“Science is skepticism,” @JonahNRO writes to justify attack on climate science (based on polemics of non-scientists). But scientists aren’t skeptical of gravity, evolution, relativity, round earth etc. Those who are can’t claim to be pro-science.https://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/climate-change-frenzy-clouds-our-judgment/ …
-
-
As a scientist, I'd say we are ill-served by such ridiculous simplification. Skepticism is *part* of science, but once something has been reproduced, for instance as
@MichaelEMann's climate record has been repeatedly, continued skepticism is just denialism.16 replies 48 retweets 265 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @MaxBoot and
Denial of the fact of climate change requires not just skepticism of models - a common denialist talking point, but of things like observational data, physics, chemistry and biology. The effects are seen from changes in our ocean, to species migration, to direct measurement.
8 replies 4 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @MaxBoot and
And we know the models are "wrong", as George Box said, *all models are wrong* - by definition they are *approximations* of reality. But, some are useful. This is the denialist trope of moving goalposts. We don't need perfect models (that's the Earth itself) just good ones.
7 replies 1 retweet 23 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @MaxBoot and
Sadly,
@JonahNRO's article on climate science reminded me of articles by antivaxers on vaccines. It used the same techniques off exaggerating uncertainty.7 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
Vaccines work. Now do climate change models.
5 replies 0 retweets 12 likes
"Work" is the wrong word. The correct question is: How accurate and useful are they? The answer: Very.
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.