Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter ๐
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
This isnโt a โpause in services.โ
Itโs chemo delayed.
Itโs insulin rationed.
Itโs cancer caught later instead of sooner.
Itโs veterans waiting months for appointments they already earned.
This is harm by design.
#GOPHealthCareShutdown
1/5
Itโs chemo delayed.
Itโs insulin rationed.
Itโs cancer caught later instead of sooner.
Itโs veterans waiting months for appointments they already earned.
This is harm by design.
#GOPHealthCareShutdown
1/5
Republicans know exactly who gets hurt when they shut the government down:
โข Veterans
โข Seniors
โข Disabled Americans
โข Families relying on CHIP and Medicaid
They didnโt do this by accident.
They did it because pain is leverage.
#GOPHealthCareShutdown
2/5
โข Veterans
โข Seniors
โข Disabled Americans
โข Families relying on CHIP and Medicaid
They didnโt do this by accident.
They did it because pain is leverage.
#GOPHealthCareShutdown
2/5
Your health care is not a bargaining chip.
Your medication is not a hostage.
Your life is not a negotiation tactic in a power stunt.
If a politician is willing to make you suffer to win โ thatโs not governing.
Thatโs cruelty.
#GOPHealthCareShutdown
3/5
Your medication is not a hostage.
Your life is not a negotiation tactic in a power stunt.
If a politician is willing to make you suffer to win โ thatโs not governing.
Thatโs cruelty.
#GOPHealthCareShutdown
3/5
๐งต๐ข Evening Terven! Fancy a short trip down memory Lane? Here's a ๐งตof the amazing London speakers! Grab yourself a brew - @UKLabour @bphillipsonMP are you listening? Thanks @charles_hart for the vids!
@Tara__Hughes has a warning from Germany, which introduced Self ID a year ago
@Tara__Hughes has a warning from Germany, which introduced Self ID a year ago
StephanieDavies-Arai @cwknews spoke about how women & girls from all walks of life have been failed by service providers, breaking down #safeguarding & sacrificing safety in the name of gender ideology. Are you listening @Keir_Starmer Are you @bphillipsonMP ?#DoYourJob #TickTock
Next, Jennifer Gourley from @ProtectTeach explained how schools that are using children to validate an adult's immersive role play is committing emotional abuse. Are you listening @bphillipsonMP ? #DoYourJob @educationgovuk #TickTock
๐งต
The @USAO_SDFL "is recruiting prosecutors and restructuring its chain of command in preparation for a grand jury investigation expected to target former Justice Department officials and others involved in cases against President Donald Trump."
1/n
The @USAO_SDFL "is recruiting prosecutors and restructuring its chain of command in preparation for a grand jury investigation expected to target former Justice Department officials and others involved in cases against President Donald Trump."
1/n
"The exact scope of the grand jury effortโwhich one of the individuals described as โspecial counsel oversightโโremains unclear."
2/n
2/n
Conspiracy against rights. 18 USC 241
3/n
3/n
1/ Betting on the November 2026 Midterm Election: Clues from Applied History.
2/ The November 2026 midterm elections are shaping up to be one of the most consequential in memory. If Democrats take the House, President Trump will find his superpowers constrained. If on top of that there were also a recession, he could find himself fighting to escape impeachment.
3/ As observers have noted, the highest objective on President Trumpโs current agenda is to win next November in order to continue pursuing his vision to Make America Great. Maintaining his power is a prerequisite to pursuing other initiatives.
My first thread: a test.
Earlier this year, I volunteered as a first responder in another country. A country I love.
Earlier this year, I volunteered as a first responder in another country. A country I love.
Someone I have known for years isolated me, and took away my freedom of movement for several months. He was under the direct command of a (now former) border police captain.
After my rescue by neighbors, a law office was retained๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฐand a contract signed โ๐ฝ
@lemire @FFmpeg If you wish to split hairs, the tweet explicitly references that the deadline exists to counterbalance *commercial developers not fixing something and putting users at risk*. This is quite distinct from "put pressure on people providing the software".
@lemire @FFmpeg Anyhow, longer thread with more clarification coming up:
@lemire @FFmpeg By default, error reports are speech. Vulnerability reports too. The default for errors and vulnerability reports should be that they are public, precisely so that users of the software can make informed decisions about whether the software fits into their threat model or not.
Per Decent:
SPOILERS: FedSoc (Edmund Burke) is home to Josh Hammer and Will Chamberlain and was closely involved in the murder of Charlie Kirk.
SPOILERS: FedSoc (Edmund Burke) is home to Josh Hammer and Will Chamberlain and was closely involved in the murder of Charlie Kirk.
And Yoram HAZONY is the Jew Chairman of Edmund Burke Foundation who lives in Israel and is also serves as the President of the Theodor Herzl Institute.
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐% ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐ฒ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ง๐ค๐๐
One of the most pervasive myths in science is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of โclimate scientistsโ agree that all global warming since the mid-19th century is human-caused and that this warming is an existential threat to the welfare of the planet and all life on it.
Except, this statistic is largely made up, and no matter how many times it is quashed, it persists as a talking point in online forums to weasel a way out of an honest discussion.
The โconsensus of scientistsโ is not organic. Rather, it was manufactured through questionable data processing methods in two studies published in Environmental Research Letters (ERL): Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021).
Let's look closer at these studies. ๐
๐๐๐ โ๐๐% ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โ
The paper that got this all started was published in ERL in 2013.
๐ iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108โฆ
Led by cognitive psychologist John Cookโa Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change and founder of the climate blog, Skeptical Scienceโhe and eight co-authors skimmed the abstracts of 11,944 climate-related papers published between 1991 and 2011.
Of the 11,944 abstracts, a total of 7,930 (66.4%) of them expressed ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on the cause(s) of global warming since the pre-industrial era.
Of the remaining 4,014 abstracts that endorsed either anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or natural global warming, 3,896 (97.1%) endorsed AGW in at least some capacity, while 78 (1.9%) questioned or rejected AGW. The remaining 40 (1%) of papers expressed uncertainty.
But, it gets even more nuanced than that if we look at the abstracts and pick them apart. On whether global warming is being caused entirely by human activities, by nature, or by a combination of both, of those 4,014 papers, they state, warming is caused:
๐ด Entirely by humans: 64 papers (1.59%)
๐ค >>50% by humans: 922 (22.96%)
๐ก Equally natural + man-made: 2,910 (72.50%)
๐ข >>50% by natural cycles: 54 (1.35%)
๐ต Man is causing no warming: 24 (0.60%)
๐คท Don't know: 40 (1.00%)
So, a โ97% consensusโ can be contrived by either (a) omitting the 7,930 (66.4% of) abstracts in the 11,944-paper sample that did not explicitly state a position on the drivers of global warming, or by (b) lumping all 3,896 abstracts that endorsed at least some anthropogenic component as entirely endorsing AGW.
Either way, that's sausage-making. ๐ญ
Because either way you compute this data honestly, there is far from a โ97% consensusโ that most or all global warming is man-made. There's only a 24.6% consensus on that, at best. There is a 97% consensus that at least ๐ ๐๐๐ of that warming is man-made, but that doesn't mean that all (or even most) has been.
But, what about the >99% consensus?
Let's find out. ๐
๐๐๐ โ>๐๐% ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โ
Like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) attempted to quantify the consensus on AGW.
๐ iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108โฆ
In this synthesis, 3,000 climate papers were selected at random. In that batch, 282 were marked as false positives since they weren't actually climate-related. Thatโs fair. So, the analysis continued with the remaining 2,718 peer-reviewed articles.
Of those, 1,869 (68.8%) of them took ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on AGW. And, like Cook et al. (2013), all 1,869 papers neither endorsing nor rejecting AGW were discarded. Of the remaining 849 papers that did endorse a position, 845 (99.5%) of them sided with AGW while four did not.
So, like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) ignored over 65% of the papers selected that didn't take one position or the other on the physical driver(s) of global warming. By doing this, the authors could artificially manufacture a consensus on an issue where none actually existed if all of the relevant papers were considered.
The advantage that Lynas et al. (2021) has over Cook et al. (2013) is that each paper was examined thoroughly rather than just the abstract. This made for a more thorough analysis despite the same flawed methodology both used in ignoring the majority of papers that took a neutral stance.
๐งต 1/4 (Keep reading) โฌ๏ธ
One of the most pervasive myths in science is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of โclimate scientistsโ agree that all global warming since the mid-19th century is human-caused and that this warming is an existential threat to the welfare of the planet and all life on it.
Except, this statistic is largely made up, and no matter how many times it is quashed, it persists as a talking point in online forums to weasel a way out of an honest discussion.
The โconsensus of scientistsโ is not organic. Rather, it was manufactured through questionable data processing methods in two studies published in Environmental Research Letters (ERL): Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021).
Let's look closer at these studies. ๐
๐๐๐ โ๐๐% ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โ
The paper that got this all started was published in ERL in 2013.
๐ iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108โฆ
Led by cognitive psychologist John Cookโa Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change and founder of the climate blog, Skeptical Scienceโhe and eight co-authors skimmed the abstracts of 11,944 climate-related papers published between 1991 and 2011.
Of the 11,944 abstracts, a total of 7,930 (66.4%) of them expressed ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on the cause(s) of global warming since the pre-industrial era.
Of the remaining 4,014 abstracts that endorsed either anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or natural global warming, 3,896 (97.1%) endorsed AGW in at least some capacity, while 78 (1.9%) questioned or rejected AGW. The remaining 40 (1%) of papers expressed uncertainty.
But, it gets even more nuanced than that if we look at the abstracts and pick them apart. On whether global warming is being caused entirely by human activities, by nature, or by a combination of both, of those 4,014 papers, they state, warming is caused:
๐ด Entirely by humans: 64 papers (1.59%)
๐ค >>50% by humans: 922 (22.96%)
๐ก Equally natural + man-made: 2,910 (72.50%)
๐ข >>50% by natural cycles: 54 (1.35%)
๐ต Man is causing no warming: 24 (0.60%)
๐คท Don't know: 40 (1.00%)
So, a โ97% consensusโ can be contrived by either (a) omitting the 7,930 (66.4% of) abstracts in the 11,944-paper sample that did not explicitly state a position on the drivers of global warming, or by (b) lumping all 3,896 abstracts that endorsed at least some anthropogenic component as entirely endorsing AGW.
Either way, that's sausage-making. ๐ญ
Because either way you compute this data honestly, there is far from a โ97% consensusโ that most or all global warming is man-made. There's only a 24.6% consensus on that, at best. There is a 97% consensus that at least ๐ ๐๐๐ of that warming is man-made, but that doesn't mean that all (or even most) has been.
But, what about the >99% consensus?
Let's find out. ๐
๐๐๐ โ>๐๐% ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐โ
Like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) attempted to quantify the consensus on AGW.
๐ iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108โฆ
In this synthesis, 3,000 climate papers were selected at random. In that batch, 282 were marked as false positives since they weren't actually climate-related. Thatโs fair. So, the analysis continued with the remaining 2,718 peer-reviewed articles.
Of those, 1,869 (68.8%) of them took ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on AGW. And, like Cook et al. (2013), all 1,869 papers neither endorsing nor rejecting AGW were discarded. Of the remaining 849 papers that did endorse a position, 845 (99.5%) of them sided with AGW while four did not.
So, like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) ignored over 65% of the papers selected that didn't take one position or the other on the physical driver(s) of global warming. By doing this, the authors could artificially manufacture a consensus on an issue where none actually existed if all of the relevant papers were considered.
The advantage that Lynas et al. (2021) has over Cook et al. (2013) is that each paper was examined thoroughly rather than just the abstract. This made for a more thorough analysis despite the same flawed methodology both used in ignoring the majority of papers that took a neutral stance.
๐งต 1/4 (Keep reading) โฌ๏ธ
But, wait, there's more. . .
Climate activists often argue that the authors of Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) were justified in excluding the 66.4% and 68.8% of papers, respectively, that did not express a position on the causes of global warming, on the grounds that those studies were not focused on identifying or discussing causal links.
But, that's hand-waving. ๐
Not all studies that endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) specifically investigated the physical driver(s) of surface air temperature (SAT) change since the mid-19th century. In fact, in order to qualify as endorsing (or rejecting) AGW, a paper merely needed to take a stance on the issue, regardless of whether or not the study's focus was on the physical drivers of climate change.
You will find when reading through the literature that even papers challenging the conventional narrativeโsuch as on topics like climate model performance, trends in extreme weather, and/or the efficacy of โnet zeroโ energy policiesโinclude a disclaimer stating that mankind's carbon dioxide (COโ) emissions are the proximate cause of all global warming. This is done so that the paper satisfies the reviewers and journal editors enough to get accepted for publication. This is the science equivalent of a land acknowledgement to be in good standing with gatekeepers.
As a good recent example, in Vecchi et al. (2021), the authors challenged the idea that recent increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency are a true climate-related trend, arguing that increases are due to technological advancements in observation and that natural variability drives oscillatory patterns seen once counts are adjusted. They say,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐พ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐-๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐ ๐๐๐-๐ก๐-๐๐๐ก๐-20๐กโ ๐๐๐๐ก๐ข๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐ โ๐ข๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ก๐๐๐๐ โ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐-๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ต๐๐๐๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐.โ
The last part could have more been accurately stated as something to the effect of,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐โ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐๐ โ๐ข๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐กโ ๐ด๐ก๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ข๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐ ), ๐คโ๐๐ก๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐ข๐ ๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐. ๐ผ๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฃ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ด๐ก๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ . ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐-1960๐ ๐ก๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐-80๐ ๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐ด๐ก๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ฆ (๐ด๐๐) ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐-๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐.โ
But, the authors more than likely had to include the greenhouse gas (GHG) statement in order to not come across as โdenialistsโ and be met with rejection by the journal editors, who more often than not, have predetermined conclusions and worldviews that they don't want to be challenged.
๐งต 2/4 (keep reading) โฌ๏ธ
Climate activists often argue that the authors of Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) were justified in excluding the 66.4% and 68.8% of papers, respectively, that did not express a position on the causes of global warming, on the grounds that those studies were not focused on identifying or discussing causal links.
But, that's hand-waving. ๐
Not all studies that endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) specifically investigated the physical driver(s) of surface air temperature (SAT) change since the mid-19th century. In fact, in order to qualify as endorsing (or rejecting) AGW, a paper merely needed to take a stance on the issue, regardless of whether or not the study's focus was on the physical drivers of climate change.
You will find when reading through the literature that even papers challenging the conventional narrativeโsuch as on topics like climate model performance, trends in extreme weather, and/or the efficacy of โnet zeroโ energy policiesโinclude a disclaimer stating that mankind's carbon dioxide (COโ) emissions are the proximate cause of all global warming. This is done so that the paper satisfies the reviewers and journal editors enough to get accepted for publication. This is the science equivalent of a land acknowledgement to be in good standing with gatekeepers.
As a good recent example, in Vecchi et al. (2021), the authors challenged the idea that recent increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency are a true climate-related trend, arguing that increases are due to technological advancements in observation and that natural variability drives oscillatory patterns seen once counts are adjusted. They say,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐พ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐-๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐ ๐๐๐-๐ก๐-๐๐๐ก๐-20๐กโ ๐๐๐๐ก๐ข๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐ โ๐ข๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ก๐๐๐๐ โ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐-๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ต๐๐๐๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐.โ
The last part could have more been accurately stated as something to the effect of,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐โ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐๐ โ๐ข๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐กโ ๐ด๐ก๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ข๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐ ), ๐คโ๐๐ก๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐ข๐ ๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐. ๐ผ๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฃ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ด๐ก๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ . ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐-1960๐ ๐ก๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐-80๐ ๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐ด๐ก๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ฆ (๐ด๐๐) ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐-๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐.โ
But, the authors more than likely had to include the greenhouse gas (GHG) statement in order to not come across as โdenialistsโ and be met with rejection by the journal editors, who more often than not, have predetermined conclusions and worldviews that they don't want to be challenged.
๐งต 2/4 (keep reading) โฌ๏ธ
Another point I should add about Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) is that neither paper frame their findings as being a reflection of the โconsensus of scientists.โ So, when climate activists claim that 97-99% of experts agree, that's not accurately stating what these studies purport.
Rather, the papers actually attempted to quantify the โscientific consensusโ on AGW, which is a consensus of what the published literature says. That is different from a โconsensus of scientists,โ which is essentially nothing more than an expert opinion poll.
What's more, neither of these reviews addressed the million-dollar question, which is whether or not global warming has been [or will be] dangerous. Just because our GHG emissions ๐๐๐ฆ have caused some or even most of the warming since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, that tells us nothing remotely useful about the level of danger posed by it short- and long-term.
So, what do we actually know about what scientists think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming and (b) whether or not they think it is dangerous?
Thankfully, we have some insight into that.
๐งต 3/4 (Keep reading) โฌ๏ธ
Rather, the papers actually attempted to quantify the โscientific consensusโ on AGW, which is a consensus of what the published literature says. That is different from a โconsensus of scientists,โ which is essentially nothing more than an expert opinion poll.
What's more, neither of these reviews addressed the million-dollar question, which is whether or not global warming has been [or will be] dangerous. Just because our GHG emissions ๐๐๐ฆ have caused some or even most of the warming since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, that tells us nothing remotely useful about the level of danger posed by it short- and long-term.
So, what do we actually know about what scientists think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming and (b) whether or not they think it is dangerous?
Thankfully, we have some insight into that.
๐งต 3/4 (Keep reading) โฌ๏ธ
๐จBREAKING: New Jersey terrorism criminal complaint connected to foiled Dearborn Halloween plot has been unsealed. 1/
2/ Full docket: courtlistener.com/docket/7188774โฆ
3/ Full criminal complaint: Looks like it wasn't seal but not put on Pacer until today. courtlistener.com/docket/7188774โฆ
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐น๐๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐จ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฎ: ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฒ๐นโ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐, ๐๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒโ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ณ๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ก๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒ
๐ ๐ต๐ณ๐ถ๐ฆ-๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ ๐ฏ๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ช๐ญ๐ต ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ข๐บโ๐ด ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด
๐ ๐ต๐ณ๐ถ๐ฆ-๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ ๐ฏ๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ช๐ญ๐ต ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ข๐บโ๐ด ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด
November 7, 2025. Athens smelled of sea salt and possibility this morning. Inside the Zappeionโs grand hall, Israelโs Energy Minister Eli Cohen stood shoulder-to-shoulder with his Greek and Cypriot counterparts, flanked by Americaโs top energy envoys.
No fanfare, no, no fireworks, just a joint declaration that landed like quiet thunder: the United States officially backs Israel as Europeโs new strategic natural-gas supplier. The old Russian routes are history.
If I had to scale an ecommerce website from $100K/month to $500K/month with SEO, this is exactly how I'd do it:
Here's the complete 18-month roadmap ๐งต
Here's the complete 18-month roadmap ๐งต
1/ MONTH 1: REVENUE AUDIT & BASELINE
First, I'd analyze WHERE the current $100K comes from:
๐ Export Search Console data for top 50 revenue-driving pages
๐ Identify which product categories generate highest AOV
๐ Find seasonal revenue patterns and growth opportunities
๐ Map customer journey from search to purchase
Goal: Understand the $100K foundation before scaling to $500K
Revenue, not vanity metrics.
First, I'd analyze WHERE the current $100K comes from:
๐ Export Search Console data for top 50 revenue-driving pages
๐ Identify which product categories generate highest AOV
๐ Find seasonal revenue patterns and growth opportunities
๐ Map customer journey from search to purchase
Goal: Understand the $100K foundation before scaling to $500K
Revenue, not vanity metrics.
2/ MONTH 1-2: REVENUE-FOCUSED KEYWORD STRATEGY
Instead of chasing high-volume keywords, I target "buying intent" keywords:
๐ฐ "[product] for sale"
๐ฐ "[product] reviews" (high converting)
๐ฐ "[product] vs [competitor]" (comparison shoppers)
๐ฐ "best [product] for [specific use case]"
๐ฐ "[brand] [product] price"
These convert 5-10x better than informational keywords.
Instead of chasing high-volume keywords, I target "buying intent" keywords:
๐ฐ "[product] for sale"
๐ฐ "[product] reviews" (high converting)
๐ฐ "[product] vs [competitor]" (comparison shoppers)
๐ฐ "best [product] for [specific use case]"
๐ฐ "[brand] [product] price"
These convert 5-10x better than informational keywords.
From my field research and experience, I can say for certain that humankind is at a juncture where it can very easily synth and build tools, equipment and machinery that teach the end-user how to use the said tool intuitively without "training" and "education".
The sum total of all available wisdom/knowledge/expertise available within humankind in the realms of UX combined with Anthropology can quite sufficiently support such a venture.
When we stack the lens of UX on top of the lens of Anthropology, we can very easily **see** how that the organism and the environment it sits in is not different from the other. They are in constant flux and resolve into discrete entities when observed from an *outsider*s lens.
