ADVERTISEMENT

OT: I’m bored...any flat earthers???

Flat Earth is boring. Why not just toss in abortion, evolution, politics and gun rights?

On second thought, what is your favorite kind of pizza? I love mushroom and a fried egg on mine.
 
I hail from a land that puts tuna and sweet corn on pizza and thinks its normal...so anything goes
 
puddy-arbys-night-robert-griffin-iii_zpsi8s8ae6h.jpg
 
Pepperoni, hamburger, green peppers and onions.

Pineapple NEVER belongs on pizza! Not even in Hawaii.

Oh, and the earth is a cube.
Man I love the Hawaiian pizza from Poppa Johns.
However deep dish meat lovers or the works New York style
 
Seriously? Nobody is even gunna answer? I say it's an interesting topic that isn't near as crazy as people act.
 
I went to a pizza buffet when I was doing some work in Japan and they had a mayonnaise and corn pizza on the line. I didn't try it but it was very popular with the locals. Who knows?
 
I won't buy papa johns pizza because here, it comes with uk logos and Calimari's picture on the box......so nope.....they ain't getting my money....I also handed a large diet Dr Pepper back to the lady at the McDonald's drive through the other day because it had uk logos on the cup. I stopped at a gas station and got myself a normal diet Dr Pepper.
 
I know that the OP question is designed to get people to think critically about something that is often assumed, but it seems like there are better ones to choose. Like, what is beyond the edge of the universe, or is there a smallest particle? Will Roy ever use all his timeouts?
 
I bet he doesn’t believe scientists about man’s impact on global warming, either...

Nope I believe the scientists that say man doesn't impact it. I also can't believe someone as "intelligent" as you believes a scientist can predict a temperature rise over 100 years away when they can't predict tomorrow's weather. As for flat earth listen to the theories and stop being a douche. I never said I believe the earth is flat I said some of the things they say about it is quite interesting.
 
I know that the OP question is designed to get people to think critically about something that is often assumed, but it seems like there are better ones to choose. Like, what is beyond the edge of the universe, or is there a smallest particle? Will Roy ever use all his timeouts?
There you go again!!!! Hahahahaha
 
  • Like
Reactions: DukeDenver
Nope I believe the scientists that say man doesn't impact it. I also can't believe someone as "intelligent" as you believes a scientist can predict a temperature rise over 100 years away when they can't predict tomorrow's weather. As for flat earth listen to the theories and stop being a douche. I never said I believe the earth is flat I said some of the things they say about it is quite interesting.

This thread is "heating up."

As a scientist, I will point out the inability to predict tomorrow's weather has zero to do with climate forecasting.

I have read some scientists' views that global warming is not mostly due to man's impact, but there is certainly more evidence to the contrary (97% of all papers from 2000-2013 to be exact). That's not to say there aren't some interesting facts supporting your views: like there was likely 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere at a time when glaciers dominated the Earth 400 million years ago. There is also evidence that solar cycles (whatever the hell those are) are a pretty important natural driver of climate change. No one is denying that natural forces aren't a major part of this, but the CO2 correlation and modelling is just too convincing for me at this point. I don't see the harm of trying to reduce emissions as much a possible without straining the economy. Money will always come first with human beings, so we need to operate within that paradigm. Environmentalism can be profitable.
 
This thread is "heating up."

As a scientist, I will point out the inability to predict tomorrow's weather has zero to do with climate forecasting.

I have read some scientists' views that global warming is not mostly due to man's impact, but there is certainly more evidence to the contrary (97% of all papers from 2000-2013 to be exact). That's not to say there aren't some interesting facts supporting your views: like there was likely 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere at a time when glaciers dominated the Earth 400 million years ago. There is also evidence that solar cycles (whatever the hell those are) are a pretty important natural driver of climate change. No one is denying that natural forces aren't a major part of this, but the CO2 correlation and modelling is just too convincing for me at this point. I don't see the harm of trying to reduce emissions as much a possible without straining the economy. Money will always come first with human beings, so we need to operate within that paradigm. Environmentalism can be profitable.
That's what I was thinking
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchDevil
I have read some scientists' views that global warming is not mostly due to man's impact, but there is certainly more evidence to the contrary (97% of all papers from 2000-2013 to be exact).

That 97% number gets thrown out way too loosely. What is that even referencing? Here is an excerpt from Forbes which goes into more details of this misleading figure.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

"Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol;
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .” —Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.” —Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DukeDenver
That 97% number gets thrown out way too loosely. What is that even referencing? Here is an excerpt from Forbes which goes into more details of this misleading figure.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

"Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol;
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .” —Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.” —Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
That's certainly a fair take on that 97% stat. He is definitely assuming too much.

I will add that 100% of the PhD holding, published scientists I know (more than 100 people) feel that the rapid climate change we are experiencing is at least 50% man made in the last 150 years. Does that mean we are all right? No. But it's not like I'm part of a deep state plot to intimidate the public.

When I examine my own stance, it comes from reading atmospheric CO2 trends and seeing global surface temperature rise in perfect lockstep. For 1 million years, CO2 has alternated between 200ppm and 300ppm, as directly measured in ice cores (this is a fact that can not be debated). Now CO2 is at 400ppm since only 100 years ago. Global temps have been relatively stable that entire million years with plenty of hot and cold periods, but through single degree changes that took 10,000 years on average. It just so happens that we are experiencing the first rapid spike of warming in a million years at the same time that CO2 has risen above 300ppm in a million years. Couple that with the fact that you can simulate the effect of co2 rise on surface temperature in a lab and you'd actually expect some warming. How can these facts be a coincidence? A 2 degree surface temperature increase in just 100 years has never happened on Earth in the last 1 million years according to the best available data. If that doesn't alarm you, then I guess you must be convinced that this trend is a lie or that our ice core and geologic data is a lie. I for one am a little alarmed, but also recognize we need to manage this with consideration to natural human behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mpm277 and vcugreg
Like, what is beyond the edge of the universe, or is there a smallest particle?
As a physicist, I have different reactions to these two questions.
The first isn't really a scientific question because what lies beyond the edge of the universe is unobservable. So it's like asking, is there a God? Legit question. Not really a scientific one. The popular science guys (including guys like Neil deGrasse Tyson) talk about this stuff because it's interesting to think about. But it isn't what (most) physicists work on at all.
The answer to the second question some physicists work on. Or at least they attempt to measure the "size" of particles. It's a little complicated - you have to define what you mean by size. But the electron,for instance, that everyone has heard of is point-like (meaning it has zero size) as far as any measurement has shown.
And anyone who has ever seen a lunar eclipse (which happens a few times a year, so everyone has probably seen one) should believe the Earth is either a round disc (so flat) or a sphere. A cube is not possible. This coupled with travel routes, and you are left with a sphere (or something very near) as the shape of the Earth.
 
Nope I believe the scientists that say man doesn't impact it. I also can't believe someone as "intelligent" as you believes a scientist can predict a temperature rise over 100 years away when they can't predict tomorrow's weather. As for flat earth listen to the theories and stop being a douche. I never said I believe the earth is flat I said some of the things they say about it is quite interesting.

Oh good lord.

Nearly every scientist on earth believes that man has had a measurable impact on our climate. Here is a list of SOME of the organizations that believe that climate change has been impacted by human activity.

  1. Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
  2. Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
  3. Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
  4. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
  5. Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
  6. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
  7. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
  8. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
  9. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  10. Académie des Sciences, France
  11. Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
  12. Academy of Athens
  13. Academy of Science of Mozambique
  14. Academy of Science of South Africa
  15. Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
  16. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  17. Academy of Sciences of Moldova
  18. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
  19. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
  20. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
  21. Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  22. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
  23. Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
  24. African Academy of Sciences
  25. Albanian Academy of Sciences
  26. Amazon Environmental Research Institute
  27. American Academy of Pediatrics
  28. American Anthropological Association
  29. American Association for the Advancement of Science
  30. American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
  31. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
  32. American Astronomical Society
  33. American Chemical Society
  34. American College of Preventive Medicine
  35. American Fisheries Society
  36. American Geophysical Union
  37. American Institute of Biological Sciences
  38. American Institute of Physics
  39. American Meteorological Society
  40. American Physical Society
  41. American Public Health Association
  42. American Quaternary Association
  43. American Society for Microbiology
  44. American Society of Agronomy
  45. American Society of Civil Engineers
  46. American Society of Plant Biologists
  47. American Statistical Association
  48. Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
  49. Australian Academy of Science
  50. Australian Bureau of Meteorology
  51. Australian Coral Reef Society
  52. Australian Institute of Marine Science
  53. Australian Institute of Physics
  54. Australian Marine Sciences Association
  55. Australian Medical Association
  56. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  57. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
  58. Botanical Society of America
  59. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
  60. British Antarctic Survey
  61. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
  62. California Academy of Sciences
  63. Cameroon Academy of Sciences
  64. Canadian Association of Physicists
  65. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  66. Canadian Geophysical Union
  67. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  68. Canadian Society of Soil Science
  69. Canadian Society of Zoologists
  70. Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
  71. Center for International Forestry Research
  72. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  73. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
  74. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
  75. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
  76. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
  77. Crop Science Society of America
  78. Cuban Academy of Sciences
  79. Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
  80. Ecological Society of America
  81. Ecological Society of Australia
  82. Environmental Protection Agency
  83. European Academy of Sciences and Arts
  84. European Federation of Geologists
  85. European Geosciences Union
  86. European Physical Society
  87. European Science Foundation
  88. Federation of American Scientists
  89. French Academy of Sciences
  90. Geological Society of America
  91. Geological Society of Australia
  92. Geological Society of London
  93. Georgian Academy of Sciences
  94. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
  95. Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
  96. Indian National Science Academy
  97. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  98. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
  99. Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
(And there are more! I literally cannot fit them all on here!)

You have no understanding or expertise or actual knowledge on your side, so why would you side with the tiny tiny minority?

Scientists absolutely can predict weather, and climate as well. That you suggest otherwise is just bizarre. I am guessing you have very little actual experience in sciences or reading anything about them. I am the type of person who, if I have literally no experience or education in a field... well, I am not so self-centered that I think I know more than thousands of people who DO have experience and education in said field. I don't know more about the law than lawyers, I don't know more about medicine than doctors, I don't know more about military tactics than a soldier. Surely you are the same way?

Being a douche? Pisgah, I'm a douche because I said, literally, only this...

"Yes, (believing the Earth is flat) is as crazy as people act. FFS."

and correctly guessed that you don't believe climate is impacted by human activity?

Uh, no. Stop being so over sensitive and dramatic. That's ridiculous. If someone said "President Trump is an alien!" I'd mock them too, for being insane. Saying that the idea that the world is flat, a belief from the Stone Ages, is ridiculous, and for correctly guessing your stance on something is rational and normal.

You had a Trump avatar for a long time, right?
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT