It does for me because one of my interests has been the psychology of mass delusion and hysteria. I prefer senior distinguished scientists like Happer. Richard Lindzen too. Freeman Dyson once. My hero, Steynman. John Christie at Huntsville. Roy Spencer.
Conversation
Who don’t even agree amongst themselves a single, coherent, credible counter hypothesis. They also all agree the greenhouse effect is real though don’t agree between themselves on how low ECS is.
2
7
Which indicates the missing empirical evidence that would provide a degree of certainty. I think but cannot be certain that we are in the midst of two reflections on the gullibility of man.
1
2
The gullibility of ONE MAN in this thread is reflected very well.
Listen to the science:
- ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
#ClimateBrawl #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency
2
1
8
IPCC reports are not science. They are a reflection of what was demanded of them so that continuity of funds and privileges are guaranteed. They were not asked whether a trace gas would cause catastrophe but to find evidence that it might.
6
3
3
2
9
1.Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
7
2
7
You didn't cite source.
And date.
Pretty sure that was not unintentional.
1
3
#Deniers never cite. At least properly. They'll maybe try to push a preprint at you telling you it's 'facts'.
#ClimateInformation
2
3
3
1
3
Happer is not a climate scientist... and the video is not science. The science is clear:
- science2017.globalchange.gov
- ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
- climate.nasa.gov/causes/
No evidence exists to disprove the science of climate change.
#ClimateBrawl #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency
