-
-
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
thank you, that is very kind :)
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
This is a great share! I think you’ll enjoy hearing the wonderful
@KHayhoe on Explore The Space Podcast! Here’s linkhttps://www.explorethespaceshow.com/podcasting/kincade-fire-thoughts-katharine-hayhoe-on-health-climate-change/ …Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Definitely a legend!!
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Even the 3% of papers contradict each other! "Good science is objective- it doesn't care what anyone wants the answers to be." Like as if I don't want it to be made up so I can live out my life with less worry! Of course I don't want it to be true! But. It. Is.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Thanks for your hard work! Never a doubt but proof is better.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
cc:
@KHayhoe </sarcasm> But, but, but... The fact that there is no known cohesive, consistent alternative theory, doesn't mean that no such theory can't be conjured up. <end sarcasm> Dang, but did Kahneman and Tversky nail it, or what? It's depressing.Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
But who corrected the papers, if the shoe was on the other foot the 3% would have found errors on the 97% as well. Because Science uses loads of assumptions and guesstimates to formulate conclusions.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.