𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟗𝟕% 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝

One of the most pervasive myths in science is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of “climate scientists” 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 “consensus of scientists” 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. 🔎

𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝟗𝟕% 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐍𝐒𝐔𝐒”

The paper that got this all started was published in ERL in 2013.

🔗 iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…

Led by cognitive psychologist John Cook—a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change and founder of the climate blog, Skeptical Science—he 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 𝒏𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 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:

🔴 Entirely by humans: 64 papers (1.59%)
🟤 >>50% by humans: 922 (22.96%)
🟡 Equally natural + man-made: 2,910 (72.50%)
🟢 >>50% by natural cycles: 54 (1.35%)
🔵 Man is causing no warming: 24 (0.60%)
🤷 Don't know: 40 (1.00%)

So, a “97% consensus” 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. 🌭

Because either way you compute this data honestly, there is far from a “97% consensus” 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 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 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. 🔎

𝐓𝐇𝐄 “>𝟗𝟗% 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐍𝐒𝐔𝐒”

Like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) attempted to quantify the consensus on AGW.

🔗 iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…

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. That’s fair. So, the analysis continued with the remaining 2,718 peer-reviewed articles.

Of those, 1,869 (68.8%) of them took 𝒏𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 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.

🧵 1/4 (Keep reading) ⬇️
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. 👋

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 narrative—such as on topics like climate model performance, trends in extreme weather, and/or the efficacy of “net zero” energy policies—include a disclaimer stating that mankind's carbon dioxide (CO₂) 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,

🗨️ “𝑾𝒆 𝒔𝒖𝒈𝒈𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑙-𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑖𝑑-𝑡𝑜-𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒-20𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒚 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒌𝒆𝒅 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒚-𝒔𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒏𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒆-𝒈𝒂𝒔 𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉 𝑨𝒕𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒎𝒂𝒋𝒐𝒓 𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒆 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚.”

The last part could have more been accurately stated as something to the effect of,

🗨️ “𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝐴𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑒𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 (𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑠), 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒. 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠. 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑑-1960𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒-80𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝐴𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝐴𝑀𝑉) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑙-𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛.”

But, the authors more than likely had to include the greenhouse gas (GHG) statement in order to not come across as “denialists” 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.

🧵 2/4 (keep reading) ⬇️

Dissenting voices to climate alarm are told that their criticisms are null because they are standing at odds with the consensus of scientists; it is declared that “All climate experts and scientific institutions agree,” therefore any arguments to the contrary, even if they have teeth, are labeled as “denialism.”

But, what exactly do the so-called experts agree on? That is never specified. 🤔

Let's look deeper into this “consensus.” 🔎

🧵1/x Citation of a “consensus of scientists” in discourse regarding climate change is the run-of-the-mill alarmist's attempt to weasel his or her way out of a discussion where he or she cannot defend his or her position with evidence.

So, the alarmist falls back on expert opinion as a last resort attempt to shut down discussion and label his or her opponent as a “science denier.” The only time I see consensus invoked in a discussion is when the topic of conversation involves a lot of uncertainty and is up for debate.

After all, nobody ever says.

• “The consensus of scientists is that the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth.”

• “Every scientific organization agrees that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (round).”

• “All experts agree that water freezes at 0°C.”

• “Virtually all scientists agree that ∂𝑈 = ∂𝑄 + ∂𝑊.”

That's because these are established scientific facts. No serious person stands at odds with them.

Consensus is only cited in discussions where there is debate and uncertainty on an issue.

🧵2/x

Yikes. 😬

CNN’s Jim @Acosta interviewed children’s TV science educator and mechanical engineer, @BillNye, yesterday to offer his expertise on hurricanes, and to take a jab at Florida Governor @RonDeSantis, who — and I quote their headline — “…denies climate change fueled [Hurricane] Milton.”

𝐉𝐢𝐦 𝐀𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐚: “𝐴 𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑦 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑎-𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑢𝑙𝑓 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑐𝑜 ‘𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑’ 𝐻𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛-𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒, 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒, 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑝 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 — 𝑎 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑛𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡, 𝐵𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑁𝑦𝑒 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝐺𝑢𝑦… 𝑊𝑖𝑡ℎ ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑤𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑦, ‘𝑌𝑒𝑠, 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑝 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑢𝑙𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑠?”

𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐍𝐲𝐞: “𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑙, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒’𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑝 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑢𝑙𝑓. 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑡’𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠, 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡 [𝑠𝑖𝑐] 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒? 𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑙, 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒, 𝑦𝑒𝑠, 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑡’𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡’𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑔𝑜𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡’𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒…”

𝐉𝐢𝐦 𝐀𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐚: “𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑎 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑒𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑠, ℎ𝑒’𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒’𝑠 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑠. 𝐿𝑒𝑡’𝑠 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑘 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑡… 𝑊𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑠 — 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑢𝑝 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑜𝑤𝑛 — 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑢𝑙 ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑝 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑠.”

𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐍𝐲𝐞: “𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑙, 𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦. . .”, then goes on to explain why we should vote [for Kamala Harris] with the climate in mind.

Let’s take a look at these claims one-by-one to see if they have any merit.

🧵 1/4 The studies that Acosta refers to are two new “flash” modeling attribution studies conducted by scientists for the World Weather Attribution (WWA) — an international academic collaboration which attempts to quantify how much climate change contributed to a particular extreme weather event.

They found, in summary, that,

💬 “𝐻𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝐻𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑒'𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 & 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑, 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 500 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑈𝑆 𝑆𝑜𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑆𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟, 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒.”

🔗worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change…

and that,

💬 “𝑊𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒, 𝐻𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑦 2 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑦 3 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑚. 𝐹𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑜𝑛'𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 & 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 & 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒, 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠.”

🔗worldweatherattribution.org/yet-another-hu…

Neither of these “studies” have been subject to the “peer-review” process, but nonetheless are receiving widespread media circulation to feed hungry audiences with sensationalistic junk. The irony of this is that the alarmist arm-wavers require skeptics to have their thoughts circle-jerked through the “peer-review” process in order for it to be considered valid.

🔗worldweatherattribution.org/wwa-resources/

I guess this doesn't apply to scientists who adhere to the establishment narrative on climate change. So long as you say nothing deviant from their accepted standards, your feet aren't held to the fire.

Even more laughable is that the Milton “study” was published not even two days after the hurricane made landfall. It's bunk. No ensemble of scientists can conduct research that fast and publish a half-baked preprint with definitive results on quantification.

🧵 2/4

I'm an atmospheric science major, and I also watched @ClimateTheMovie.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything said in the movie, the scientists interviewed often made great points, and much of what this “science journalist” has argued is crap.

Time to debunk the debunker. 1/? 🧵 Maarten argues that “The ‘warm’ Medieval and Roman periods... were actually REGIONAL. Current warming is EVERYWHERE.”

Except... that's not what the United Nations' IPCC said in their First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990. Directly from Chapter 7.2.1 on Page 202,

“There is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures were higher than at present during the mid-Holocene (especially 5,000-6,000 BP), at least in summer, though carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to those of the pre-industrial era at this time... Parts of Australia and Chile were also warmer. The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland. This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum... South Japan was also warm. This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was caused by an increase of greenhouse gases.”

Figure 7.1 is captioned as showing “global temperature variations.” Figure 7.1 (c) covers the last 1,000 years, and it is evident that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was anomalously warm relative to the modern era. In later reports, this diagram was replaced with Michael Mann's “Hockey Stick” graph.

🧵 2/?

https://twitter.com/mkeulemans/status/1771642608424571307