[eru]

Most people don't engage with the science directly. I know I don't. And your beliefs about climate change don't make a difference in daily life one way or another.

Thus what you get is stated beliefs being entirely driven by appeals to authority and tribal affiliation.

As a small experiment for how hard it is: come up with some good arguments to convince me that earth is actually roughly spherical--without resorting to appeals to authority.

Just using observations and little experiments available to the common layman it's doable, but way harder than you think. And now just extrapolate how much harder climate change is to argue about.

[titzer]

It's not that hard. Watch a lunar eclipse. Watch the sun rise, follow an arc, set, and then watch the stars rise, follow their arcs, and then set. Then travel to a few degrees south and see the whole thing again, except the pole around which everything revolves shifts by exactly the amount you moved south.

[eru]

Yes, that's good evidence. Though I think the flat earthers had some convoluted explanation for it, too.

What's also easy to do in today's world is calling up someone in a different time zone that you trust, and ask them for when their sunset is. (The interactive calling is important, so that it's harder to have a conspiracy delay your messages or fake some news.)

[peoplewindow]

Flat earthers? Who has ever thought the Earth was flat? Even medieval people didn't think that, it's obvious to anyone who ever watched a ship sail over the horizon that the planet is not flat. They used to think the sun revolved around the Earth, which is a lot harder to check with common sense logic.

[eru]

Oh, I didn't want to imply any one particular society though the earth was flat. Flat earthers are just an example to show that it's not trivial to argue against someone with a weird believe that they are motivated to defend.