-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It is impenatrable to climate scientismists. There, fixed it for ya.
End of conversation
-
-
-
If you could read my mind, you would immediately have every single last doubt evaporate forever. The skeptical case is proved many times over by independent lines of reasoning and evidence. It is impossible that warmistas are correct.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Scott, when did you decide that the warmists case quit looking like a scam? Seems like you used to have that opinion.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As an engineer with a psych degreei concur the field is generally impenetrable. You have thus far rolled out the climate debates greatest hits for both sides. Alarm isnt well supported, beyond this point the theory is flexible enough to allow for all conceivable outcomes.
-
Earth history is clear enough, and in no way allows for "all possible outcomes" from a small increase in CO2. Neither does physics. You are an engineer?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think you are approaching it wrong. The starting point should be that it is natural, and the alarmists need to come up with compelling and persuasive evidence that it is man-made, which you seem to agree they have not done. Until that happens, one should remain sceptical.
-
Someone try to make a rational case for thinking warming's in any way bad, since we're in an ice age & are lucky AF to be having a interglacial whichcould end any second. The first rung of the ladder is the weakest: The proposition that warming is bad is illogical and unsupported
End of conversation
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.