Yes! Because for some reason, on climate, scientists abandon the devotion to data that gets us to #Mars
, and engage in flights of political fantasy. Cut it out.
-
-
-
A trip to Mars is calculated and repeatable - climate change is neither. Climate change is measurable but its cause has been diverse and its blame on human activities today doesn't explain yesterday. The data doesn't lie but users of the data have a far different motive.
-
What do you mean “not repeatable?” We’ve seen a trend since the industrial revolution started, and it’s been a reliable predictior for the future. I will be you $10 that next year Earth will experience the hottest avg temperature on record...as it has for the last sev. decades.
-
Conduct the experiments in a lab and say they are repeatable. We aren't seeing a trend, we are seeing the acyclic climate changes that have occurred long before the industrial revolution. It is all speculative and cherry-picked data.
-
We can. In a glass tank create a barrier near the top with CO2 & other naturally occurring greenhouse gases in concentrations from 200 yrs ago. Expose the tank to sunlight. It will rise to a certain temperature. Increase gasses to current levels. The temp. will rise about 2F.
-
Ah, so it is natural - expose to sunlight. Something the so-called climate scientist completely ignore so they can blame man and get money. Sorry, these people are playing with the data and have manipulated their findings far too often to be trusted.
-
The only source of extra CO2 in the air is from the burning of fossil fuels. Deforestation is removing the mechanism to remove that CO2, hence the increase. It's not natural- the kind of increase we've see in the last 100 years would have taken 200,000 years naturally. -
And that source is so minuscule that there is absolutely no evidence that it has caused a significant increase. And it doesn't explain away periods when we were warmer and colder. Sorry, your evidence just doesn't exist to explain the cycles that have existed. Not causal.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Neil, youre a baller, but yall boys cant even predict a 7 day forcast so i mean what have you done for me lately
-
you can't predict the result of one coin toss but you can easily predict the result of 100 coin tosses
-
Underrated tweet.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You sir have truly won the internet, take the week off!!

-
Yeesh dude. Read the room.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yes. Because expertise in one area does not confer expertise in all areas. Also, you have already attempted to mislead us more than once on the subject.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you having a problem listening to the scientists who disagree ? Are you having trouble with forged data? Seriously Neil.
-
True 3% of scientists disagree and say it’s not real. All funded by fossil fuel or other industries that have an interest in denying it.
-
It's a lot more than 3% and the ones that do agree are paid by the gov so what's the difference?
End of conversation
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.
