Skip to main content

97% of Scientists Agree that the Earth is Flat

Or so one would have to conclude based upon the reasoning demonstrated in the video embedded below.

But first, let's look at what the presenter has to say,

"First, you identify the 'experts.'

In this case, the 'experts' are thousands of scientists who study climate and publish their work in peer-reviewed journals.

Peer review means that every finding that's published is analyzed by people working in the same field, people who really know what they are talking about. [I.E. 'experts.' Or scientists who don't question the official theory and end up being de-funded or driving cabs.]

It's not flawless.

Mistakes occasionally happen, but this system is built to correct those mistakes, [by de-funding and cab driving] and it's by far the best process humans have ever come up with for doing good [political] science.

Once we find this [surviving] group of experts, we analyze their opinion: for or against a particular idea.

Sometimes this is done by studying whatever scientists have written in their papers.

Other times scientists are surveyed directly.

This can even be done by listening to what scientists say in public."

It is almost never done by analyzing how much their careers and incomes and government grants depend upon having certain views.

Here's the good part,

"Now some scientists don't express an opinion either way.

They're not included in the analysis.

Consensus is the fraction (italics - mine) of those who support an idea divided by the sum of those who support plus those who reject the idea.

All these different methods have ended up with the same conclusion. [No shit!] The people who know the most almost universally agree about what's causing global warming."

It goes on to argue that those 'experts' who don't state their agreement with the politically desired conclusion can be included in the 97% consensus, without explicitly agreeing with it just because the "science is already settled." How convenient.

And so, I believe it could be similarly argued:

100% of all scientists agree that the earth is flat. And it's a very strange claim to make, that any scientist who doesn't write "I believe that the earth is flat" is actually uncertain, or doesn't believe that the earth is flat.

Not a controversial idea today but before the 1960s and 1970s, most scientists had not accepted the idea of a flat earth for about 2,000 years. Prove me wrong.

Researchers looked at recent geology papers using the same criteria the critics of flat earth theory should be using on the capitalism-induced spherical earth dogma: That any paper that doesn't explicitly state that "the earth is flat" should be counted as uncertain or, or as rejecting flat earth theory.

Some say not giving a position on the flat earth theory is exactly what you would expect from scientists who agree that something's basically settled, like how physicists don't write, "God created the heavens and the earth in seven days" in every single paper, that Justin Trudeau is a genius, that gravity is a crisis of capitalism due to air travel and tall buildings, or that Donald Trump is following orders from Vladimir Putin. They're accepted as true.

And since, the acceptance of flat earth theory isn't explicitly stated in 97% of the scientific papers, the scientific "consensus" on the earth being flat is pretty near 97%.

This is the main reason why western countries need to import many millions of people from the third world. If the weight of people becomes too high in some corners of the world, the earth could capsize and we would all fall off. (See - gravity.)

On the claim that "there are people out there who spend a lot of money and effort manufacturing doubt." Well, that's nothing compared to the amount of money that is spent on promoting the climate change scam.

According to Marc Morano, global warming promoters receive "3,500 times as much money as anything offered to skeptics." (Page 241 - The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.)

At first I was going to use man-made tectonic plate shifting, with its attendant demands for the cessation of all mining and drilling, as my comparison, instead of flat earth theory, but decided to research whether the hoaxers had already discovered this angle as a Plan B, should the climate hoax finally be exposed.

Unsurprisingly, I discovered that earthquakes, tsunamis, and tectonic plate shifting were already being blamed on human activity. (Mining, drilling, and fracking etc. I.E. - mostly capitalism and prosperity.)


National Geographic.

And this one, which I found most enjoyable of all of them all, not least for the comments that readers left. (eg. tax the water!)

Other Resources

What is a ‘climate scientist’?

97% "Consensus" (Marc Morano)


Popular posts from this blog

How to Save the Ontario Basic Income Program!Background Leftist Ontario virtue signallers have been freaking out over the Ford government's cancellation of the Basic Income free money project that was cooked up by the Wynne government to build up their voter base. I follow a few of these caring individuals on Twitter to study their self delusions. They've all been afflicted lately with Ford Derangement Syndrome, peacocking their indignation at the cancellation of Wynne's free money giveaway "program." But does the program really have to be cancelled? Of course not. All it would require to be saved is for the virtue signallers, and there are loads of them, from Deb Matthews and Andrea Horwath, to a parade of obscure, Twitter addicts, and their offended fans. The good news is that the program can easily continue on a voluntary basis. The only difference is that the leftists would have to reach into their own pockets to show how committed and compassionate they …
No Welfare for Immigrants:How to achieve unanimity in the Canadian Immigration debate Here's just a few, off the cuff, ideas for addressing most of the objections Canadian tax captives have about immigration. In Canada as it is set up now, only a fool can be in favour of open borders. As as libertarian, I remain 100% in favour of open borders, but only under certain conditions. The most important condition is that Canada be a free country. Since that is obviously not the case, I cannot support open borders at this time. Here are a few other conditions that, if met, would make me more agreeable to open borders, even without abolishing state education, government medical insurance, welfare, public pensions, the CBC, and so on, 1 - no welfare payments, especially child tax benefit payments, for immigrants for at least a period of time, say ten, or X, years. 2 - no free medicare for X years. (The word is that there are a lot of Pakistani MD's driving cabs. Restrictions on t…
Poor Uber Driver Oh my. This is a sad story. Here is an Uber driver voicing his concerns in the Uber driver's forum about whether or not his "sharing economy" gig is paying off. It's possible that this is not a genuine post from a genuine Uber driver. I see that. It's the kind of schlopp I would write if I were in a mischievous mood. On the other hand, given what I already know about the Uber scam, and the people it exploits in order to get them to employ "assets they already own," in Tim Hudak's famous phrase, it's entirely reasonable to believe that this is a REAL Uber driver, who is just beginning to figure out who is making money, or should be making money, and who is getting royally boned. (See my story about the Uber driver who drove a football player from Chicago to Buffalo for minus $38.50.) I knew it was a scam from the beginning. That is why, when people asked me why, instead of tolerating the City of Hamilton's demonstrably abs…