We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So

[Lord of Planar]

How much will it cost in the long run if we don’t address it now due to the negative consequences of global warming on a worldwide basis?

Closer to zero than your imaginary disasters would cost.

 

[watsup]

Closer to zero than your imaginary disasters would cost.

Wrong. The effects of CO2 are already costing millions and even billions, and it is only going to get worse.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wrong. The effects of CO2 are already costing millions and even billions, and it is only going to get worse.

How so?

Prove it.

 

[cabse5]

Why did federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action when they where under the control and scrutiny of Republican politicians that denied the urgent need for action. If where was no evidence as you claim?

"Changes in temperature and precipitation are increasing air quality and health risks from wildfire and ground-level ozone pollution. Rising air and water temperatures and more intense extreme events are expected to increase exposure to waterborne and foodborne diseases, affecting food and water safety. With continued warming, cold-related deaths are projected to decrease and heat-related deaths are projected to increase; in most regions, increases in heat-related deaths are expected to outpace reductions in cold-related deaths. The frequency and severity of allergic illnesses, including asthma and hay fever, are expected to increase as a result of a changing climate. Climate change is also projected to alter the geographic range and distribution of disease-carrying insects and pests, exposing more people to ticks that carry Lyme disease and mosquitoes that transmit viruses such as Zika, West Nile, and dengue, with varying impacts across regions. Communities in the Southeast, for example, are particularly vulnerable to the combined health impacts from vector-borne disease, heat, and flooding. Extreme weather and climate-related events can have lasting mental health consequences in affected communities, particularly if they result in degradation of livelihoods or community relocation. Populations including older adults, children, low-income communities, and some communities of color are often disproportionately affected by, and less resilient to, the health impacts of climate change. Adaptation and mitigation policies and programs that help individuals, communities, and states prepare for the risks of a changing climate reduce the number of injuries, illnesses, and deaths from climate-related health outcomes."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

Also why would all the world's leading scientific organizations acknowledge the urgent need for action, if where was no evidence as you claim?

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

www.esa.org

That the reality is that the evidence for the urgent need for actions are overwhelming.

Evidence - NASA Science

Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...

climate.nasa.gov

Why do federal agencies continue to decry high levels of CO2 in the 'sphere when there is no scientific evidence that showing that too much CO2 in the 'sphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe?

 

[watsup]

How so?

Prove it.

“
In a new study, Stanford researchers report that intensifying precipitation contributed one-third of the financial costs of flooding in the United States over the past three decades, totaling almost $75 billion of the estimated $199 billion in flood damages from 1988 to 2017.

The research, published Jan. 11 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, helps to resolve a long-standing debate about the role of climate change in the rising costs of flooding and provides new insight into the financial costs of global warming overall.
"The fact that extreme precipitation has been increasing and will likely increase in the future is well known, but what effect that has had on financial damages has been uncertain," said lead author Frances Davenport, a PhD student in Earth system science at Stanford's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). "Our analysis allows us to isolate how much of those changes in precipitation translate to changes in the cost of flooding, both now and in the future."
The global insurance company Munich Re calls flooding "the number-one natural peril in the U.S." However, although flooding is one of the most common, widespread and costly natural hazards, whether climate change has contributed to the rising financial costs of flooding -- and if so, how much -- has been a topic of debate, including in the most recent climate change assessments from the U.S. government and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

And that’s the United States alone. Much the same as far as more frequent extreme weather events the world over.

Climate change has caused billions of dollars in flood damages

Flooding has caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage in the U.S. over the past three decades. Researchers found that 36 percent of the costs of flooding in the U.S. from 1988 to 2017 were a result of intensifying precipitation, consistent with predictions of global warming.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[watsup]

How so?

Prove it.

Elsewhere: “
Christian Aid's list of ten storms, floods and fires all cost at least $1.5bn - with nine of the 10 costing at least $5bn.

An unusually rainy monsoon season was associated with some of the most damaging storms in Asia, where some of the biggest losses were. Over a period of months, heavy flooding in India saw more than 2,000 deaths with millions of people displaced from their homes.


The value of the insured losses is estimated at $10bn.
China suffered even greater financial damage from flooding, running to around $32bn between June and October this year. The loss of life from these events was much smaller than in India.
While these were slow-moving disasters, some events did enormous damage in a short period of time.
Cyclone Amphan struck the Bay of Bengal in May and caused losses estimated at $13bn in just a few days.
"We saw record temperatures in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal, straddling between 30C-33C," said Dr Roxy Mathew Koll, a climate scientist at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology in Pune.

"These high temperatures had the characteristics of marine heat waves that might have led to the rapid intensification of the pre-monsoon cyclones Amphan and Nisarga," he said in a comment on the Christian Aid study.
"Amphan was one of the strongest cyclones ever recorded in the Bay of Bengal during the pre-monsoon season."

Climate change: Extreme weather causes huge losses in 2020

Hurricanes, floods and wildfires wreaked havoc, causing deaths and a huge financial impact.

www.bbc.com

 

[Glitch]

"There isn’t a direct relationship between climate change and fire, but researchers have found strong correlations between warm summer temperatures and large fire years, so there is general consensus that fire occurrence will increase with climate change. Hot, dry conditions, however, do not automatically mean fire—something needs to create the spark and actually start the fire. In some parts of the country (like Alaska), most fires are ignited by lightning. In other regions (like California), most fires are ignited by humans. Climate models tell us that average summer temperatures will continue to increase through this century, but ignition is the wild card. What will happen in the future is a more complicated story because we don’t understand what will happen with convective storms and the lightning."

Will global warming produce more frequent and more intense wildfires? | U.S. Geological Survey

There isn’t a direct relationship between climate change and fire, but researchers have found strong correlations between warm summer temperatures and large fire years, so there is general consensus that fire occurrence will increase with climate change.Hot, dry conditions, however, do not...

www.usgs.gov

The reason the correlation is not direct is because climate change doesn't spark the fires. And your quote, "Wildfires are not getting more numerous or bigger..." is provably false.

As if the USGS had a clue. You know that the USGS has absolutely nothing to do with wildfires, right? Climate models can be whatever you want them to be, as the EPA repeatedly demonstrates with all their completely bogus climate models that haven't been close to accurate in 40+ years.

The climate is not causing more or larger wildfires, despite your bizarre attempts to make your fantasy real. All the ACTUAL evidence, not some bogus made-up climate model, demonstrates that there is absolutely no correlation between the number and size of the wildfires and the climate.

Most wildfires are not ignited by humans either. More than 90% of the wildfires are started by lightening strikes. Humans contribute a very small percentage of wildfires.

It is blatantly obviously that you have utterly no clue what you are talking about. I demonstrated, with actual data, that wildfires are not getting more numerous or bigger. Yet you continue to deliberately lie, like a good leftist that has absolutely no clue. Everything you post is demonstrably false. You wouldn't know an actual fact if it bit you in the posterior. So continue to cite your bogus climate models while we laugh at your ignorance.

 

[watsup]

As if the USGS had a clue. You know that the USGS has absolutely nothing to do with wildfires, right? Climate models can be whatever you want them to be, as the EPA repeatedly demonstrates with all their completely bogus climate models that haven't been close to accurate in 40+ years.

The climate is not causing more or larger wildfires, despite your bizarre attempts to make your fantasy real. All the ACTUAL evidence, not some bogus made-up climate model, demonstrates that there is absolutely no correlation between the number and size of the wildfires and the climate.

Most wildfires are not ignited by humans either. More than 90% of the wildfires are started by lightening strikes. Humans contribute a very small percentage of wildfires.

It is blatantly obviously that you have utterly no clue what you are talking about. I demonstrated, with actual data, that wildfires are not getting more numerous or bigger. Yet you continue to deliberately lie, like a good leftist that has absolutely no clue. Everything you post is demonstrably false. You wouldn't know an actual fact if it bit you in the posterior. So continue to cite your bogus climate models while we laugh at your ignorance.

,
Last phrase: Psychological projection.

 

[Lord of Planar]

“
In a new study, Stanford researchers report that intensifying precipitation contributed one-third of the financial costs of flooding in the United States over the past three decades, totaling almost $75 billion of the estimated $199 billion in flood damages from 1988 to 2017.

The research, published Jan. 11 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, helps to resolve a long-standing debate about the role of climate change in the rising costs of flooding and provides new insight into the financial costs of global warming overall.
"The fact that extreme precipitation has been increasing and will likely increase in the future is well known, but what effect that has had on financial damages has been uncertain," said lead author Frances Davenport, a PhD student in Earth system science at Stanford's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). "Our analysis allows us to isolate how much of those changes in precipitation translate to changes in the cost of flooding, both now and in the future."
The global insurance company Munich Re calls flooding "the number-one natural peril in the U.S." However, although flooding is one of the most common, widespread and costly natural hazards, whether climate change has contributed to the rising financial costs of flooding -- and if so, how much -- has been a topic of debate, including in the most recent climate change assessments from the U.S. government and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

And that’s the United States alone. Much the same as far as more frequent extreme weather events the world over.

Climate change has caused billions of dollars in flood damages

Flooding has caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage in the U.S. over the past three decades. Researchers found that 36 percent of the costs of flooding in the U.S. from 1988 to 2017 were a result of intensifying precipitation, consistent with predictions of global warming.

www.sciencedaily.com

Now prove that most of that precipitation increases was caused by the antropogenic changes, rather than natural. That this isn't another natural cycle.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Elsewhere: “
Christian Aid's list of ten storms, floods and fires all cost at least $1.5bn - with nine of the 10 costing at least $5bn.

An unusually rainy monsoon season was associated with some of the most damaging storms in Asia, where some of the biggest losses were. Over a period of months, heavy flooding in India saw more than 2,000 deaths with millions of people displaced from their homes.


The value of the insured losses is estimated at $10bn.
China suffered even greater financial damage from flooding, running to around $32bn between June and October this year. The loss of life from these events was much smaller than in India.
While these were slow-moving disasters, some events did enormous damage in a short period of time.
Cyclone Amphan struck the Bay of Bengal in May and caused losses estimated at $13bn in just a few days.
"We saw record temperatures in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal, straddling between 30C-33C," said Dr Roxy Mathew Koll, a climate scientist at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology in Pune.

"These high temperatures had the characteristics of marine heat waves that might have led to the rapid intensification of the pre-monsoon cyclones Amphan and Nisarga," he said in a comment on the Christian Aid study.
"Amphan was one of the strongest cyclones ever recorded in the Bay of Bengal during the pre-monsoon season."

Climate change: Extreme weather causes huge losses in 2020

Hurricanes, floods and wildfires wreaked havoc, causing deaths and a huge financial impact.

www.bbc.com

Who cares?

Why are all changed due to mans influence? There are natural cycles. Prove the cause of it.

 

[PoS]

False attempt at logic.

You have no idea how many scientists there are in the world, and. not all scientists are climate scientists.

The estimate of 8 million scientists is about right. If you can prove otherwise, go for it. And while youre at it, please show us the credentials of these 11K "scientists" that claim an apocalypse is coming.

Indeed, the scientists that were the original poster children for the oil soaked climate science denial industry were all working to prove that nicotine isn’t additive before they discovered climate science, and the money that came from big oil!

Strawman fallacy. You ought to take your own advice for once.

 

[watsup]

The estimate of 8 million scientists is about right. If you can prove otherwise, go for it. And while youre at it, please show us the credentials of these 11K "scientists" that claim an apocalypse is coming.


Strawman fallacy. You ought to take your own advice for once.

What are your credentials?

 

[mrjurrs]

As if the USGS had a clue. You know that the USGS has absolutely nothing to do with wildfires, right? Climate models can be whatever you want them to be, as the EPA repeatedly demonstrates with all their completely bogus climate models that haven't been close to accurate in 40+ years.

The climate is not causing more or larger wildfires, despite your bizarre attempts to make your fantasy real. All the ACTUAL evidence, not some bogus made-up climate model, demonstrates that there is absolutely no correlation between the number and size of the wildfires and the climate.

Most wildfires are not ignited by humans either. More than 90% of the wildfires are started by lightening strikes. Humans contribute a very small percentage of wildfires.

It is blatantly obviously that you have utterly no clue what you are talking about. I demonstrated, with actual data, that wildfires are not getting more numerous or bigger. Yet you continue to deliberately lie, like a good leftist that has absolutely no clue. Everything you post is demonstrably false. You wouldn't know an actual fact if it bit you in the posterior. So continue to cite your bogus climate models while we laugh at your ignorance.

I think you need to get out more. Of course the USGS doesn't fight or manage forest fires, do you know what they do?
"The USGS serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life."
https://www.usgs.gov/about/organization/science-support/survey-manual/1201-creation-authority-mission-and-functions#:~:text=The%20USGS%20serves%20the%20Nation,protect%20our%20quality%20of%20life.
I agree, vast majority of fires start by nature, including CA's largest wildfire last year.

August Complex fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I guess you disbelieve usgs data because the government is evil and out to get you. I don't look at them that way.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Why do federal agencies continue to decry high levels of CO2 in the 'sphere when there is no scientific evidence that showing that too much CO2 in the 'sphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe?

It is you who makes the claim that there are no evidence for the urgent need for action. So you need to explain not only why all the world's leading scientific organizations and federal agencies acknowledge the urgent need for action but also why Republican politicians for ten years did nothing. That Republican politicians controlled the Senate and/or the House for ten years and the White House for four years. So they could have easily have started investigations and hearings if there was something wrong with federal agencies scientific work. Instead not only did federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action under the scrutiny and control of Republicans that denied the urgent need for action but also for example Trump's picks for head of NASA started to acknowledge the urgent need for action after looking at the evidence.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero.

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

www.space.com

Also there are many good sources if if you want to learn more about the evidence like for example this one.

Evidence & Causes of Climate Change | Royal Society

Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate.

royalsociety.org

 

[Bergslagstroll]

There are now hope for real action on climate change. While at the same time those actions could and should have come decades ago and we are now running out of time.

"But hope rises again. The economic winds are lifting Biden’s sails: the cost of wind and solar power has plummeted by 90% or so over the past decade, and in many parts of the world it’s the cheapest way to generate electricity.

Globally, the signs of change are equally inspiring. Eight of the 10 largest economies have pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. China, by far the world’s largest carbon polluter in terms of raw tonnage (on a per capita basis, the US and several other countries pollute far more), has promised to become carbon neutral by 2060. Some 400 companies, including Microsoft, Unilever, Facebook, Ford, Nestlé and Pepsi, have committed to reduce carbon pollution consistent with the United Nations’ 1.5C target, which scientists have determined is the threshold of dangerous climate change.

In her confirmation hearing, the treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, called climate change “an existential threat” and promised to create a team to examine the risks and integrate them into financial policymaking."

‘This is it. If we don’t amp up, we’re goners’: the last chance to confront the climate crisis?

When it comes to addressing the climate emergency, there have been hopeful moments before that ultimately led to nothing. Now, hope rises again

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ren]

The house is not yet on fire, but we've got the gas can sitting right next to the fireplace... There's little difference between being "in crisis" and "setting the stage for the imminent crisis". The vapors are already diffusing over toward the fire... tick tick tick...

Is that really a gas can sitting next to the fire, or just a bucket of water? Are those actual gaseous vapors or is it just steam?

See, we've been dealing with environmentalist tears for going on 200 years and still no crises.

I think it might be time for you people to shut up and channel your energies someplace else. Why don't you go out and enjoy the weather? It's a BEEEEEAAAUUUTIFUL Spring season!

 

[istodolez]

Is that really a gas can sitting next to the fire, or just a bucket of water? Are those actual gaseous vapors or is it just steam?

See, we've been dealing with environmentalist tears for going on 200 years and still no crises.

I think it might be time for you people to shut up and channel your energies someplace else. Why don't you go out and enjoy the weather? It's a BEEEEEAAAUUUTIFUL Spring season!

Sorry for all the Environmentalist Tears:

Cuyahoga River on fire:

Love Canal:

Woburn, MA Chromium-laced wells:

 

[Ren]

Sorry for all the Environmentalist Tears:

Cuyahoga River on fire:

Love Canal:

Woburn, MA Chromium-laced wells:

What do these things have to do with the so-called climate emergency the scientists are crying about?

 

[Glitch]

What do these things have to do with the so-called climate emergency the scientists are crying about?

Leftists are not very bright. They are unable to distinguish between climate and pollution. They also think carbon dioxide is the same thing as carbon monoxide, or at least they are unable to determine the difference between the two. The only true "emergency" here are the leftist's need for an education.

 

[istodolez]

What do these things have to do with the so-called climate emergency the scientists are crying about?

Just showing your point about environmentalist tears and how we’ve never had a crisis in 200 years

 

[istodolez]

Leftists are not very bright. They are unable to distinguish between climate and pollution. They also think carbon dioxide is the same thing as carbon monoxide, or at least they are unable to determine the difference between the two. The only true "emergency" here are the leftist's need for an education.

Did you not read his post? Or did he confuse you. He attacked environmentalists and indicated that for 200 years they’ve cried but there was never any crises in environmental issues.

 

[Glitch]

Did you not read his post? Or did he confuse you. He attacked environmentalists and indicated that for 200 years they’ve cried but there was never any crises in environmental issues.

I read his post, and the only one who is confused here is you. Pollution is not climate. It isn't weather either. But because you lack the education to distinguish the difference between the two, you think they are one and the same. Here is a clue since you are clearly missing one: They are not the same, not even remotely.

Furthermore, anti-American leftist filth have been pushing first Global Cooling during the 1970s, and then Global Warming during the 1980s, and Climate Change since 1990, and have always been flat out wrong about every prediction ever made. Even when you had 100% consensus that the Holocene Interglacial period had come to an abrupt end by all 46 scientists with the National Science Foundation, you were flat-out wrong and were singing a completely different tune by 1979.

Leftists are defined by their hypocrisy.


March, 1973

So much for your reliance on "scientific consensus." It doesn't mean diddly-squat, and never did. Just another leftist lie.

 

[CLAX1911]

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We're Going to Say So

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed

www.scientificamerican.com

An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action. When someone calls 911 because they can’t breathe, that’s an emergency. When someone stumbles on the sidewalk because their chest is pounding and their lips are turning blue, that’s an emergency. Both people require help right away. Multiply those individuals by millions of people who have similar symptoms, and it constitutes the biggest global health emergency in a century: the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.

This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January Scientific American published an article about a study entitled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action. As of April 9 another 2,100 had signed on. As our article said, “the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity.... Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering.” Our article also noted that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”

I've seen enough science to the contrary that I tend to reject alarmism out of hand as an appeal to emotion to try and elicit a rash reaction.

Basically people become more shrill as fewer and fewer people listen to them. Not based on how eminent a threat is.

Hurricanes have always hit Florida effect of life on the Gulf Coast. I've lived through more than one cold snap and Texas and more than one flood in Texas. These events don't seem to be happening with any more frequency

So I'm going to dismiss the alarmism and most people are because they can observe these things too.

 

[istodolez]

I read his post, and the only one who is confused here is you. Pollution is not climate. It isn't weather either. But because you lack the education to distinguish the difference between the two, you think they are one and the same. Here is a clue since you are clearly missing one: They are not the same, not even remotely.

Furthermore, anti-American leftist filth have been pushing first Global Cooling during the 1970s, and then Global Warming during the 1980s, and Climate Change since 1990, and have always been flat out wrong about every prediction ever made. Even when you had 100% consensus that the Holocene Interglacial period had come to an abrupt end by all 46 scientists with the National Science Foundation, you were flat-out wrong and were singing a completely different tune by 1979.

Leftists are defined by their hypocrisy.

View attachment 67329126
March, 1973

So much for your reliance on "scientific consensus." It doesn't mean diddly-squat, and never did. Just another leftist lie.

You appear fractally confused.

your buddy explicitly called out "Environmentalist tears".....now you tell him environment and climate aren't the same. Seems you have a problem with the other poster and not me.

As for the 1970's, well, you are clearly not a scientist either. If you were you'd know that even in the 1970's peer reviewed science articles predicting WARMING outnumbered those predicting cooling almost 6:1 (Peterson 2008).

 

[cabse5]

It is you who makes the claim that there are no evidence for the urgent need for action. So you need to explain not only why all the world's leading scientific organizations and federal agencies acknowledge the urgent need for action but also why Republican politicians for ten years did nothing. That Republican politicians controlled the Senate and/or the House for ten years and the White House for four years. So they could have easily have started investigations and hearings if there was something wrong with federal agencies scientific work. Instead not only did federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action under the scrutiny and control of Republicans that denied the urgent need for action but also for example Trump's picks for head of NASA started to acknowledge the urgent need for action after looking at the evidence.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero.

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

www.space.com

Also there are many good sources if if you want to learn more about the evidence like for example this one.

Evidence & Causes of Climate Change | Royal Society

Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate.

royalsociety.org

I've pointed out in previous posts on this thread that many 'scientists' decried that the earth was flat and many 'scientists' decried that the earth was the center of the universe...Many 'scientists' have also decried that too much CO2 in the 'sphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe (the conspiracy theory which states that too much CO2 in the 'sphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe).

The 2 things that the climate change catastrophe conspiracy theory has in common with the flat earth theory and the earth as the center of the universe theory is that:
(1) Many 'scientists' decried the theories to be true.
(2) There was no scientific evidence to back up any of the theories.

Are you, now, saying that since many 'scientists' decried the earth was the center of the universe and many 'scientists' decried the earth was flat we should also take the flat and center of the universe theories seriously?
Like I posted earlier, scientific evidence is way more important than consensus among scientists. For example, the consensus of scientists before Einstein came upon the scene was that the 'ether' was real and facilitated movement of particles.