Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
ScottAdamsSays's profile
Scott Adams
Scott Adams
Scott Adams
Verified account
@ScottAdamsSays

Tweets

Scott AdamsVerified account

@ScottAdamsSays

My Micro Lesson (2-4 min. videos) on being more happier and more effective in life are on Locals: http://bit.ly/2Ygv2tf 

Pleasanton CA
youtube.com/c/realCoffeeWi…
Joined October 2014

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Scott Adams‏Verified account @ScottAdamsSays 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @JSegor @GregoryMakles and

      Looks like they misrepresented the argument before criticizing it. The strong parts of Heller's argument (if true) are that the measuring devices that were NOT adjusted show no warming, and that all adjustments were in same direction.

      7 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
    2. Jeff Segor‏ @JSegor 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @GregoryMakles and

      Summary: 1) adjustments earlier in time were necessary, and recently not significantly different from raw 2) adjustments go in both directions accounting both land and sea and the entire globe. If I am not mistaken.

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    3. Scott Adams‏Verified account @ScottAdamsSays 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @JSegor @GregoryMakles and

      If adjustments go both ways, that would seem to debunk the Heller narrative. How can a citizen tell which one is true? We have confident claims from capable people that are opposites.

      10 replies 1 retweet 1 like
    4. Gregory Makles‏ @GregoryMakles 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JSegor and

      We can look at raw data on the 450 stations that never moved in the US and see if (with some margin for other minor factor likely to impact the trend) the rise appear. Heller app show it doesn’t. This need verification.

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    5. Scott Adams‏Verified account @ScottAdamsSays 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @GregoryMakles @JSegor and

      Agreed

      4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Jeff Segor‏ @JSegor 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @GregoryMakles and

      I kind of love these projects. I don't think it is going to significantly change the global trend or climate sensitivity or the main claims of AGW, but we'll see what is more accurate and complete.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. Gregory Makles‏ @GregoryMakles 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @JSegor @ScottAdamsSays and

      If Heller is wrong we can safely put him aside for reasons, not beliefs. Would be nice. If he's right though we’ll be in trouble. We’ll be in that situation where we’ll be against an ocean of hysteric press and research convinced of US GW over an homogenisation artifact.

      4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    8. Jeff Segor‏ @JSegor 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @GregoryMakles @ScottAdamsSays and

      There are very smart people in NASA, NOAA, and the countless other agencies. And remember that QA check that was done by that Geological group. AGU100 paper. They go over all the little devilish details on how the adjustments were made and why. Collusion is about 0.001 probable

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Gregory Makles‏ @GregoryMakles 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @JSegor @ScottAdamsSays and

      Collective bias otoh is highly likely. I mean look at the press overwhelmingly anti trump, throwing all pretense a journalism 101 as long as they feel it hurts Trump. They don’t decide groupthink in a cave. It’s just one lunch at a time. And you can’t undo it as easily as a crime

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    10. Jeff Segor‏ @JSegor 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @GregoryMakles @ScottAdamsSays and

      The peer-reviewed scientific journals are still the best game in town, imperfect as it is. Heller's claims need to be in a journal and scrutinized by hundreds of specialists. Not some blog that gets occasion attention from analysts.

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      Scott Adams‏Verified account @ScottAdamsSays 6 Jan 2019
      Replying to @JSegor @GregoryMakles and

      Except journals won’t publish contrarian content on climate.

      1:50 PM - 6 Jan 2019
      • 1 Retweet
      • 4 Likes
      • ❌ ❌ Dr Hans 🥩 Ankith Devanaboina John Hauser Christopher Gaska
      9 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Gregory Makles‏ @GregoryMakles 6 Jan 2019
          Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JSegor and

          Very likely, at least for review with any remote Impact Factor. That being said AFAIK it would also be difficult bc Heller argument is a scientific reply rather than an article material and as such need a published article producing that curve he contests to be addressed to.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Gregory Makles‏ @GregoryMakles 6 Jan 2019
          Replying to @GregoryMakles @ScottAdamsSays and

          And now that I think of it, this curves comes from reputable institution, but are not publised as articles in peer reviewed journal, to the best of my knowledge (need to be checked though). Which allows them to avoid public replies. OC they can say "IPCC takes it, it's golden pr"

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Show replies
        1. Jeff Segor‏ @JSegor 6 Jan 2019
          Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @GregoryMakles and

          There seems to be some truth to that. Below Judith Curry discusses how going upstream affected her career. This is not the way it should work. Below an interview with Judith Curry by Tom Woods:https://youtu.be/WnOxcDPlG48?t=2010 …

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. Jeff Segor‏ @JSegor 6 Jan 2019
          Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @GregoryMakles and

          This is a list of all of Judith Curry's papers, it is pretty impressive. I haven't counted how many post-2010 (when her skepticism became active) actually are critical of aspects of AGW:https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=rC8rY4EAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate …

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. New conversation
        2. AltUSARC‏ @AltUS_ARC 6 Jan 2019
          Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JSegor and

          Oh they will, it’s these journals. https://beallslist.weebly.com 

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Gregory Makles‏ @GregoryMakles 6 Jan 2019
          Replying to @AltUS_ARC @ScottAdamsSays and

          Maybe you can help. I tried quickly to find out what were the peer reviewed articles that produced the temperature rise graph worldwide but only found articles using it. Do you know of any or was it just institution produced graph that didn’t go through the publication process?

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        4. End of conversation
        1. Atomsk's Sanakan‏ @AtomsksSanakan 6 Jan 2019
          Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JSegor and

          Re: "Except journals won’t publish contrarian content on climate." Why do u make stuff up, with no concern for evidence? Or are you seriously aware of the (later debunked) publications from Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Nicola Scafetta, Craig Idso, etc.?

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. Jeff Segor‏ @JSegor 6 Jan 2019
          Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @GregoryMakles and

          OK, to test whether or not skeptics are not published, I looked up Richard Lindzen in Google Scholar and found quite a few critical journal articles by him:https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=kKs8h0kAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate …

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. Jeff Segor‏ @JSegor 6 Jan 2019
          Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @GregoryMakles and

          Google Scholar is pretty sweet. Another example proAGW is Dana Nuccitelli. This is an easy way to quickly find many papers by a scientist. I forgot about this feature until you made your claim. The more citations, the better, sometimes.https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wSxDCzsAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate …

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. New conversation
        2. John Brynjolfsson‏ @Brynjo 6 Jan 2019
          Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JSegor and

          They do. And nuetral/agnostic papers. However, 1) Media only writes up the most “dramatic” papers, 2) Authors that colors “within lines” of paper findings don’t get quoted, those that expound outside lines do. Unclear if mere greed/self interest drive these behaviors, or faith.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Gregory Makles‏ @GregoryMakles 7 Jan 2019
          Replying to @Brynjo @ScottAdamsSays and

          Also other considerations: - publications are rated in term of influence by Impact Factor. Even MS know that and will only relay the (very) high IF articles. No skeptic allowed here. - there's a formalism for scientific paper that isn't very critic friendly. It goes like this:

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Show replies

      Loading seems to be taking a while.

      Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info