I'm providing @ScottAdamsSays with lots of valuable information about climate. Unfortunate that he isn't taking advantage of it.
-
-
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard
That's because you lost all credibility by imagining nefarious intentions where there is nothing like that in evidence. The Climategate emails that you believe prove intention are where you lost me entirely.
68 replies 7 retweets 106 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Of course Scott. They are "accidentally" using 50% fake data to turn cooling into warming. No nefarious intent. https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/understanding-noaa-us-temperature-fraud-2/ …pic.twitter.com/OA3CBeRPUp
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
4 replies 18 retweets 106 likes -
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard
Thousands of scientists across the world are all "in on it"? If you hypothesized they were wrong or suffering from confirmation bias, I could take it seriously. But when you go full-tin-hat, everything else you say turns to dust.
32 replies 0 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SteveSGoddard
This displays your lack of understanding of human Group cognition. What is the difference between "in on it" and "cognitive bias"? I recommend Gustave LeBon's 1898 classic "The Crowd".https://whyarethingsthisway.com/2014/03/22/why-are-the-pediatricians-so-confused-about-the-actual-state-of-the-scientific-literature/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Intention is the difference.
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.