‚Carbon neutrality‘ is braindead ideology-speak. MORE CO2 in the air would be better (plant ferfilizer).
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The details of the science may be beyond us however looking at the benefactors surrounding each side helps inform the bias or ultimate outcome. Let’s say alarmist are right. Is it worth living under global control and what history tells us about that or take our chances?
End of conversation
-
-
-
I agree we’re basically monkeys howling in a tree. We need to be extremely cautious when science and government partner as much if not more than when religion and government blend.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“adding gas to a system”? Again a framing problem. Our climate is massively complex involving solar cycles, within cycles that span thousands and billions of years and black swan events. Scientific hubris is dangerous.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If scientists have a good grasp of what happens when you add a gas to a system, why do their projections models suck so bad? Scott, I'm a fan, but you can't have it both ways.
-
True... they have been getting this climate modeling wrong for over 40 years. (Since the beginning of time and human sacrifices to the sun god... this is just a modern version)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"majority weight of science" What scientists say isn't the same thing as science.https://dailycaller.com/2016/04/12/scientist-who-predicted-ny-city-would-be-underwater-says-hes-not-an-alarmist/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And all current climate models are not credible. There has been no rise in average global temperatures in almost two decades.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If climastrologists had a good grasp on the science their projections would have a good track record... they're batting 0.000 because they've gone all in on catastrophe and hype. You know this, what is your real game here?
-
I think Scott has moved on from this topic. He appears comfortable with... A) not being a scientist and not knowing what he’s talking about (his basic words) B) deferring the matter to scientists who he feels have a good grasp of it. Appeal to authority (my words)
- 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.