Here's some tips on reasoning about climate debate for @ABCNews. [THREAD]
There is a truthful representation of climate situation now, and implications for future, based on best science and modelling.
Small details might vary, but there's no credible counter-position to this.
There is a truthful representation of climate situation now, and implications for future, based on best science and modelling.
Small details might vary, but there's no credible counter-position to this.
There is a truthful representation of magnitude of reductions mankind needs to make in total CO2 emissions to avert various levels of warming based on best science and modelling.
Small details might vary, but there's no credible counter-position to this.
Small details might vary, but there's no credible counter-position to this.
There are a number of paths to reducing carbon emissions and some pretty accurate projections about the costs, strengths, weaknesses and reliability of each technology or change.
There is some legitimate debate about which range of options to implement, but based on hard data.
There is some legitimate debate about which range of options to implement, but based on hard data.
You notice that suddenly any arguments about there being 'misrepresentations' or 'inaccuracies' on 'both sides' or 'finding a middle ground' vanish in a puff of logic.
Any comment on any side can have these filters applied and checked against best science.
You're most welcome.
Any comment on any side can have these filters applied and checked against best science.
You're most welcome.
