I'm providing @ScottAdamsSays with lots of valuable information about climate. Unfortunate that he isn't taking advantage of it.
-
-
Another straw man argument. If you look at the poor coverage and history of how the global temperature record has been altered over time, there is no question that the small groups of people have colluded to produce the same results. https://realclimatescience.com/overwhelming-evidence-of-collusion/ …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe it's not so much that they're lying but that they want it to be true so badly they'll ignore contrary evidence. Which j guess is confirmation bias.
-
The media on the other hand.... Straight up lying.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Same arguments made about the head of the FBI, CIA, NSA ect about Russia-hoax. Scientists get funding from political operators. The reason the scientists are in the position is because they are members of the climate-cult. Non-members don’t get funding and are not appointed.
-
It’s all down to money and control...the leftists specialty.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A scam, not con. Unplanned. They grabbed their cookies as opportunities arose: to further their career, present themself as morally superior, short fossil fuel stock, to 'correct' temperature record, ... Lots of ways the scam benefits scammers. A scam of opportunity, not design
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
They think their data processes produce good data, because it matches their expectations. They all follow the same basic recipe, and it seems to reproduce similar outputs with all manners of input data. Which is usually a sign your process is flawed.
End of conversation
-
-
-
That's not true. "Hide the decline" refers to one paper (not dozens people). And for avoidance of doubt, not a decline in actual temperatures. The decline is in tree ring proxies proving them useless* in 20th century. So they are also useless before!
-
*useless is a bit too strong. More accurate would be "noisy with high uncertainties"
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.