reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @SteB777
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
As climate crisis deniers either seem to very hard of thinking i.e. stupid, or simply disingenuous liars who have no interests in the truth, let me offer some advice. Your arguments are just plain stupid, or knowingly dishonest. 1/🧵
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Often you see Greta Thunberg being attacked, by these inarticulate stupid people, with the usual refrain of what qualifications does she have in climate science. When you are referencing the science, and all you say is consistent with that, you don't need qualifications. 2/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
When you are rigorously referencing the science, the veracity of your argument, rests on your references i.e. the science, not you personally. As long as you don't deviate from it, re-interpret it, the foundation of your argument is the science you reference, not on you. 3/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Greta is very careful to check her understanding of the science, with leading scientists. So none of what she says, is based on believing in her as a person. Which is why attacking her personally, is just stupid, or downright malicious and knowingly dishonest. 4/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Only if you are disputing the scientific consensus, do you need extraordinary qualifications, and most importantly, massive and overwhelming evidence. No matter what qualifications you've got, it is meaningless if you can't support your point. 5/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
All published papers, denying the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, have all been found to be littered with basic errors and mistakes. There is no published research, that contradicts the scientific consensus, not devoid of basic errors. https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed 6/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Not only do the handful of climatologists who dispute the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, all by no coincidence, receive fossil fuel industry funding, but what they claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They can't support their claims with science. 7/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
And as we've seen from above, when these contrarian scientists are stupid enough to publish their half-baked ideas, the examination of their arguments, is found to be full of basic errors and flaws. 8/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
So no, attacking Greta Thunberg, or whichever other personality malicious deniers chose to try and smear, has no impact on the science. Because none of the science, relies on anyone's personal credibility, it is all based on the evidence. 9/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
No, climate science isn't all based on modelling as deniers repeatedly falsely claim. It's based on physics and empirical evidence. Yes, like all fields of science, climate science uses models. The models used, have mainly turned out to be correct. https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming 10/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
This is why I now refuse to debate the specifics of the science with climate crisis deniers. Because they have absolutely no case. This is why they have to resort to ad hominem attacks on honest people like Greta Thunberg, referencing the science, because they have no case. 11/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Note how I use the term climate crisis denier i.e. anyone who disputes that anthropogenic climate change is a crisis. It is to get around the dishonest argument, that they are not disputing climate change, because it is always changing. 12/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
By the way, that is another stupid argument. No the climate is not always changing, that is the weather. Climate stays remarkably consistent over long periods of time. That is the reason for those identifiably geological periods, and how species evolve to adapt to climate. 13/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
It takes many thousands of years, often hundreds of thousands or millions of years, for species to evolve. Primarily to adapt to climate regimes. If the climate just constantly, randomly changed, species and ecosystems couldn't adapt to it. 14/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
And yes, climate does change, sometimes rapidly, and not due to human impacts in the past. But this does nothing to contradict the evidence that the reason for the current climate change, is anthropogenic carbon emissions. 15/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Oh, that's disappointing, I've dealt with climate crisis denial in only 15 tweets. Normally I go on a bit longer than that, but climate crisis denial is empty of any basis, so easily dealt with. 16/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Just to add the proviso, that I have referred to climate crisis deniers as stupid, malignly malicious etc, not as an insult, but because denying overwhelming evidence, can only be achieved with stupidity or malicious dishonesty. 17/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
@threadreaderapp Please unroll?
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
As climate crisis deniers either seem to very hard of thinking i.e. stupid, or simply disingenuous liars who have no interests in the truth, let me offer some advice. Your arguments are just plain stupid, or knowingly dishonest. 1/🧵
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Often you see Greta Thunberg being attacked, by these inarticulate stupid people, with the usual refrain of what qualifications does she have in climate science. When you are referencing the science, and all you say is consistent with that, you don't need qualifications. 2/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
When you are rigorously referencing the science, the veracity of your argument, rests on your references i.e. the science, not you personally. As long as you don't deviate from it, re-interpret it, the foundation of your argument is the science you reference, not on you. 3/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Greta is very careful to check her understanding of the science, with leading scientists. So none of what she says, is based on believing in her as a person. Which is why attacking her personally, is just stupid, or downright malicious and knowingly dishonest. 4/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Only if you are disputing the scientific consensus, do you need extraordinary qualifications, and most importantly, massive and overwhelming evidence. No matter what qualifications you've got, it is meaningless if you can't support your point. 5/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
All published papers, denying the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, have all been found to be littered with basic errors and mistakes. There is no published research, that contradicts the scientific consensus, not devoid of basic errors. https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed 6/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Not only do the handful of climatologists who dispute the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, all by no coincidence, receive fossil fuel industry funding, but what they claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They can't support their claims with science. 7/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
And as we've seen from above, when these contrarian scientists are stupid enough to publish their half-baked ideas, the examination of their arguments, is found to be full of basic errors and flaws. 8/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
So no, attacking Greta Thunberg, or whichever other personality malicious deniers chose to try and smear, has no impact on the science. Because none of the science, relies on anyone's personal credibility, it is all based on the evidence. 9/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
No, climate science isn't all based on modelling as deniers repeatedly falsely claim. It's based on physics and empirical evidence. Yes, like all fields of science, climate science uses models. The models used, have mainly turned out to be correct. https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming 10/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
This is why I now refuse to debate the specifics of the science with climate crisis deniers. Because they have absolutely no case. This is why they have to resort to ad hominem attacks on honest people like Greta Thunberg, referencing the science, because they have no case. 11/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Note how I use the term climate crisis denier i.e. anyone who disputes that anthropogenic climate change is a crisis. It is to get around the dishonest argument, that they are not disputing climate change, because it is always changing. 12/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
By the way, that is another stupid argument. No the climate is not always changing, that is the weather. Climate stays remarkably consistent over long periods of time. That is the reason for those identifiably geological periods, and how species evolve to adapt to climate. 13/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
It takes many thousands of years, often hundreds of thousands or millions of years, for species to evolve. Primarily to adapt to climate regimes. If the climate just constantly, randomly changed, species and ecosystems couldn't adapt to it. 14/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
And yes, climate does change, sometimes rapidly, and not due to human impacts in the past. But this does nothing to contradict the evidence that the reason for the current climate change, is anthropogenic carbon emissions. 15/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Oh, that's disappointing, I've dealt with climate crisis denial in only 15 tweets. Normally I go on a bit longer than that, but climate crisis denial is empty of any basis, so easily dealt with. 16/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
Just to add the proviso, that I have referred to climate crisis deniers as stupid, malignly malicious etc, not as an insult, but because denying overwhelming evidence, can only be achieved with stupidity or malicious dishonesty. 17/
@SteB777 - Stephen Barlow
@threadreaderapp Please unroll?