"Look around & read the science". Um, the universal constant in the climate debate is that NOBODY reads the science. Neither side does. While it's solid there is manmade warming, it's also solid that AOC's extremism isn't valid.https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1176575799710736384 …
-
Show this thread
-
It's like Al Gore's Oscar and Nobel winning movie: "listen to the scientists who say man is warming climate, but don't listen to the scientists because they underestimate the problem".
5 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @ErrataRob
Hm. I am intrigued. Can you point me to science that says man-made warming isn't going to cause massive upheaval & economic as well as ecological damage?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @halvarflake
Well, no, I can't refute such a statement with science because you haven't made a scientific statement. I can't disprove with numbers a statement that has no numbers. How much economic damage? How much ecological damage?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ErrataRob @halvarflake
Warming causes ecological change, not damage. It's within the normal range of interglacial temperatures, at least for the next hundred years. Humans are causing massive ecological damage in ways that aren't due to warming.pic.twitter.com/PYYp9CXXUk
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ErrataRob @halvarflake
Humans are causing a mass extinction event, due to pollution, pesticides, and dramatic transformation of the landscape. By comparison, "ecological damage" caused by manmade warming is relatively minor.
4 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ErrataRob @halvarflake
As for economic damage, sure there is some, but how much? Specifically, how much compared to the economic damage of things like the Green New Deal?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ErrataRob @halvarflake
Cheap carbon-based energy has enormous benefits to our standard-of-living. It's why when you strip out the ideological rhetoric that addressing the problem is so hard: it has immediate economic impact.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @ErrataRob @halvarflake
In any case, I meant things like how every time hurricanes hit, people blame global warming, even though the science is pretty clear that manmade warning has not yet made a detectable difference.pic.twitter.com/fHzrXblBST
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Hmm, the text in that screenshot doesn't seem to match your interpretation i.e. "science is clear manmade warming has not made a difference". In context, it seems to say it probably has ("tentative link", "consistent with"), but too soon to say conclusively?
-
-
Replying to @taviso @halvarflake
My interpretation isn't "not made a difference". It's "not made a detectable difference".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ErrataRob @halvarflake
Right, but in that text you screenshotted it clearly says there *is* a detectable difference ("detectable shift", "observed increase", "highly unusual") and a likely - but not conclusive - link to human activity.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - 2 more replies
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.