Thread by @SteB777

There is a massive problem with orchestrated climate crisis denial on Twitter since @elonmusk took over. Any climate tweet, about science, which gets a lot of views is now subject to attack by an orchestrated swarm of deniers.
1/🧵

You cannot usefully engage with these accounts, as they are resistant to reason, and who just assert nonsense, like climate change is a hoax, or who are abusive.
2/

Climate crisis denial, is not a legitimate viewpoint or opinion. There is no evidence based legitimate viewpoint, that anthropogenic climate change is not happening or real. Climate crisis denial is ideological, crank conspiracy theory nonsense, i.e. baseless.
3/

Every scientific organization in the world, the type that represents their field of science at national or international level, in every field of science, broadly supports the @IPCC_CH's summary of climate science. I'm not aware of any exceptions.
4/

I've repeatedly challenged climate crisis deniers, to name an exception to my above statement, and not one has ever succeeded. Most scientific organizations have a statement or web page devoted to it, saying they support the consensus on climate science.
5/

What this demonstrates, is that in any member led scientific organization, the vast majority of scientists in all fields of science, fully accept the climate crisis as fact. There is no legitimate alternative view, where the climate crisis is not real.
6/

Yes, there are a small minority of contrarian scientists who dispute the climate crisis for ideological reasons, or because they get funding from the fossil fuel industry etc. In other words, they all have a vested interest that motivates their denial.
7/

The main point is, that none of this minority of scientific contrarians, has ever been able to put together a coherent scientific account, alternative to anthropogenic climate change. All their papers have been found to be riddled with basic errors.
theguardian.com/environment/cl…
8/

This is why climate crisis denial, is not a legitimate alternative viewpoint, and it's just irrational denial of reality, akin to a flat Earth view. All climate crisis deniers, tiresomely use the same false arguments, which have been debunked thousands of times before.
9/

Their method is to just try and overwhelm you with false assertions. You can assert someone in just a few words, like "climate change is a hoax". Yet to refute this in a comprehensive way, would require a massive long explanation.
10/

This is why in science, the onus has always been on the person making the assertion, to support their proposition with extraordinary evidence. Not for people to debunk the assertion, which may entail explaining almost the whole of science.
11/

A common ploy of scientifically ignorant climate crisis deniers, is to demand you produce a paper or reference saying anthropogenic climate change is real. That is not how the scientific literature works. Most scientific concepts, are supported by myriad references.
12/

So it's very unusual, to the point of I don't know of any example, where there's a single reference, which says this scientific concept is genuine, here is all the evidence. This evidence is spread across many fields of science, so cannot be summarized into a single paper.
13/

In other words, to prove a scientific concept, by convincing people, would entail giving them a full scientific education, akin to doing a degree. Of course, the person would have to have the inclination to want to follow such a long argument.
14/

Most deniers have no such inclination, and normally respond, with something like rubbish, the moment you cite any evidence contradicting their baseless assertion.
15/

Climate crisis denial, is akin to a cult religious viewpoint, based on the faith of the people denying reality. Therefore, it is legitimate, to see climate crisis denial, as a delusion, not a genuine viewpoint. Because there are no genuine opinions contrary to evidence.
16/

I use the term "climate crisis denier", rather than "climate change denier", because deniers have got clever, and say, they are not denying climate change, only denying that is as serious problem.
17/

"Climate crisis denier" is much clearer, because it encompasses all forms of denial. The science is very clear, that by any definition, anthropogenic climate change, constitutes a genuine crisis.
18/

Therefore, I recommend all people start using "climate crisis denial" for this irrational, ignorant and delusional, phenomenon of the denial of reality. Climate crisis denial has less credibility than claiming that the Earth is flat. It is a crank viewpoint, end of story.
19/

The aim of climate crisis deniers, and it is a quasi-religious agenda, is to build up situation, where the majority deny the climate crisis, and claim this legitimizes their viewpoint. Which is basically how most religions worked in the past.
20/

This is total nonsense. Science, reality, is not a democracy, where just because a lot of people believe something, that makes it real. Often complex scientific viewpoints are only really understood in depth, by a relatively small number of advanced scientists.
21/

It's not that people should accept something because scientists say they should. Science is an imperfect method, but with a strong correcting mechanism built into it. Science is challenged by other scientists on a daily basis, and this is how science self corrects.
22/

In other words, mistaken science is eventually exposed by other scientists challenging it with evidence, trying to replicate it, and coming up with innovative methods to test it. Climate science, has had more challenges, than any other field of science, in history.
23/

Climate crisis denial, is backed by the immensely rich fossil fuel industry and billionaires. If there were any legitimate flaws in the science behind anthropogenic climate change, it would have been exposed a long time ago. Many have tried and all have failed.
24/

In fact, every attempt to challenge the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, has just confirmed the consensus, not raised any legitimate questions about it. This is why any genuine contrarianism, is long dead.
nature.com/articles/ngeo1…
25/

@GeorgeMonbiot @GretaThunberg @ClimateHuman @JKSteinberger @NaomiOreskes @MichaelEMann @KevinClimate @DanCady @ClimateBen @ChrisGPackham @theAliceRoberts @GeraldKutney

@threadreaderapp Please unroll?