(((JonathanWeisman)))Verified account

Why bother trying to get them to commit blasphemy against their religion? Any deviation from climate change doctrine will not be tolerated.

You mean, publishing deliberate falsehoods will not be tolerated. The science is long since settled.

Science is never settled. Einstein and Hawking have had their ground breaking science overturned and/ or corrected.

I'm old enough to remember when it was settled science that gender involved something called chromosomes.

I'm old enough to remember when global cooling settled science in the 70's Climate gurus predicted an inexorable trend to an Ice Age by now

What a lot of people object is that the report he links to doesn't betray uncertainty about future warminghttps://twitter.com/tomscocca/status/858046580787642368 …

Telling that there is no response to this point. Stephens' column includes misinformation. How is it possible to defend that?

didn't deny climate change, but did say we shouldn't change policy unless there is 100% certainty about future predictions. Which is stupid.

I am not a scientist, i am an engineer. How I view the science data: you have 99.9% chance that "bad things will happen" due to humans. /1

You can act to mitigate the 99.9% chance, which has a .1% chance of being "wasted resources on renewable energy & clean air" OR head+sand /2

If you wait for 99.99% certainty the effort to mitigate adverse event is orders of magnitude greater (bigly bigger in prez speak) /3

The response to real and present danger of #climatechange is similar to haveing a brand new car, and instead of buying insurance,... /4

Reasoned approach is to weigh probability and cost of bad outcome, cost of necessary and "unnecessary" response. Predicted outcome?

... loss of human lives, mass extinctions, and, in something that will concern even @nyt, loss of $trillions in coastal real estate.

We are already experiencing sea level rise, adverse USA climate changes, increased disease risk, upper atmosphere weather changes....