I'm skeptical of both sides. It's fairly obvious at this point that a substantial amount of argument from both sides is absurd. I just don't know the percentages.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @StormSignalSA and
I would like the alarmist side to provide some empirical evidence the layman can see and understand that the climate is changing beyond what would be natural and if it is ,is it going to be harmful or beneficial
8 replies 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Alan_jones55 @StormSignalSA and
The rate of warming is the argument. And they have shown that in a number of ways.
23 replies 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @StormSignalSA and
In the US (which has by far the best data set in the world) - 100% of warming over the past century is due to data tampering. https://realclimatescience.com/2018/10/noaa-data-tampering-update/ …pic.twitter.com/QZow5bpnRk
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
9 replies 56 retweets 98 likes -
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard and
It's even better when you calculate the averages correctly. Note how the 1930s aren't warmer than now even in the raw data.pic.twitter.com/RTgDzXvbd2
7 replies 3 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @priscian @SteveSGoddard and
I ask because it shows this rate of warming increase is typical even before CO2 was the big deal it is now.
5 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SteveSGoddard and
The current warming rate stands out in the global averages. All the global temp. series that include the surface show a strong warming trend since the 1970s.pic.twitter.com/p09DiwWUYU
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SteveSGoddard and
The instrumental temperatures (starting 19th c) are the blade, with older paleotemp reconstructions being the stick. The original HS had a straightish stick & large uncertainty—the former getting bumpier, the latter smaller in subsequent studies (e.g. the attached plots).pic.twitter.com/xrcchIKHhL
5 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @priscian @ScottAdamsSays and
Astonishing that anyone in 2019 would still be using "Mike's nature trick" to "hide the decline." That graph is one of the most dishonest pieces of fraud and junk science ever generated.pic.twitter.com/yu9hJFVwiW
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
4 replies 23 retweets 71 likes
This is the least-persuasive skeptical argument. It is obvious to me they were just speaking casually about a method for explaining some unexplained temperature data.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @priscian and
Hiding inconvenient data in order to push a global warming agenda is not OK, Scott. Why would you believe the rest of the proxy data if you don't believe the past 50 years? I suggest you talk to
@ClimateAudit and find out what actually happened.pic.twitter.com/WWypgDIbWwThis media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
4 replies 23 retweets 60 likes -
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard and
Would it be too personal to ask if you are on the spectrum? Because to me it seems glaringly obvious you interpreted casual language "hide" and "trick" as literal while to me it seems they are obviously not meant that way.
36 replies 0 retweets 10 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.