Share this page!

Mark Lynas Profile picture
Twitter logo
19 Oct, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Do you remember the famous 97% study - that 97% of climate science supported the consensus on human-caused climate change? Well we have just published an update for 2012-2021 papers in the same journal, Environmental Research Letters. The figure is now... drumroll please...99.9%!
Big shoutout to my co-authors at Cornell University, Ben Houlton and Simon Perry. The Cornell Chronicle piece detailing the study is below.

news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/1…
Here is the full paper, which is open access (no paywall) in ERL. It explains the methodology, and also links to all the data files - how we rated the different papers, calculated the % of sceptical ones, and which they are.

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
Here's the Guardian's take, courtesy of @jonathanwatts

theguardian.com/environment/20…
And here’s a perspective from the remaining 0.1%. Thankyou Steve!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Mark Lynas

Mark Lynas Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mark_lynas

Mark Lynas Profile picture
2 Jul 19
New Nature paper out today
nature.com/articles/s4158…
states very clearly what is needed if governments are serious about limiting global heating to 1.5C, as agreed at Paris.

Spoiler: No new fossil fuelled infrastructure, anywhere, ever. From now on.

Read thread for details...
Existing infrastructure - if operated until the end of its lifetime - commits us to 658 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 future emissions. That's -

358 Gt from electricity (mainly power plants)
162 from industry
64 from transport, mostly on-road vehicles
But there's more: over 1,000 GW of fossil-fuelled power plants are planned, permitted or in construction. (20% in China).

That gives us another 188 Gt committed future CO2 emissions.

TOTAL: 846 Gt "if all proposed plants built and all infrastructure operated".
Read 11 tweets
Mark Lynas Profile picture
8 Nov 18
So BP spent $12 million persuading voters to defeat the modest carbon tax proposal in Washington State. So much for Beyond Petroleum. Numerous other Big Oil usual suspects (e.g. Koch) also in play. News report: seattletimes.com/seattle-news/p… Big oil contributors: pdc.wa.gov/browse/campaig…
Oil companies also poured in $millions to defeat climate-protecting measures in other states. reuters.com/article/us-col… Big Oil might hide behind consumer inertia but their dead weight in blocking political climate action is all too clear.
According to ThinkProgress, oil companies spent $60m in total to defeat these state-level democratic initiatives to protect the climate. thinkprogress.org/washington-col…
Read 6 tweets
Mark Lynas Profile picture
21 May 18
It is saying that those claiming to have 'converted' to GMOs based on objective truth should not be taken at face value. Instead it is taking a class-based perspective to see (us) as middle class intellectuals seeking to use science to bolster our class positions.
They do not accept that "science" is a thing - they see it as a social construct which replicates particular power relations in society. As they put it, "heteromasculinized and whitened forms of power". In other words, science is a form of power domination.
This is actually fairly standard social science critique - very post-modern, pretty much what Vandana Shiva says. Basically we (the pro-science people) are useful idiots for the big agro-chem corporations whose interests we serve either knowingly or unknowingly.
Read 6 tweets
Mark Lynas Profile picture
1 May 18
Good lord! The @guardian is printing propaganda piece by anti-science activist @careygillam (whose work is funded by anti-vaccine/organic lobby group) as if it was real news... This is the sort of crap that gives liberal media a bad name. theguardian.com/us-news/2018/a… @guardianeco
Here's where Carey Gillam gets her money - USRTK, which is mostly funded by Organic Consumers Association. OCA was the body that spread the anti-vaccine scare in the US last year among target minority communities. marklynas.org/2016/08/anti-g…
Here's details of Carey's main donor at USRTK: usrtk.org/donors/ OCA has pumped in $500,000 so far into the anti-GMO campaign, mainly aiming to target public sector scientists with bullying FoIA requests to try to silence them.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @mark_lynas has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @mark_lynas!

Read all threads by @mark_lynas

:(