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