That is because AGW and anti-AGW are really not equivalent. The arguments for AGW are vastly more persuasive and obvious. Similar to evolution vs. anti-evolution. Or tectonic plates vs. anti-tectonic plates. I was mistaken the first time.
-
-
Next, create a ONE-MINUTE tutorial on which variables influence temperature now and in the past (sun, orbit, tilt, CO2). Then show how each of the skeptic graphs leave out one of those effects.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Need a useful format in which I can see the claims in a list, expressed in one sentence each, and the debunk in one paragraph, with link to greater detail as needed. Skeptical Science is more magazine format. Not for the casual skeptic.
End of conversation
-
-
-
skeptical science's list of myths is an example. Probably has done some good, but somewhat irrelevant. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php Contrarians have mounted a pretty raging/successful ad hominem counter for years. The editors probably played into it, tough. http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html …
-
And the models are emphasized *by opponents* as a perceived FUD/vulnerability point. Average person doesn't understand what "model" means in scientific method, can think it means "made up computer prediction". So the choice is whether to answer or not, not whether to emphasize.
- 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.