It does *appear* climate science uniquely suffers from confirmation bias. Ever notice how every natural event has the same answer? AGW. But look at astronomy/physics. Almost every year there's a scientist who publishes an honest result that threatens to undermine the whole field
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @luvkit @stdondley and
2/ Most of the time, the result ends up being faulty in some way. But occasionally, it leads to a new discovery that changes the whole field. Climate science seems to presume and explain everything with the same answer: "AGW catastrophe is 10 years away", 10 years ago.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @luvkit @stdondley and
3/ Also the physicists that publish their results aren't dragged for their research. They are peer reviewed and the experiment is run again, removing sources of error. Sometimes we learn something new, sometimes it's wildlife chewing wires. But I don't see that in climate science
7 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @luvkit @stdondley and
The good news: from one poll, 78% are willing to acknowledge that AGW is a problem and must be dealt with. The question is how. Only 18% are doubters and dismissives. That is why the world is scrambling with new technologies.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Even on this channel. Has
@ScottAdamsSays ever interviewed a really prominent AGW scientist? Like Katharine H., Gavin S., Richard Alley, Dan Lubin, Peter Sinclair, a NASA scientist. No. The emphasis is on Heller. Not serious about understanding if you don't talk to them.3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Don’t judge the marathon by the first step.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Covered it today. First point only.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 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.