and the skeptical assault on climate science are far from unique. History is full of examples where new scientific findings threatened powerful vested interests – whether religious, financial or ideological — and provoked a furious backlash.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm
American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensus
Now there’s a handbook for that
Americans are gradually becoming better-informed
Public awareness about climate change realities has improved over the long-term. For example, about two-thirds of Americans now realize that most scientists agree global warming is occurring, up from less than half in 1997.
John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, who previously published The Debunking Handbook, teamed up with Sander van der Linden and Edward Maibach to write The Consensus Handbook. It’s a concise and definitive summary of everything related to the expert climate consensus, including how we know 90–100% of climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, efforts to manufacture doubt about the consensus, its role as a gateway belief, its neutralizing effect on political ideology, and how to inoculate people against misinformation.
Those last points are particularly important in light of the Gallup survey data. There’s an intense battle over public opinion on climate change, with cues from political elites having a polarizing effect that’s largely offset when people become aware of the expert consensus.
Thus, there’s been a concerted campaign to misinform people about the consensus. That was a key issue that major oil companies accepted in a recent court case, while their fossil fuel-funded supporters denied the consensus in briefs submitted to the court. Meanwhile, the Trump EPA is distributing misleading statements about scientific uncertainty on climate change, helping create this tribal identity that ‘Team Conservative’ denies the realities and dangers associated with human-caused global warming.
However, as the Consensus Handbook discusses, research has shown that inoculating people against misinformation can largely offset its influence.
One key point from the Gallup polling data is that consistently over the past 20 years, less than 10% of Americans have believed that most scientists don’t think global warming is happening. The vast majority of Americans are either aware or unaware of the expert consensus, but few have it backwards. Data from Yale and George Mason universities tells a similar story – only about 10% of Americans think less than 50% of climate scientists agree on global warming. While Americans badly underestimate the expert consensus – just 13% are aware there’s over 90% expert agreement, and the average American thinks the consensus is just 67% – despite growing polarization, few believe that most scientists reject global warming.
Most Americans are simply unaware about and thus underestimate the expert climate consensus. While a number of people can’t be convinced by the facts due to their polarized views, many more in that undecided, uninformed group remain open-minded and reachable.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lueless-about-the-97-expert-climate-consensus
This rendering of the Earth Has been dramatically exaggerated to show that it's not quite a ball.
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
The consensus of 32.7% isn't a consensus beyond the 32.7%.
It's meaningless.
I understand this is too complicated for you.