Essay by Eric Worrall
Twitter has announced they will no longer carry ads “that contradict the scientific consensus”. But is announcing a plan to destroy shareholder value really the smartest choice, during the middle of a hostile takeover bid from Elon Musk?
Accelerating our climate commitments on Earth Day
By Sean Boyle ☘️ and Casey Junod Friday, 22 April 2022
This month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a new and alarming report, underscoring the urgency of the climate crisis – “immediate and deep emissions reductions,” they wrote, are necessary to turn the tide on global warming.
Now more than ever, meaningful climate action, from all of us, is critical. Today – on #EarthDay2022 – we’re sharing more about our work to serve the climate conversations happening across Twitter, plus the latest on our own sustainability commitments.
Climate-forward approach to ads
People around the world use Twitter to connect with others passionate about protecting our planet. Last year, we introduced a dedicated Topic to help people find personalized conversations about climate change. And, to support conversation around #COP26, we rolled out pre-bunks — hubs of credible, authoritative information across a range of key themes, like the science backing climate change, made available in the Explore tab, Search, and Trends.
To better serve these conversations, misleading advertisements on Twitter that contradict the scientific consensus on climate change are prohibited, in line with our inappropriate content policy. We believe that climate denialism shouldn’t be monetized on Twitter, and that misrepresentative ads shouldn’t detract from important conversations about the climate crisis. This approach is informed by authoritative sources, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports.
We recognize that misleading information about climate change can undermine efforts to protect the planet. In the coming months, we’ll have more to share on our work to add reliable, authoritative context to the climate conversations happening on Twitter.
…
Read more: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2022/accelerating-our-climate-commitments-on-earth-day
Elon Musk’s hilarious takeover bid of Twitter is a challenge to existing shareholders, to decide between taking Musk’s money and running, or putting their faith in the current management team to maintain shareholder value.
So it seems pretty dumb to announce that shareholders can expect a lower profit in the future, because of woke decisions about whose money Twitter is willing to accept.
Maybe Musk’s takeover bid will come to nothing, or maybe the majority of Twitter shareholders are wokesters who don’t care about profits. But the ineptitude and bad timing of Twitter management’s announcement has added to the entertainment value of an already funny situation.
Having English Lit or Women’s Studies majors pontificating on “the science” is always so precious.
English Lit? The UK’s climate response is being determined by a woman who has a degree in the history of English theatre.
JF
Yes, but her responses are supplemented by the deep scientific knowledge of a young Swedish girl that is a high school dropout!
But surely she must have studied how difficult it was for English Theatre to survive during the Little Ice Age. 🙂
By the ideological bent and lack of critical thought, I assumed they were journalism students.
“scientific consensus”
What exactly IS scientific consensus? I seem to remember my history lessons where most scientists believed in the Ether.
Who decides there is scientific consensus? A bunch of journalists and opinion writers sitting in a room, or maybe just one of those acting by themselves?
Why would you want to ban counter-arguments or beliefs? Those lead to interesting debates where common sense often wins out. The shutting down of debate is the same as controlling what you are allowed to see and hear – so it’s now propaganda.
Too bad we can’t ask Giordano Bruno what scientific consensus is. He broke with it and burned for his theory. Maybe Giordano was the first Denier?
Needed…experienced hackers to ad bomb Twitter with UNPAID Climate Skeptic Advertising
I can’t help but wonder who was placing those paid heretic advertisements and why they weren’t mentioned.
Most scientists, “the consensus”, would have had you believe that the “ether” laid over the flat earth, around which the sun rotated.
Anyone that wants you to believe things because they are “scientific consensus” is a charlatan.
There is no such thing as “scientific consensus”. “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” Thanks to Michael Crichton
Regards
Climate Heretic
The consensus is “it’s uncertain”.
If science can’t be questioned anymore, it’s not science, it’s propaganda
Aaron Rodgers
Scientific consensus is a politically congruent (“=”) construct. Think emanations from penumbras – “The Twilight Fringe”.
Its just a case of the field of Leftist science catching up with the field of Leftist Constitutional law. Everything is now post-normal. “Resistance if futile.”
Roughly “scientific consensus” is what you find in high school science textbooks. If it is so uncontroversial that you teach it to students then it is consensus.
Indoctrination 😉
More like Cargo Cult consensus in this case…
Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis.
There is no “… vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis.” because there is no Leftist government funding for work that would undermine the narrative.
Unfortunately, the so-called “consensus” on climate science is as fraudulent as the so-called “science” it is based upon.
Well put.
I recall being taught about a number of current scientific controversies when I was at school. Part of the idea was to entice you into the debate, and that there was still plenty of work to be done to advance science. There was no shying away from the cutting edge, but it was clearly labelled as such, and not presented as dogma.
In engineering school while there seemed to be little acknoldegment of things on the fringe, there was great respect for engineering judgment. Nothing was held as certain or set in stone.
I remember being taught the consensus view about geosynclines, although no one had a good explanation for why they would change from being a sinking basin of deposition and turn into a mountain chain. But, back then, no one had a good alternative explanation for the rock facies observed in mountains and simply said, “What else could it be?”
The “consensus” on daily aspirin as a proven protection against stroke and heart attack just got reversed. Same reversal as the one a while back on birth control pills. Oh wait. I forgot salt.
Nope. Try again.
Izaak, high school science textbooks used to be written to help young people to understand the basis of current, uncertain science and teach them the scientific method. The current high school science textbooks are written to indoctrinate cogs for use in an authoritarian socialist utopia.
Citizens questioning their masters’ pronouncements on any and all subjects is disruptive to the orderly operation of a directed society. Just ask Obama about his latest pronouncement on the government’s need to direct social media in order to control all information going to a supposedly free people having real 1st Amendment rights. That one chilling statement that reflects current Leftist and U.S. government (Deep State) thinking is right up there with Orwell’s 1984.
Following is a snippet from an article I think I read here on WUWT sometime during the last year. I’m sorry, but I forgot to note who the author is, so I appologize for not giving proper attribution, but it is so on-point, I decided to post it anyway:
Consensus is viewed as a proxy for truth in many discussions of science. A consensus formed by the independent and free deliberations of many is a strong indicator of truth. However, a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it.
A scientific argument can evolve prematurely into a ruling theory if cultural forces are sufficiently strong and aligned in the same direction. Premature theories enforced by an explicit consensus building process harm scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t undertaken.
Correlation is not Causation. Proxies come with very large margins of error. Extrapolation actually means guessing and infilling data you didn’t have. Science is not owned by the left or right, it is owned by those who follow the scientific method, study and report findings with repeatable and verifiable results, not those who have an agenda to impose their misguided beliefs and line their pockets with money. Consensus is group think of a limited opinion, not science. Einstein famously quoted, “What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.” There are more unknowns than knowns, and that does not even count the more important “unknown unknowns”. Common sense implies that the common man and woman has the sense to know the difference between right and wrong and truth and lies, todays world seems to be severely lacking it
Yes, consensus teaching slows down those pesky paradigm shifts that require printing new text books.
Scientific consensus is groupthink.
Groupthink is persuasion by force.
Disagree with the group and you’re out.
Which is exactly what Twitter is doing.
To all twitter twits: Happy Earth Day especially to Sean and oh-so-cool Casey.
The political right either gets serious about repealing and replacing section 230 and causing a company like this to fail, or just cower and be a perpetual loser. Get to work or be pathetic.
That’s a tough statement Luke, but you are correct.
Maybe everyone is waiting for you to rally the cause and lead the way.
Get to work or be pathetic while stuffing my bank account.
Hmmm what’s a politician to do?
Twitter’s latest action proves once and for all that it is not a neutral platform protected by Section 230.
This is what Michael Crichton had to say about “scientific consensus” back in 2003 when he gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”
“In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Twitter can bleep all it wants too.
Regards
Climate Heretic
In all my years on Twitter I’ve never seen a paid ad from any skeptic or skeptic group. What this is really about is setting the stage to ban all non-climate cult conforming tweets
I don’t know much about Twitter, but I’ve never seen a paid advertisement anywhere that promotes CAGW skepticism.
Yeah, twitter makes no money because they are terrible at selling ads.
The make no profit, I wonder how they stay in business?
Like many of the “tech” companies, they are living off investors dreams. Does Uber make money of rides? Does GrubHub make money delivering food? Did Amazon make money before they got into time-sharing and renaming it “the cloud”?
Sell the sizzle, take the money and run when they start asking when the steak’s coming.
“…I wonder how they stay in business.”
Because twitter is not a business. It’s just another arm of the government.
Musk would never buy a business that makes no profit. But the opportunity to buy an influential (albeit facist) gov’t department and run it yourself…hmmm
This sounds like a company that could have been started by AT&T.
The U.S. used to have mandated equal time regulations that caused opposing political candidates to get a similar number of broadcast news and radio coverage for opposing political candidates. Several State and Federal elections will be held later this year where one or both political parties are represented by candidates with non-consensus positions on environment, energy, and public health. After partisan interference and biased support (much of which will likely be shown to be illegal) by big tech in the last five (or more) federal elections, I can’t think of a better way to get bi-partisan support for similar content regulation on “platforms” such as twitter, facebook, YouTube, and other underpinnings of internet and communications media than ideological screening of advertisers.
‘The U.S. used to have mandated equal time regulations that caused opposing political candidates to get a similar number of broadcast news and radio coverage for opposing political candidates.’
I think you’re referring to the Fairness Doctrine. The fact that the Left wants to reinstate it should give you pause. They already dominate 90% of MSM – why hand them half of the 10% they don’t dominate?
“I think you’re referring to the Fairness Doctrine. The fact that the Left wants to reinstate it should give you pause.”
If the Left is for it, then people who value their freedom should be against it.
Because we would get half of the 90% they currently dominate.
The so called “Fairness Doctrine” only applied to things that the government considered “controversial”. In other words, if you aired something that the government agreed with, the Fairness Doctrine didn’t kick in. If you aired something the government didn’t agree with, then you had to air the governments side as well. Of course you had to pay for it, you don’t expect the government to pay for their own propaganda.
Good way to put it, MarkW.
I hope Musk is successful with his attempt to buy Twitter. ESG has taken over Twitter and it is no longer a credible platform for discourse. If we don’t start countering the ESG movement we will be solidly in 1984.
If we are indeed experiencing a “climate crisis”, the mere existence of Twitter is morally questionable.
Maybe they should get all their servers powered by solar and wind. That should give them the moral high ground and cause the servers to go down periodically. That would show how unrealistic wind and solar are for the rest of us.
I think we saw kind of censorship before.
Yep, in an old music video to boot> the word “metastasize” comes to mind from the current obs….
Just sayin>>
Pink Floyd – Another Brick in the Wall Official Music Video (Lyrics In Description) – YouTube
I support Earth Day, but we need some reality involved in the discussions. >>>
Data & Statistics – IEA
I do believe that if Twitter had been around when Galileo was alive, they would have firmly backed the sun revolves around the earth belief and would have “cancelled” (ie demanded that he be put to death in line with the Church’s view). Science is not consensus. It is either right or wrong . Climate models are not science in themselves, they are a way to test theories. Using the “worst case scenario models form “climate scientists is nothing to do with science and completely to do with politics. Twitter and Pope Gregory, I think it was then, along with the current Pope Francis would all get along very well, I think. Pity about the science though. it isn’t getting much of a run.
I can’t find a proper definition of consensus. One place says many believe a 75% agreement is needed, but I wonder if 50% +1 qualifies. This is the meaning of majority, but is consensus something more?
Anyway, if you ban 50% -1, is that saying if 2 people part of the consensus died then the consensus changes?
On a public forum, can I say the Twitter people are twits?
Consensus in this context means no substantial disagreements exist.
It basically means widespread general agreement
Regarding consensus studies – with the caveat that there may have been more since I last surveyed the scene: the assertion they claim a 99% or whatever consensus about is a very milquetoast affair, e.g. that “50% of present warming is due to human emissions of CO2.”
What there can never be a consensus about are the predictions about future catastrophes due to CO2. If there is, then it is only a matter of faith, not evidence. The empirical data that I have seen point to no catastrophe. Only the speculative models and fever dreams promise those.
So far the casualties aren’t there. The refugees aren’t there. The warming is slow and impalpable. Sea level rise ditto. The storms of today are so far no worse than the storms of yesterday. Nothing about the climate seems to be measurably getting worse. Am I wrong?
Yet the alarmists will use the weak consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas to enforce no debate about future apocalypse if we don’t live like its 1799.
You haven’t lived until…….
Background to the story:
Have a solid background in Biology and Chemistry both. Tons of lab work in analytical chemistry, lots of field work in ecology both terrestrial, and marine.
Back to the story:
I was at a house party and the topic of CAGW came up with an emphasis on “Catastrophic”. I averred that it was not so bad and things were perhaps getting sensationalized, perhaps a tad.
You haven’t lived until…….
You have been yelled at by a Sociology Major that you “Do Not Understand The Science”.
She explained, at a high volume, that if I understood the science I would “Believe In The Science”.
All from a liberal arts major.
Good Times.
Now these same liberal arts majors are determining scientific truth for the rest of us over at twitter.
Too bad you didn’t think to ask her if she believed that men could literally and biologically change into women and vice-versa….
Gee, I wonder if Twitter will start rejecting any ads for gender “transitioning” clinics? After all, we all know it is scientifically impossible for someone with a Y chromosome to turn into someone with two X chromosomes.
Or if an unborn baby is alive.
Is it human?
Is it not a human life?
But then there are the side effects of mRNA vaccines.
The gene therapy shots are safe and effective for everyone…trust the scientists 😉
Safe And Effective | Real Climate Science
Such articles (suggesting that Covid-19 vaccinations are more dangerous than the infections that they prevent or mitigate) are deadly misinformation. Covid-19 vaccinations are not causing a health crisis in the military, nor anywhere else.
These are not the droids you are looking for.
Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are not “gene therapy shots.” They are vaccines: extremely safe and quite effective vaccines.
Such misinformation is killing thousands of people. Please stop spreading it.
If you want to know what gene therapy is, here’re a couple of resources where you can learn about it:
● https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy
● https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/procedures
The mRNA vaccines are not at all like gene therapy:
Covid-19 has killed over 1 million Americans, so far, and that number would be far lower if people weren’t spreading lies to dissuade the gullible from getting vaccinated.
In this study, age-adjusted all-cause mortality risk for an unvaccinated person was a whopping 3.2× all-cause mortality risk for someone (like me) vaccinated with Moderna:
● https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm
● https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm#T3_down
At this point, the best vaccines are probably Moderna and Novavax (if you can get it), and the best evidence is that heterologous vaccine boosters (“mix-and-match”) give better protection than repeated boosters with the same vaccine.
Where the volume is inversely proportional to the confidence the speaker has in their ability to explain and support their belief.
Somebody somewhere is actually looking to protect and reinforce their revenue stream.
Seems crazy doesn’t it, but again, tell me about anything that isn’t crazy these days.
A perfectly gorgeous example being Type 2 Diabetes
1/ The first (and actually trivial) reason for the mere existence of Type 2 diabetes is that ‘things have never been better‘
One of THE significant reason for ‘never betterness‘ is the oft referred to Bigger and Better crops of Food – never has so much food been grown or eaten and the amount just keeps growing.
Pig Food that is.
Wheat, corn, rice potatoes are NOT fit for human consumption, those things are NOT what we evolved eating and, amongst myriad health problems, Type 2 is the result.
The Craziness is compounded in that if we did feed all that mush to pigs, the pigs would get fat. Immensely fat. Then we could eat them and have the diet we evolved to eat.
Well yes and no. We’d only eat them after we’d cut off and thrown away all the fat. We’d only eat the lean meat flesh, discard the fat and all the other goodness that was inside the pig.
Beauty upon beauty, eating all that meat/flesh would cause our livers and kidneys to fail.
How much revenue does twitter get from promoting ideas such as that?
Thus, the ‘never better’ notion, consensus, science is promoted by people peddling the ultra cheap Mush Diet. Corn, rice & wheat are cheap to produce in huuuuuge quantity and store reasonably well from season to season. Pigs not so much
And almost everyone swallows it. Especially skeptics and it that ain’t a measure of craziness, what is?
2/ and back to my opening premise:
When someone anyone is diagnosed as having Type 2 Diabetes, they are very effectively told that their life is over.
The Contemporary Consensus Medical Establishment (CCME) tells the sufferers that Type 2 is incurable and fatal.
Little do they know that their suffering is only about to begin because CCME suggests that they can slow and control their condition with ‘medicine’
We’re all aware what they are:
[What is the current monthly cost for Insulin in the US, twas easily $1,000 per month when I last saw?]
Fantastsic fantastic, the ‘never betterers‘ arrive bang on cue to tell us all how fantastic Modern Medicine is and that we’re all saved and will soon be living to age 200+
One slight inconvenient truth/fact and ‘fly in the ointment’, one that is kept deathly quiet by CCME, is that well over a century ago it was well established how to fix someone who was suffering from ‘a touch of the sugar‘
Very very easily done, with a modicum of willpower from the sufferer and, at minimal cost.
Type 2 diabetes could be cured for almost Zero Financial outlay
And it still can be. Practitioners out there now will suggest/put confirmed cases& sufferers onto a dietary protocol/program of 3 months duration and at the end, the symptoms and the entire disease will be completely gone.
And the cost will be minimal
Did you get that?
Climate Change is a variation on Type 2 Diabetes.
We are told that Climate Change is incurable and fatal
We are told that we can ‘control’ climate change by taking the VERY EXPENSIVE medicine
We are told that we will have to take that medicine for, pretty well, take it forever
And a lot of people will make a lot of money out of peddling The Cure and a lot of other people will gain immense control over the daily lives of the little people who had been determinately assured of their upcoming demise if they didn’t ‘cough up the money‘
Skeptics threaten to derail that gravy power train and have to be silenced, even just on the off-chance, they do upset the flow of money.
Hence Twitter now, lose a little now by silencing the skeptics, gain a lot going into the future by pedalling junk that only makes the problem worse
(Hence why the Type 2 analogy is soooooo perfect:
Insulin, as a ‘stand-alone chemical‘ in its own right, is a truly horrible and toxic stuff.
It really is.
That our own body needs to make and use it in the first place, to control sugar, must Surely Shirley tell people what hideous stuff sugar must be?
But no.
Ever increasing mountains of sugar are a crystal-clear sign of how “Things have never been better”
Outright insanity reigns
“Practitioners out there now will suggest/put confirmed cases& sufferers onto a dietary protocol/program of 3 months duration and at the end, the symptoms and the entire disease will be completely gone.
And the cost will be minimal”
Who are these practitioners and what is their protocol/program?
I’ve heard several claims of such but always includes expensive proprietary supplements that are “unavailable’ to the general public and are kept quiet by big pharma and coincidentally big tech like Twitter, Google, YouTube, etc.
Brad,
Get on to youtube, find Ivor Cummins, and check out his “outsider’s” view on the relationships between diet, diabetes, heart disease, cholesterol, hyperinsulinemia, high blood pressure and a host of other interlinked conditions (Modern metabolic syndrome in general). You should then be able to start connecting the dots and come up with your own protocol. Note that you should also look for presentations by Michael Eade, Chris A Knobbe, Sten Ekberg, and perhaps even Mikhaila Peterson (for an extreme dietary fix to some severe health issues).
Good luck.
Thanks for the links.
What I have seen so far, it reinforced some of my thoughts on nutrition and bodily functions. I’ll peruse what they have to say which so far reflects what I have experienced personally.
Statement from Twitter: “As of today we are removing any historical reference to Galileo. During his lifetime this man repeatedly contradicted the scientific consensus. Today we say enough is enough – this is not how science is done.”
The IPCC assessment reports are *not* an authoritative source of information. They are political pamphlets steeped in pseudo-science.
Government is in the name so one should immediately assume it is hampered by cronyism, nepotism, and general incompetence.
“scientific consensus”
The Narrative
Correct, and truth matters less than who controls “The Narrative”.
To anybody doubting there is such a thing as “The Narrative,” just think back to when Al Gore was running for political office and every media outlet incessantly bruited the “fact” of his gravitas. It was so bad that, to this day, I cringe when hearing or reading the word.
Obviously Twitter is not about making money. It is a tool of the government that it serves. In fact the business profile of Twitter is not sustainable anyway.
Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop – The Last Refuge (theconservativetreehouse.com)
And anticipating the nonbelievers that will ask “Then why would Musk be trying to buy it? I would first reply that Musk already said it is not about the money.
Elon Musk says his offer to buy Twitter is about ‘the future of civilization,’ not making money (msn.com)
Though I am not convinced yet that his moves are really about buying it. They may be about exposing what it is to more people, and if that is so then he has been highly effective at doing so. Because quite clearly now, for those that control Twitter, it’s not about making money or a sustainable business model. So those that think will start to ask, ‘Then if Twitter is not about making money, then what function does it serve?’ And then the next logical question is ‘Who does it serve?’
BTW they just censored Shakespear!
So are you – you are cancelling him one letter at a time!
Love the spell checkers here. Leave an ‘e’ off their name inadvertently and you’re “canceling” someone.
Correction . . . as of April 25, Twitter is “a tool of the Elon Musk that it serves.”
And I seriously doubt Musk bought Twitter for “the future of civilization”. History has shown it to be much more likely that he wants some control of the media . . . as demonstrated by his outlandish claims that some people were publicly criticizing him and his public company Tesla in order to manipulate Tesla’s stock price.
NB : Twitter’s “Inappropriate content” page, linked to in the ATL article, only has a generic “Misrepresentative content” bullet-point. The word “climate” doesn’t appear there (yet ?).
Other posters have already asked what the term “scientific consensus (on climate change)” is actually referring to, and I would like to add some concrete examples here.
– – – – –
van der Linden et al (2017) included the following :
Cook, Lewandowsky and Ecker (2017) tried this alternative :
In 2016 the Cook et al paper titled “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming” helpfully summarised what the “Definition of consensus” had been in many papers and surveys up to that point.
The following set of “definitions” are extracted from Table 1 of that paper.
Oreskes (2004), the first survey claiming a “100% consensus” :
“[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”
Doran and Zimmerman (2009), the original “97% consensus” paper :
“Human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”
Anderegg et al (2010) :
“Anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”
Stenhouse et al (2014) :
“Humans are a contributing cause of global warming over the past 150 years”
Pew Research Center (2015) :
“Climate change is mostly due to human activity”
Carlton et al (2015) :
“Response to the following:
(1) When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant, and
(2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Note that in all cases adjectives like “significant” aren’t quantified in the questions asked
Note also the frequent switching between the terms “(The) Science”, “scientists”, “climate scientists” and “(actively) publishing climate scientists” in the media reporting of these various papers and surveys.
– – – – –
So, which version of “the” scientific consensus is Twitter going to “prohibit” deviations from, precisely ?
All those sources claim there is a scientific consensus that CO2 is causing the Earth’s climate to change, but they never say how CO2 makes this happen.
Alarmist climate science is based on assertions, not evidence.
Please allow me to extrapolate on their (the IPCC’s) behalf.
It’s popularly known as “the butterfly effect”.
TAR (2001), section 1.2.2, “Natural Variability of Climate”, page 91 :
“Climate varies naturally on all time-scales.”
TAR, in the Executive Summary of chapter 14, page 771 :
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, …”
In a “non-linear chaotic” system, an anthropic change of (+/-) 1 ppm (or 1 ppb, or even 1 ppt) in atmospheric CO2 levels will result in “changes” to the Earth’s “climate system”, on all time-scales.
Really? you missed all that information on the greenhouse effect and how it causes climate change?
That is just stupid.
Again, please don’t feed the troll.
Yes, I guess I did miss the information on how the greenhouse effect causes the climate to change. Please explain how CO2 causes detectable changes in the Earth’s weather.
Griff? Where’s the explanation?
griff
‘the greenhouse effect’
is a natural effect, don’t you think!
and it changes not the climate.
English comprehension lesson (for griff), number 1,000,001.
Tom did not miss “all that information”.
What he “missed”, as have I and many others here, are the “worked, concrete, examples” of exactly how the GHG effect is the (only) “cause” of “climate change” (precise definition TBD, see “IPCC vs. UNFCCC definitions of the term ‘climate change’ …”).
Hurricane (/ typhoon / tropical cyclone) [*] ? … Climate change !
A (rapid and localised) flooding event [*] ? … Climate change !
A medium- to long-term (widespread) drought [*] ? … Climate change !
Wildfires (including “forest”, “brush” and “bush” versions) [*] ? … Climate change !
Sea-levels rising [*] ? … Climate change !
I stubbed my toe on the pavement this morning ?… Climate change !
[*] Because anthropogenic GHG emissions are the only possible “cause” of “climate change”, this means that hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires and sea-level rise never, ever, occurred before 1750.
.
.
.
Now I’ve got that out of my system, please provide at least three (3) references (or, even better, links) to peer-reviewed scientific papers that show exactly how (human) GHG emissions “cause climate change”.
“Now I’ve got that out of my system”
Feels good sometimes, doesn’t it. 🙂 You did a good job.
As noted above, Doran and Zimmerman only established that temps have generally risen and that humans have a significant (more than random chance?) impact, would they ban BHO for then immediately saying “97% of experts agree Climate Change is real, man-made and dangerous.” ?
How about any of AOC or John Kerry’s claims that we only have 10 years before the impact is (disastrous/existential etc)? How do establish that there is true “consensus” of scientists on those statements?
Even speeches of doom by the UN Gen. Secr’y are not backed by a true “consensus” of peer reviewed scientists.
misleading advertisements on Twitter that contradict the scientific consensus on climate change are prohibited
prefer the original version, more concise: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
we’ll have more to share on our work to add reliable, authoritative context to the climate conversations happening on Twitter.
yes they will be deleting/throttling/deplatforming/doxxing/demonetizing/stigmatizing/jailing/killing skeptics because FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
they have to do this because anyone can find climate alarmists in 2002 saying they are reasonable people who absolutely would abandon this nonsense if the satellite-era trend somehow impossibly continued another 20 years
it’s all okay because they’re saving the world
from us
The supposed “scientific consensus” for climate alarmism, which they seek to protect from debate, is not scientific, and not a consensus. It’s just a leftist political position, and it is wrong.
The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and that CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful. The >$1.5 trillion climate industry and their allies seek to silence opposing voices for the same reason that Putin has silenced opposing voices in Russia: because the truth is against them.
The Left is at war against science, and Twitter has chosen sides.
There is no scientific evidence for climate alarmism. That’s why when climate activists survey scientists about their opinions on climate change, they don’t ask whether climate change is harmful, they only ask whether it is real, because if they asked whether it is harmful then their surveys wouldn’t show a consensus.
There’s also a second actual scientific consensus relevant to the climate debate, but, it refutes, rather than supports, climate alarmism. It’s the century-long scientific consensus among agronomists (real scientists!) that elevated CO2 is extremely beneficial for crops:
The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and that CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful.
absolutely untrue
Well you would say that, wouldn’t you? Now post your proof and methodology please, or be ignored as a fraudster.
Griff, why don’t you click the link which you copied/pasted, and read the resources there, and see if you can find anything which you think is inaccurate. If you find something wrong (or unclear), please quote it, and we can discuss it.
You’re welcome to do so here, or by contacting me directly. You can visit my web site by clicking on my name; my contact info is on the “About” page.
For once you are correct.
scientific evidence for manmade climate change… absolutely untrue.
cheers
Twitter is so obviously uninformed (aka, stupid) as in failing to understand that obtaining “consensus” on a subject matter has NEVER been part of the scientific method.
Therefore, a reference to “contradicting the scientific consensus” is an oxymoron, pure and simple.
“obtaining consensus on a subject matter has NEVER been part of the scientific method.”
Really Gordon? Yet another blind parroting of this tired old, ridiculously false “skeptical” excuse?
The scientific method includes having experts in the field review and replicate scientific results. Or in other words, yes, forming a consensus that results found are actually valid.
Without the use of professional review and replication of results for the formation of a consensus on what is correct and what is nonsense, valid scientific work and crackpot pseudo-science would be on equal footing.
Oh, no wonder so-called “skeptics” want to pretend that there’s “no such thing as consensus in science” !! OMG LOL !!
Per Merriam-Webster‘s on-line dictionary:
“consensus, noun, often attributive
Definition of consensus
1a: general agreement : UNANIMITY
//’the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border’
— John Hersey
1b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
//’the consensus was to go ahead’
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief”
(see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
Summary of scientific method
(per: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/science-of-biology/a/the-science-of-biology)
“The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
— Make an observation.
— Ask a question.
— Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
— Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
— Test the prediction.
— Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.”
There is absolutely no mention of step that relates of forming a consensus.
Admittedly, there are other sources that define the steps of the scientific method in different wording and with more or fewer number of listed steps, but without fail none of them refer to the necessity of forming a consensus as one of the steps in the method.
Furthermore, your statement that “having experts in the field review and replicate scientific results” is equivalent to “forming a consensus” is just bogus.
Finally, it is well known to those that are really familiar with the scientific method that science most often has its greatest advances from individuals that rebut the current prevailing consensus view of scientific establishments in the areas of physics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, etc. — Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, Hubble, Alfred Wegener, and Vera Rubin being some of the most notable examples.
(ref: Thomas S. Kuhn’s landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions )
Your ending statement to the effect that ” ‘skeptics’ want to pretend that there’s ‘no such thing as consensus in science’ ” is a shining example of the logical fallacy of the strawman argument.
Really Gordon? Still blindly parroting the anti-science denier party line that you’ve been spoon fed by your propaganda puppet masters?
You are failing to realize that for professionally conducted science, Step 5 on your list “test the prediction” includes having people other than yourself check your data and attempt to replicate your results. There is then some coming to a “general agreement” (i.e. a CONSENSUS) among the parties as to what the outcome of all of those tests have been: positive, negative, or inconclusive.
Done correctly and professionally, “test the prediction” involves much more than just a single scientist making a single test by themselves in an isolated lab. You seem to want to pretend that a “valid” way to “test the prediction” is to just blindly accept the mere say-so of a single individual that their tests are correct.
Ask yourself this: why aren’t folks like Fleischmann and Pons on that list of yours of highly esteemed scientific pioneers? You know, the guys who imagined that they had found “cold fusion” ? It is because their results were scrutinized by others, and found to be wrong.
That kind of example, perhaps more than any other, clearly demonstrates that yes, a highly crucial part of the “test the prediction” step of the scientific method most certainly includes others testing the results and the formation of a scientific consensus as to whether the results are correct or not.
“science most often has its greatest advances from individuals that rebut the current prevailing consensus view”
And here we go again with another empty headed parroting of this tired old irrelevancy. This is not in any way an “argument” that consensus does “not” exist in the scientific method. All this demonstrates is that change of a prevailing consensus can be initiated by an individual. And guess what happens after that? That’s right: a new consensus emerges.
Lastly, I’ll say it again: from my viewpoint, it still appears that a primary reason for so-called “skeptics” wanting to deny the role of scientific consensus in the scientific method is so they can pretend that crackpot pseudo-scientific nonsense somehow deserves equal footing with genuine scientific work.
So much bloviation . . . please carry on . . . you have a lot of scientists to convince that the scientific method needs to be adjusted per your assertions.
Good luck with that!
Bye.
The scientific method needs no “adjustment”, Gordon; it already runs exactly as was described in my post. What needs real adjustment here is your anti-science denier propaganda nonsense.
Even if the “scientific consensus” were true, the problem is that nobody can define one. Even the IPCC reports has so many contradicting statements, and they’re trying to actually make a case for catastrophic climate change.
Moreover, the IPCC has resorted to hedging its bets when it comes to scientific consensus . . . just look at the following gobbledygook statement from them:
“A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: ‘very low,’ ‘low,’ ‘medium,’ ‘high,’ and ‘very high.’ It synthesizes the author teams’ judgments about the validity of findings as determined through evaluation of evidence and agreement.”
— source: Page 3, Paragraph 9, of Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties (copy available at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf )
CONfidence levels are a bad joke. An expensive, bad joke.
The leftists have the advantage of a compliant press and politicians that either are all in or afraid to push back against the nonsense. They can constantly move the goalposts and change definitions to suit their agenda without suitable consequences.
Initially the hotspot over the equator would be the indicator of global warming. Since the hotspot never was observed by satellite or balloon measurements and the thermometers were inconveniently stable, they abandoned the Global Warming moniker and adapted the Climate Change label. Climate Change is a magical name that is quite flexible. It allows them to make any weather due to Climate Change.
The charlatans have their bases covered for the ignorant and misinformed.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so shameful.
“Twitter Bans Paid Climate Skeptic Advertisements”
Good.
Never have or will have a Twitter account, but as has been mentioned, if they don’t have any sceptical advertising anyway, are they actually saying to their followers that if they inadvertently come across some sceptical advertising elsewhere and they cannot see it on Twitter ergo it is unreliable and misleading i.e. everything.
Just announced today: Elon Musk has purchased Twitter for $44 billion.
My summary comment on this, courtesy the character of Mr. Spock as spoken in the original Star Trek TV episode “Amok Time” (1967):
“After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.”