The catch with climate science arguments is that both sides SOUND 100% convincing to non-scientists when viewed in isolation. And we only see the arguments in isolation because the climate alarmists don't want to elevate the dissenters to equal-looking status. See the problem?https://twitter.com/TexCIS/status/960960633746333696 …
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
It takes only the most cursory understanding of science to understand the mechanism behind AGW. So then you are simply left with disputing the evidence gathered by multiple scientific organisations covering temperature, sea-level etc. Educate yourself, ffs.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Bless. The lack of a substantive reply is telling, so it's a shame that the introductory level "yo mama" approach you attempted managed to miss wit by such a margin. I can tell you're no scientist, but I had heard you were a humorist. I stand corrected.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @andrew_perry01
Scott Adams Retweeted Scott Adams
I made a whole video this morning just to mock your opinion. Is this substantive enough?https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/961629327103160320 …
Scott Adams added,
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Well, you attempted to mock, to be fair. It's a little unfortunate that you clearly fail to keep abreast of the latest peer-reviewed science. Google is your friend, Scott. And would save you from so much embarrassment. A Friend.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672 …
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You're good at missing the point. But I will allow you to think that link anything to do with my opinion.
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.