Climate Change: 97% scientific consensus? Try 99.94% instead

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
27,683
7,509
113
B.C.
Proof positive that liars can figure and figures can lie .

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.
If the. Earth was round there would be no mountains and valleys .

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.
Sshhdon’tmake sense .
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,145
12,750
113
Low Earth Orbit
This is what earth looks like without water:

 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
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
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
This is what earth looks like without water:


So, the deepest point in any of our oceans is six miles down. The highest point of land is also about six miles up. The diameter of the Earth is 8000. The high/low difference is less than 1/1000th of the diameter of the sphere and you would hardly see the difference at that scale.

This rendering of the Earth Has been dramatically exaggerated to show that it's not quite a ball. I'm guessing that the high points/low points from the sphere have been exaggerated by about 100 times. That would yield a result like that.

Would you like to buy some of my magic beans, Petros?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,145
12,750
113
Low Earth Orbit
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

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.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
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

I was waiting for the splanation of how the atmosphere is attached to earth. Petroleum based glue perhaps?

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

Globull warming truthers being compared to the Flat Earth society makes perfect sense. Otherwise why are they demanding laws that make it illegal to point out the fallacy of their position?

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

Even supposing for a moment that close to 100% of Globull warming truthers believe their hired scientists the problem is that the majority of the population either flat out doesn't believe in Globull warming or doesn't believe that the pad for scientists are telling the truth or presenting the facts as found.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
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.

Yes, thank you captain oblivious.
 
Last edited:

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
From this thread we can predict the most likely victims of this solar minimum. Most deaths will be from famine and earthquake induced environmental degradations.

There is no such thing as scientific consensus and particularly so in an agenda driven globalist political atmosphere.